A memoir of Granville Sharp

Front matter

Engraved by P Reason

GRANVILLE SHARP, ESQR

PHILANTHROPIST.

Section 1

MEMOIR.

SECTION I.

Granville Sharp was born at Durham in England, on 10th November, 1735. His earlier education was limited. In 1750, he was apprenticed, in London, to a Friend—afterwards to an Independent—and subsequently to a Romanist. This intercourse with different persuasions, appears to have had no effect upon his own creed—but he learnt from it, one of the most glorious lessons which man can learn, the cordial practice of that gracious charity, which "vaunteth not itself"—"which suffereth long and is kind."

Collision with a Socinian, who boasted that the original language of the New Testament favored his views, led Sharp to study the Greek—and controversy with a Jew, impelled him to the acquisition of the Hebrew. "To be ignorant of the truth, was to him a source of inexpressible pain; and to neglect the means of acquiring it, intolerable disgrace."

In 1757-8, he lost his parents—and from that time, he served the Government, in the Ordnance Department, until the beginning of the American war, in 1776, his prospects in life depending upon his situation. But duty, not interest, was his law; and when he found, that if he retained his office, he must be accessory to bloodshed, he did not hesitate to resign. In this, as throughout life, he evinced, that eternal truth, according to the scriptures, was his chief study—and "glory to God in the highest—and on earth, peace, good will to men" his great end. The pursuits of his subsequent life were various; but an ardent love of holy and impartial liberty, always eminently distinguished him, and to the sufferers of wrong, he was invariably an active and disinterested friend.

At this time slavery had disgraced the British Colonies in America and in the West Indies, for two hundred years. The righteous laws of the empire, had been evaded or perverted; and opinion and precedent had been substituted for law. Rulers and people had bowed down to the abomination. The Church and the world had given it, their sanction. The most distinguished lawyers crouched beneath the lie, and the Lord Chief Justice of the day, affirmed its validity. Truth and love, religion and humanity, were trampled upon without remorse. The inalienable rights of man, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were given to the winds; and Britain, boasting of her love for liberty, was a slave-mistress; a slave-dealer; and a carrier of slaves.

In the course of this hypocritical and ferocious system, the slave masters of the west, had long been in the habit of bringing over domestic slaves, to serve them, presuming that they could transfer their pirate-rights to England. But their poor slaves judged better. Every where, they heard the voice—every where, they saw the step of liberty—and they panted to be free. The voice of nature and of nature's God, in them, and in all around them, told them that they had as good a title to liberty as their masters had—and many a British heart, untainted by the prevailing wickedness, sympathized in their misery and burnt with the same healthful truth. But the slaveholders, revolted with indignation from the interference which thus arose with their tyrant powers, and exultingly spread the question, before the highest officers of the law. They had men to suit their purpose—York and Talbot, the Attorney and Solicitor General of the day, thoroughly imbued with the guilt of the day, recorded in 1729, the following infamous opinion:

"We are of opinion, that a slave coming from the West Indies into Great Britain or Ireland, either with or without his master, does not become free—and that his master's right and property in him is not thereby determined or varied," &c.

Then exulted the slavemaster. Then sunk the soul of the slave. The last citadel on earth of liberty, seemed demolished—and man was let loose to prey upon man, without restraint. England became a slave market, and advertisements such as the following, disgraced the metropolis of freedom!

"PUBLIC ADVERTISER. Tuesday 28th Nov. 1769. "To be sold, a black girl, the property of J. B.; eleven years of age, who is extremely handy, works at her needle tolerably, and speaks English perfectly well—is of an excellent temper and willing disposition. Enquire of Mr. Owen, at the Angel Inn, behind St. Clement's Church, in the Strand."

Mischief framed by law, yet against law, thus took deep root in Britain. And the crown and the nobles—and the monied interests—and the church and the bench and the bar, watered together the deadly plant. The whole nation seemed gone away with one consent, from God, and from law, and from its poor brother.

But God had more than seven thousand men in England, who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Rejoice, ye poor! the same God reigns forever, and the time is hastening when for you, He shall cry, as He cried for them "For the oppression of the poor—for the sighing of the needy—now will I arise, saith the Lord—I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him." Ps. xii. 5.

