thence to go home to Geneva, and so not to be bound to the laws of France. In the end he requested that if they would needs deal so hardly with him, as to set at liberty another man's slave, yet they should at least restore unto him the money he cost him whereunto the Judges answered, that it was a matter to be considered of. In the mean time the merchant, fearing lest he should lose both his dutiful slave and his money also, of himself set him at liberty, yet covenanting with him that he should serve him so long as he lived."

In the French edition, Paris, 1577, the corresponding passage is as follows. "Et me sousvient estant en Thoulouze qu'un Genevois, y passant, fut contraint d'affranchir un esclave qu'il avait achepté en Espagne, voyant que les Capitouls le vouloient declarer franc et libre, tant en virtu de la coustume generale du Royaume, que d'un privilège spécial, que l'Empereur Theodoze le Grand leur donna, ainsi qu'ils disaient, que tout esclave mettant le pied en Tholouze etait franc; chose toutefois qui n'est pas vrai-semblable."2

In the argument of the case of Jean Boucaut and others, claimed as the slaves of Verdelin in the French Causes Celèbres. tom. 15, p. 12, a case is mentioned as having occurred in 1552, at the siege of Metz, where a demand having been made by the Spanish General, for a slave who had escaped into the town, upon M. de Guise commanding the place, the latter, “fit réponse que la franchise que l'esclave avoit acquise dans la ville de Metz, selon l'ancienne et bonne coutume de France, ne lui permettoit pas de le lui rendre."

'In the original, after this mention of the contract for a life service, is added"qui est une chose rejettée en terme de droit"-this apparently has been overlooked by the English translator. The meaning is probably that such a contract would not be enforced by a legal tribunal.

"From the remainder of the passage it appears that the author's doubt does not refer to the correctness of the rule, but to its origin; that is, whether it was, as supposed, a local or municipal rule derived from a special Imperial decree. He argues that no Roman colony nor even Rome itself ever had such a privilege in the times of the Roman Empire, and refers the decision to the general custom of France-“ tant en virtu de la coustume générale du Royaume." The language of the ordinance of Thoulouse is given by Mr. Justice Campbell, 19 Howard, 497, and his argument rests upon the doctrine, thus repudiated by Bodin,—that the law or principle was derived from "special ordinances or charters."

Two other instances are cited by M. Tribaud in Causes Celèbres, tom. 15, pp. 31, 32, of slaves having been declared free in Thoulouse, after having escaped from Spain.

Barrington on the Statutes, p. 254, note, says, "It appears from Boulainvilliers, that the question was formerly much agitated in the French courts of justice: but in the Institutes Coustumières, (published at Paris, 1679,) it is laid down with great precision that a slave becomes free as soon as he enters the French territories and is baptized. "Toutes personnes sont franches en ce Royaume, et si-tost qu'un esclave a atteint les marches d'iceluy se faisant baptiser est affranchi."

In a treatise entitled, Remarques du Droit François, &c., 4to. Paris, 1680, par M. H. M. Advocat, p. 11, commenting on the title De Jure Personarum, it is said, "La France n'admet point de différence des personnes, sçavoir d'estre libre ou serf, car par la loy générale de ce Royaume toutes les personnes sont libres et franches et l'on observe le premier article de la Coutume de Bourg. qui ordonne de la sorte. C'est pourquoy quand un serf et un esclave se refugie en France, aussi-tost qu'il en a atteint les marches et qu'il s'est fait baptiser, il est affranchy."

Argentré, tom. I. p. 4, is another authority cited, 1 Burge, p. 738, to the effect that slaves on entering France became free.

