their authority is vested in them, that they may, by the just exercise of it, promote the happiness of their people.  Of course, they have not a right to dispose of their liberty, and to sell them for slaves.  Besides no man has a right to acquire, or to purchase them; men and their liberty are not in commercio; they are not either saleable or purchaseable.  One, therefore, has no body but himself to blame, in case he shall find himself deprived of a man, whom he thought he had, by buying for a price, made his own; for he dealt in a trade which was illicit, and was prohibited by the most obvious dictates of humanity.  For these reasons, every one of those unfortunate men who are pretended to be slaves, has a right to be declared to be free, for he never lost his liberty; he could not lose it; his Prince had no power to dispose of him.  Of course, the sale was ipso jure void.  This right he carries about with him, and is entitled every where to get it declared.  As soon, therefore, as he comes into a country in which the judges are not forgetful of their own humanity, it is their duty to remember that he is a man, and to declare him to be free.  I know it has been said, that questions concerning the state of persons ought to be determined by the law of the country to which they belong; and that, therefore, one who would be declared to be a slave in America, ought, in case he should happen to be imported into Britain, to be adjudged, according to the law of America, to be a slave; a doctrine than which nothing can be more barbarous.  Ought the judges of any country, out of respect to the law of another, to shew no respect to their kind, and to humanity? out of respect to a law, which is in no sort obligatory upon them, ought they to disregard the law of nature, which is obligatory on all men, at all times, and in all places?  Are any laws so binding as the eternal laws of justice?  Is it doubtful, whether a judge ought to pay greater regard to them, than to those arbitrary and inhuman usages which prevail in a distant land?  Aye, but our colonies would be ruined if slavery was abolished.  Be it so; would it not from thence follow, that the bulk of mankind ought to be abused, that our pockets may be filled with money, or our mouths with delicacies?  The purses of highwaymen would be empty, in case robberies were totally abolished; but have men a right to acquire money by going out to the highway?  Have men a right to acquire it by rendering their fellow-creatures miserable?  Is it lawful to abuse mankind, that the avarice, the vanity, or the passions of a few may be gratified?  No!  There is such a thing as justice to which the most sacred regard is due.  It ought to be inviolably observed.  Have not these unhappy men a better right to their liberty, and to their happiness, than our American merchants have to the profits which they make by torturing their kind?  Let, therefore, our colonies be ruined, but let us not render so many men miserable.  Would not any of us, who should—­be snatched by pirates from his native land, think himself cruelly abused, and at all times entitled to be free?  Have not these unfortunate Africans, who meet with the same cruel fate, the same right?  Are they not men as well as we, and have they not the same sensibility?  Let us not, therefore, defend or support a usage which is contrary to all the laws of humanity.