In 1765, David Lisle, a lawyer and a slave master of Barbadoes, then living in London, nearly killed one of his slaves, named Jonathan Strong, by most brutally beating him; and then turned him adrift in the streets. William Sharp, an eminent surgeon, Granville's brother, residing in the neighborhood, became acquainted with the facts and got Strong admitted to Bartholomew's Hospital. There he was partially cured—but his sight remained so dim in consequence of the wounds received on his head, that he continued to need aid from the brothers, and was by them put into the service of a benevolent apothecary, named Brown, in Fenchurch street. He served Brown about two years, and was gradually recovering, when his former master, David Lisle, met and recognized him one day in the streets. David Lisle immediately laid his plan; had Strong seized soon after by legal authority, and lodged in the Poultry Compter. The poor man made known his case, as quickly as possible to Granville Sharp.

On the 18th September, 1767, the cause was tried at the Mansion House, and the Lord Mayor finding no evidence against him, told Strong that he was at liberty. "I seize him," grasping Strong's arm, exclaimed Captain Laird, who attended on the part of the prosecutor, "as the property of Mr. Kerr." "And I charge you," said Granville Sharp severely, tapping him on the shoulder, "for an assault." Capt. Laird, alarmed, immediately relinquished his lawless hold, and Strong went forth unimpeded.

For this procedure, Granville Sharp, was charged with robbery, by David Lisle, and received a challenge to give gentlemanlike satisfaction. "You are a lawyer," said Sharp, "and you shall want no satisfaction which the law can give you."

But the lawyers whom Sharp consulted declared that the laws were against him. Sir James Eyre, Recorder of the City, whom he retained as his counsel, adduced to him, York and Talbot's opinion, and informed him that Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, agreed with these gentlemen.

Did he yield; No—Not "like the tender blossom, warm in summer bowers" was he—but like the storm-rocked oak, which "each assailing blast, increase of strength supplies." Eternal law was written on his bosom—the eternal law of righteousness and love. He would not believe that the laws of his country could be so utterly at variance with it, and he determined to probe the matter to the bottom. He began an intense and comprehensive study of British law; and his enemies, dubious of their boasted grounds, artfully protracting the trial, allowed him all the leisure which he needed. In this difficult task, he had no instructor but God—no assistant, except his own diligence—no encourager, except his conscience. The result of his research was a tract, "On the injustice and dangerous tendency of tolerating Slavery, or even of admitting the least claim to private property in the persons of men, in England." The arguments contained in it, were irresistible, and by its success, he amply fulfilled his promise to his antagonist. After about two years suspense, the prosecution was abandoned, and the plaintiff was compelled to pay treble costs for not bringing forward the action.

But the slaveholders, though once defeated, were not humbled. Tyrants do not readily repent or easily relax their grasp. The battle was but begun.

In 1770, an African named Thomas Lewis had left his master Mr. Stapylton, then residing in Chelsea (London.) Stapylton with the aid of two watermen whom he hired for the purpose, taking advantage of a dark night, seized Lewis, and after a struggle, dragged him off, gagging him as well as they could in the hurry. But his cries were providentially heard, and the ship to which he had been conveyed, being detained in the Downs by adverse weather, Lewis was brought back to London by writ of habeas corpus obtained and forwarded by the diligence of Granville Sharp, supported by Mrs. Banks, the mother of the celebrated traveler and naturalist Sir Joseph Banks. This rescue is described in the following words by Thomas Clarkson in his History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade: "The vessel had reached the Downs and had actually got under way for the West Indies. In a few hours, it would have been out of sight. Just at this critical moment, the writ of habeas corpus was carried on board. The officer who served it saw the miserable captive chained to the mainmast, bathed in tears, and casting a last mournful look on the land of freedom. The Captain on receiving the writ became outrageous—but knowing the serious consequences of resisting the law of the land he gave up his prisoner, whom the officer carried safe, but now weeping for joy to the shore." On the 12th July a bill was preferred and found by the Grand Jury of Middlesex against Stapylton, and the two watermen, Malony and Armstrong, in behalf of Lewis, "without the least demur or doubt on account of the plaintiff's complexion or idea of private property urged against him."