§ 262. According to Heineccius, in a note as editor in 1726, Lugd. Batav. to Vinnius' Commentaries, Lib. I. tit. 3, the law of Germany differed from that of France and Holland, at least in respect to fugitive serfs. After referring to Bodin, Charondas, Gudelin, Zypæ, etc., as authority for escaped slaves becoming free," Itaque, in Belgis et Gallia, et servi ipso jure liberi fiunt

'It is to be observed that at this time serfdom, as the condition of a Christian European, still existed in France. The author of the work last cited in the text adds to the statement there quoted—“Il est vray qu'en Bourgogne, il y a des mortaillables, que la France peut appeller adjectos gleba, c'est à dire, des hommes tellement attachés, à la terre qu'ils ont pris par emphiteose, qu'ils ne la peuvent quitter. Ce qui est un espèce de servitude." And Bodin, at the page last cited, says, "I have seen the Lord of the White Rock in Gascongne claim to have not only a right over his manumised subjects, and also that they were bound to trim his vines, to till his grounds, to mow his meadows, to reap and thresh his corn, to carry and recarry whatsoever he should command them, to repair his decayed house, to pay his ransom, and also the four accustomed payments used in this realm; but also that if without his leave they should change their dwelling places wherein they were born, or depart out of his land, he might lead them home again in a halter; unto all which the aforesaid services his manumised people yielded, saving unto the last, which by a decree of the Parliament of Thoulouse was cut off, as prejudicial unto the right of liberty." This is noticed in argument of the negro case, vol. 15, Causes Celèbres (ed. Amsterdam, 1766,) p. 11. See Mainmorte in Encyc. Fr., 20 Howell's State Tr. p. 1370. An edict of Louis XVI, 1779, was for the abolition of this kind of serfdom.

eo adventatantes. Ast in Germania non solum dominis conceditur ut possint homines proprios vindicare, etsi eo profugerint ubi illa servitus non sit recepta (vid. Dan. Mevii Consil. jurid. de statu et vindicatione hominum propr.) verum etiam-quibus, dam locis, ipso jure fiunt servi quicunque perigrini eo adveniunt, emorandi et habitandi causa, veluti in Algonia, ubi ideo sæpe auditur paroemia: Die Luft macht eigen, id est, ipse aer homines proprios facit. Hert de homin. propr. sect. 3, § 3. Tale et olim fuit jus Wildfangiatus in Palatinatu electorali et provinciis vicinis, de quo Londorp. Act Pub. Continuat. Lib. 10, p. 126."

By the private international law of these provinces then, the peaceful alien, not protected by some special treaty, and of whatever condition at home, was regarded either as a stray chattel which the lord of the soil might appropriate, or an enemy who might be enslaved; as under the doctrine of the early Roman law. See Ante, p. 151, note 2. The passage indicates a disregard of all private international law as a protection for aliens, whether bond or free. The right accorded to feudal lords of reclaiming their serfs, was an effect of a law prevailing as between the different petty sovereigns recognized in the constitution of the German empire, at a time when feudal bondage still existed in the respective dominions of each.1

§ 263. To the Flemish and French authorities, before cited, so far as they justify the international disallowance of the master's claim of ownership, it may perhaps be objected that the distinction of race which, in the fourth chapter, was described as having about the close of the 15th century acquired recognition in universal jurisprudence-the law of nations-supporting the chattel slavery of Moors, Negroes and Indians, was not noticed, and that the rule given by these authorities should be taken to apply only to European serfs, bondsmen under feudal

In Dred Scott's case, 19th Howard 495, Mr. Justice Campbell cites, from the Capitularies of Charlemagne a rule for the rendition of fugitive slaves. Chattel slavery as well as serfdom, was probably then prevailing in all the dominions of this Emperor. See Ante, p. 159, n. Other similar laws of that time might have been cited. "Etiam Caroli M., Ludovici Pii et Lotharii leges de servis supersunt in Lib. 44, Car. M. et Longob. Imo et Guilielmi Siciliæ Regis et Frederici Imp. extant de servis fugitivis constitutiones in plac. Neap. Sed ab hoc tempore id est A. C. 1212, aut non multo secus, Christiani se mutuo in servitutem redigere desierunt.” Huberus, Prælectiones, Lib. I. tit. IV. 6.

lords. In the case of Jean Boucaut and others, claimed as slaves by Verdelin, at Paris, in the year 1738, (Causes Celèbres, ed., Amsterdam, 1766, tom. 15, p. 30,) M. Tribaud, the advocate for the owner, endeavors to limit the extent of the general principle according to the distinction of race;-"Le principe est vrai dans le cas où tout autre esclave qu'un esclave nègre arrivera dans ce Royaume."