On the 20th February, 1771, the trial was had at the King's Bench, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield presiding. But so fraught was Mansfield's mind still, with the false views of the day, that although the jury, found Stapylton "guilty," the Chief Justice (such is justice often in human hands!) refused to proceed to judgment, and the criminals escaped. Against this proceeding of the judge, as against an open contempt of the laws of England, Sharp prepared a strong protest. The principles on which he proceeded, are thus expressed by himself, in a letter to Lord Carysport, in 1781: "This is the compendium or sum total of all my politics, so that I include them in a very small compass. I am thoroughly convinced that Right ought to be adopted and maintained, on all occasions, without regard to consequences either probable or possible; for these (when we have done our own duty as honest men) must after all be left to the disposal of Divine Providence, which has declared a blessing in favor of right, 'Blessed are the keepers of judgment—and he that doeth righteousness at all times. Ps. cvi. 3.

Section 2

demur or doubt on account of the plaintiff's complexion or idea of private property urged against him."

On the 20th February, 1771, the trial was had at the King's Bench, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield presiding. But so fraught was Mansfield's mind still, with the false views of the day, that although the jury, found Stapylton "guilty," the Chief Justice (such is justice often in human hands!) refused to proceed to judgment, and the criminals escaped. Against this proceeding of the judge, as against an open contempt of the laws of England, Sharp prepared a strong protest. The principles on which he proceeded, are thus expressed by himself, in a letter to Lord Carysport, in 1781: "This is the compendium or sum total of all my politics, so that I include them in a very small compass. I am thoroughly convinced that Right ought to be adopted and maintained, on all occasions, without regard to consequences either probable or possible; for these (when we have done our own duty as honest men) must after all be left to the disposal of Divine Providence, which has declared a blessing in favor of right, 'Blessed are the keepers of judgment—and he that doeth righteousness at all times. Ps. cvi. 3.

SECTION II.

BUT the general right to freedom in England was yet made a matter of opinion. No permanent security was obtained against the pertinacious avarice and tyranny of the slaveholders and slave-dealers. This question wanted decision and both parties wished it decided. The slave party, wrapt in selfishness and deluded by legal sophistries, felt confident in their claims—and the friends of liberty, clothed in righteousness and firm in everlasting truth, knew that British law, brought forth in its purity, would support

them. The case of James Somerset was chosen as the subject of trial.

This man had been brought to England in November, 1769, by his master, Charles Stewart, from Virginia, and in process of time, had left him. Stewart had had him suddenly seized and carried on board the Ann and Mary, Captain Knowles, in order to be taken to Jamacia and there sold for a slave.

On 7th February, 1772, the cause was tried in the King's Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, aided by Justices Ashton, Welles and Ashurst. The question at issue was, "Is every man in England, entitled to the liberty of his person, unless forfeited by the Laws of England?" This was affirmed by the advocates of Somerset; and Mr. Sergeant Davy, who opened his cause broadly declared, "that no man at this day is or can be, a slave in England."

Mr. Davy supported this proposition by the most substantial documents drawn from the history of the country. He showed that the laws of England alone, rule in England; and that the laws of Virginia had no more validity in England, than the laws of Japan. He discussed the argument of convenience, on either side of the question—and concluded by stating the authorities, in various cases, by which it had been decided, that no man could here be the property of another. Of one of these, he thus spoke: "This was in the case of Cartwright, who brought a slave from Russia, and would scourge him. For this, he was questioned—and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for slaves to breathe in." (See Rushworth's Collections, p. 468.) "That was in the 11th of Queen Elizabeth. I hope my Lord, the air does not blow worse since—I hope they will never breathe here; for this is my assertion, 'the moment they put their foot on English ground, that moment they become free.' They are subject to the laws and they are entitled to the protection of the laws of this country; and so are their masters, thank God."

Mr. Sergeant Glynn followed and powerfully supported Davy.