Two instances of the application of the same rule to Moors or Mohammedans are given by the Procureur du Roi, advocate for the negroes, in the same case, p. 51, "Dans le Journal Chronologique et Historique de D. Pièrre de Saint Romuel on voit qu'en l'année 1571 une marchande de Normandie ayant amené a Bordeaux plusieurs Maures pour les vendre, le Parlement de Guyenne, par un arrêt solemnel, les mit tous hors de l'esclavage, parceque la France, mère de liberté, ne permet aucun esclave." He also relates that in the time of Henri III., the Mohammedan captives held as galley slaves in a Spanish public ship, stranded on the French coast, were set at liberty by the king's decree, and sent to Constantinople, notwithstanding the protest of the Spanish ambassador.

The question of ownership in the first case might, from the domicil of the trader and her intention to sell in France, be said to have belonged to internal, not international private law; and the second cannot perhaps be properly considered a judicial precedent, since it was a direct exercise of the sovereign power, to be distinguished from the action of judicial tribunals.'

This case of Boucaut and Verdelin, which was argued before the French admiralty, is the only one similar to that of

'There is an Abrégé de la Republique de Bodin, published, London, 1755, chez Jean Nourse, two volumes, 12mo. The preface has no signature. In this abridgment, L. 1, c. 9, it is said, "La France elle a même voulu depuis, que tout homme qui mettroit le pied sur ses terres fut libre dès ce moment, sans faire attention qu'il est contre le droit des gens d'enlever à l'étranger passant et maitre de l'esclave, un bien qui lui appartient. Les façons de penser sont de mode chez les Francais comme les adjustments. Lorsqu'une opinion saisit les esprits elle en devient l'idole."

There is no such remark in the unabridged edition, Paris, 1577, fo., nor can any similar observation be found in Knolles' translation. The Abrégé appears to be that of the President de Lavie, which he afterwards recast and published in 1760, under the title-Des corps politiques et de leurs gouvernements. (See Brunet's Manuel du Libraire, Tome 1, p. 386.) From which it may be inferred that he had introduced much of his own thought into the abrégé.

Somerset and to the Scotch case which is recorded as having occurred in France.

§ 264. In the case occurring at the siege of Metz, the liberty of the escaped slave was declared to be the legal effect of the general customary law of the kingdom-l'ancienne et bonne coutume de France. In those mentioned by Bodin, occurring in Paris and Thoulouse, the freedom was claimed under certain special grants to those cities, declaring that slaves escaping into their municipal jurisdictions should thereby become free. The slaves of Verdelin were also in Paris, and it is important to distinguish whether the judicial decision in their favor was made under the charter of Paris, regarded as a legislative act, altering a rule of the customary unwritten law of the land, or was based on the latter and general principles of private international law therein contained.

Mr. Justice Campbell in Dred Scott's case, 19th Howard's Rep., p. 497, after citing the cases mentioned by Bodin, observes, "The decisions were made upon special ordinances or charters, which contained positive prohibitions of slavery, and where liberty had been granted as a privilege; and the history of Paris furnishes but little support for the boast that she was a sacro-sancta civitas," where liberty always had an asylum, or for the "self-complacent rhapsodies" of the French advocates, in the case of Verdelin, which amused the grave lawyers who argued the case of Somerset. The case of Verdelin was decided upon a special ordinance, which prescribed the conditions on which West India slaves might be introduced into France, and which had been disregarded by the master."

It would be more accurate to say, that the claim of Verdelin was based upon a special ordinance, &c., or that claims like that of Verdelin might have been supported by the special ordi

Mr. Justice Campbell and "the grave lawyers who argued thecase of Somerset," may have had good cause to undervalue the character of Paris as an asylum for liberty; in view of the acts of arbitrary power which had occurred there at various times. But the political or civil misfortune of the Parisians has not the slightest bearing on the question of legal status, as a question of international law. Compare ante, § 47, and note. "The force of these examples is not weakened by the reflection that they were furnished by what was at the time an undeniably despotic state." 1 Phillimore, p. 342.