Here Lord Chief Justice Mansfield was so impressed with the weight of law in favor of liberty, yet so perplexed with the sophistries of opinion and precedent, that he deferred the further discussion of the case to the next term.

Granville Sharp availed himself with his usual zeal of this interval, and amongst the other measures by which he sought to secure an equitable decision, he addressed the following letter to Lord North, dated 18th February, 1772.

"My Lord—Presuming that information, concerning every question of a public nature, must of course be agreeable to your Lordship, I have ventured to lay before you a little tract, against tolerating slavery in England.

"His Majesty has been pleased lately to recommend to Parliament the providing new laws for supplying defects, or remedying abuses in such instances where it shall be requisite, and I apprehend my Lord, that there is no instance whatever, which requires more immediate redress, than the present miserable and deplorable slavery of Negroes and Indians, as well as white English servants!! in our colonies. I say, immediate redress, because to be in power and to neglect, even a day, in endeavoring to put a stop, to such monstrous injustice and abandoned wickedness, must necessarily endanger a man's eternal welfare, be he ever so great in temporal dignity or office.

"Nevertheless I don't mention this, as a subject proper for Parliamentary consideration: for the laws of England (God be thanked) are sufficiently clear with respect to slavery in this island. And though some enormous outrages have now and then been committed by ignorant masters, in attempting to carry off by force their quondam slaves, yet, if the Judges do their duty, by determining according to the laws already in force (for Judicandum est Legibus, non Exemplis 4 Ca. 33, 'We must judge by law not by precedent,') there will be no necessity for Parliament to interfere.

"And with respect to the Colonies, the pernicious practice of slaveholding being tolerated by distinct laws of their own, cannot with propriety fall under the consideration of the British Parliament; for I am well aware, that no Parliament can have a just right to enact laws for places, which it does not represent. The remedy of these notorious abuses therefore, rests entirely with the King and his Privy Council, to recommend to the several assemblies a formal repeal of those unjust laws of which I complain.

"I might alledge indeed, that many of the plantation laws (like every act that contains any thing which is malum in se, evil in its own nature) are already null and void in themselves; because they want every necessary foundation to render them valid, being absolutely contradictory to the laws of reason and natural equity, as well as to the laws of God. Yet, as many of them (to the disgrace of the English name) have been long in force, and have had the formal assent of kings, they will require a formal repeal by all the parties, in order to preserve, in each branch of the Legislature, that reciprocal faith, which is due to all solemn compacts. * * * * *

"I have also sent another book, on the same subject, lately printed at Philadelphia, which amongst other things worthy of notice, contains some sensible propositions for abolishing slavery in the Colonies, (see pages 139—141) and that your Lordship may see, the absolute necessity of such a measure I have likewise sent a short, lively representation in MS. of the present state of slavery in Maryland, extracted from a letter, dated in November last, from a gentleman in that province.

"Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Maryland, to a friend in London:

"'But whether I shall go thither or return home, I am yet undetermined; indeed no where shall I stay long from England; for I had much rather enjoy the bare necessaries of life there, than the most affluent circumstances in this country of most wretched slavery. * * * There are four things under the sun, which I equally abhor and abominate, viz. slavery, licentiousness, pride and impudence, all which abound here, in a monstrous degree.

"'The punishments of the poor negroes and convicts, are beyond all conception, being entirely subject to the will of their savage and brutal masters. They are often punished for not doing more than strength and nature will admit of; and sometimes because they cannot on every occasion, fall in with their wanton and capricious humors. One punishment is to flay their backs with cow-hides, or other instruments of barbarity, and then pour on hot rum, superinduced with brine or pickle, rubbed in with a corn husk, in the scorching heat of the sun. For certain, if your judges were sensible of the shocking treatment of the convicts here, they would hang every one of them, as infinitely less punishment; and transport only those, whose crimes deserve the severest death. Better be hanged seven hundred times, than serve seven years here: and there is no redress, for magistrates and all, are equally interested and criminal. If I had a child, I had rather see him, the humblest scavenger in the streets of London, than the loftiest tyrant in America, with a thousand slaves at his beck.'

Old Jewry, 18th February, 1772."

In connexion with this letter, Granville Sharp adverting to the existing slave laws of the Colonies, says in his Journal of the same day, (18th Feb. 1772) "If such laws are not absolutely necessary for the government of slaves, the law-makers must unavoidably allow themselves to be the most cruel and abandoned tyrants upon earth, and perhaps, that ever were on earth. But, on the other hand, if it be said that it is impossible to govern slaves, without such inhuman severity and detestable injustice, the same is an invincible argument against the least toleration of slavery among christians; because temporal profits, cannot compensate the forfeiture of everlasting welfare—that the cries of these much injured people will certainly reach heaven—that the scriptures denounce a tremendous judgment against the man, who shall offend one little one—that it were better for the nation that their American dominions had never existed, or even that they had sunk in the sea, than that the kingdom of Great Britain should be loaded with the horrid guilt of tolerating such abominable wickedness," &c.

It ought to be remembered that while Granville Sharp, thus boldly remonstrated with the Government of his country, he filled a government situation and was dependant for his present subsistence, and for his future prospects in life, upon the Ministry of the day.

The tract above mentioned as having lately been printed in Philadelphia, was from the pen of the excellent Anthony Benezet, a brother in heart and in deed of Granville Sharp.

On 9th May, the trial of Somerset's case, was resumed.

Mr. Mansfield conducted the defence. He contended, that "If Somerset was a man—and he should conclude him one, till proved otherwise—he could not be a slave in England. The dispute," he said, "was between one human creature and another, the master and the negro, whether the latter was entitled to the important rights which nature had given him. To the charge that he was a slave, the negro might very well answer, 'True, I was a slave; torn from my mother's arms, I was put in chains on board a British ship and carried to America—I was there placed under a master, from whose tyranny, I could not escape: if I had attempted it, I should have been exposed to the severest punishment; and never from the first moment of my life to the present time, have I been in a situation to assert the common rights of mankind. I am now in a country where the rights of liberty are known and regarded; and can you tell me the reason, why I am not to be protected by those laws?' To have such a question answered," continued Mr. Mansfield, "consistently with those laws, seems to me impossible—for, on the contrary, he is as fully and clearly entitled to the protection of those laws, as any one who now hears me."

At the end of Mr. Mansfield's speech, the case was adjourned to the 14th May.

Mr. Hargrave then proceeded with the defence.

"If," said he, "the claim of Stewart over Somerset, be here recognized, domestic slavery, with its horrid train of evils, may be lawfully imported into this country, at the discretion of every foreigner or native. It will come, not only from our own Colonies, but from Poland, Russia, Spain and Turkey—from the coast of Barbary; from the eastern and western coasts of Africa; from every part of the world, where it still continues to torment and dishonor the human species. "He then examined, 1st. The right claimed by Stewart over the person of Somerset—and 2d. The authority on which that right was rested. He declared that in "whatever light we view it, slavery is alike pernicious to the person who suffers it, to the person who inflicts it, and to the government which allows its existence." He traced the history of European negro slavery—recorded the interesting fact, that Charles V. in 1740, abolished it in his dominions; and the greedy and disgraceful return to it of the masters, as soon as the imperial prohibition could be evaded. He traced the history of Villeinage in England, and demonstrated that no right could thereon be founded to the claims of the slaveholder.

Mr. Alleyne closed the proceedings on the same side. He examined the distinction between natural and municipal rights—the one of which attaches alike to all men in every country—the other is peculiar to times, circumstances and places. "The right of slavery," he continued, "not being from nature, cannot be imported from another country. Natural relations, are inherent in the nature of things, and nothing can annul them. They arise from the relation which a man bears to mankind in general; and his moral duty results from them. He cannot therefore, change his natural relations—they are universal. Municipal relations are such as arise from being a member of the particular country, where they exist. It appears that by the laws of Virginia, this man is a slave—but the laws of Virginia, rule not in England. In this country, how can this man be a slave, where the meanest have a title to enjoy the rights of freedom. This man is here. He owes submission to the laws of England, and he has a corresponding right to the protection of these laws—he claims that protection—and when" added he, "the judgment of this Court is given, Stewart, as well as the rest of the slaveholders, will know, that this air is too free for a slave to breathe in."

The cause of the slave party was supported by two able and eloquent men, Messrs. Wallace and Dunning. Mr. Wallace spoke immediately after Mr. Alleyne, and dwelt mainly upon the inconvenience, absurdity and injustice of divesting a man of his rightful property!! only because he sailed, in pursuit of his lawful business, from one country to another!!

The cause was adjourned to the 21st. The confidence of Lord Mansfield, in York and Talbot's judgment, was plainly shaken; but his leaning was yet clearly to their opinion.

On the 21st the trial was resumed, and Mr. Dunning supported the claims of despotism. Confounding the relation of master and servant, with the relation of master and slave, he insisted upon the universal and indispensable necessity of that relation. Mr. Davy replied, and tore his cobweb to pieces.

Lord Mansfield delayed judgment, and twice threw out a suggestion, "that the master might put an end to the present litigation by manumitting the slave;" but the base suggestion was providentially not attended to. The judgment was demanded; and the judgment was given on Monday, 22d June, 1772. After much lawyer-like circumlocution, Lord Mansfield decided as follows:

"Immemorial usage preserves the memory of positive law, long after all traces of the occasion, reason, authority and time of its introduction are lost; and in a case so odious as the condition of slaves, must be taken strictly; (tracing the subject to natural principles, the claim of slavery never can be supported.) The power claimed by this return, never was in use here. We cannot say the cause set forth by this return, is allowed or approved of by the laws of this kingdom, and therefore the man must be discharged."

Here some important facts and observations present themselves. In this case, we have 1st. a most instructive and delightful instance of the power of truth—and of the impartial justice of British law. The iniquitous web of legality is unwoven. The perversions of legislation, originating in the highest authorities, supported by the greatest names, defended by a powerful faction and assented to by almost every body, are detected and swept away. Law, ceasing to frame mischief, is restored to its own wholesome and glorious character, as the handmaid of equity—and one of the first lawyers of the age, placed at the fountain head of justice, and freed by the gathered effulgence of truth, from the sophisms of his character and his class, casts off his prejudices and restores to liberty, her resting place on earth.

2d. We have a deplorable instance of the corruptions of legal practice. Mr. Dunning, who supported tyranny in the case of Somerset, had previously been one of the most bright and efficient defenders of liberty. He was the chief advocate in the case of Thomas Lewis, in 1771, and then triumphantly declared, that no man can be legally detained as a slave in England. Granville Sharp's observations upon this tergiversation, are worthy of record, and should ring like warning thunder upon every lawyer's heart. "This is an abominable and insufferable practice in lawyers, to undertake causes diametrically opposite to their own declared opinions of law and justice."

3d. We are encouraged in assailing wickedness, however inveterate it may have grown—however fearful the power which supports it—however great the influence and the talent and the learning which may be arrayed in its defence! In the case before us, perversion of law, supported by the practice of almost half a century, had become as law itself. The abuse was admitted into all the courts, and was sustained by almost every lawyer. The fountains of justice were corrupted; and the tyrant doctrine of right being confined to a particular class, while another class was mercilessly bereaved of every right, lorded it over the land. Britain, in boasting of liberty, was a hypocrite; for her liberty was licentiousness; the dreadful licentiousness practiced by the learned and rich, of plundering and oppressing without remorse, the ignorant and the poor. In the midst of this wickedness, a man with a single eye to God, arose! What was darkness through sophistry, to the highest intellects and to the deepest scholarship of the mighty minds around him, to him was light. No selfishness—no partiality—no prejudice—no pride—no fear or idolatry of man, clouded the light of eternal equity and love, which burnt in his bosom. He moved right on, as his Saviour led him; and others, won by the loveliness of truth shining in him, came up with him to the advocacy of righteousness. Satan raged—then trembled—then fell—and the fresh ocean air of Britain again became too pure for a slave to breathe in. It may here be observed, that Stewart, in prosecuting his tyrant claim against Somerset, was supported by the mighty influence and wealth of the West Indian faction.