Lord Mansfield Versus William Davy, Serjeant-at-Law. [ Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 ] Regarding the misattribution of the phrase "this air is too pure for a slave to breathe in."

 

Somerset v. Stewart (1772) is a landmark legal case in British history, often credited with advancing the abolitionist movement in England. The case centered around whether James Somerset, a man kidnapped and forcibly enslaved, could be taken by force from England back to the colonies by his owner, Charles Stewart.

Key Elements of the Case:

Background: James Somerset was a man whom Charles Stewart had kidnapped and forcibly enslaved in Virginia before bringing him to London. In 1771, Stewart attempted to forcibly return Somerset to Virginia against his will.

Legal Proceedings: Somerset managed to escape but was soon captured. His supporters, led by prominent abolitionist Granville Sharp, applied for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of his detention. The case was subsequently heard by Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, who had to rule on whether forced enslavement had any legal basis in England.

Judgment: Lord Mansfield ruled in favor of Somerset, concluding that forced enslavement was not supported by any law within England. He noted that English law did not explicitly ensure freedom for all forcibly enslaved individuals brought to England but found that the institution of slavery had no legal basis. His ruling effectively blocked Stewart from forcibly taking Somerset to the colonies against his will.

Implications: The decision did not abolish slavery across the British Empire but made it difficult for owners to forcibly transport enslaved people to England and retain them as property. It became an influential precedent, spurring increased activism against slavery, which grew throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Long-Term Impact: Somerset v. Stewart is often viewed as a turning point in British legal history regarding slavery and civil rights. The case exposed the tensions between colonial slavery practices and evolving ideas of personal liberty and human rights in Britain, providing a foundation for subsequent legal and moral challenges to slavery. This case helped pave the way for future reforms, culminating in the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade in 1807 and, ultimately, the abolition of slavery within the British Empire in 1833.

The Somerset ruling marked a critical moment, showing the shift in British society towards recognizing the incompatibility of slavery with human rights and personal freedom.  The hymnwriter William Cowper wrote in a poem that "we have no slaves at home - then why abroad?"was a critic and nudge at the fact that enslavement was outsourced to the colonies and out of sight in Britain was not to be ignored

Polymath Benjamin Franklin, who was visiting England at the time, was less impressed with the celebrations of British abolitionists over the case, criticising their celebrations, O Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!

Addendum

Regarding the misattribution of the phrase "this air is too pure for a slave to breathe in." 

This expression, often associated with Lord Mansfield's judgment in Somerset v. Stewart, actually originated from a statement made by William Davy, Serjeant-at-Law, during his arguments for Somerset. 

The phrase is frequently cited in discussions of the legal and moral implications of the case, but it does not appear in Mansfield's actual ruling.

Davy referenced a prior case from 1569 involving a man named Cartwright, who had brought a slave from Russia and faced legal repercussions for attempting to punish him. The notion expressed was that England’s air was incompatible with the institution of slavery. However, the authenticity of this statement from the Cartwright case is debated among legal historians.

Some scholars suggest that it might actually derive from Lord Chief Justice John Holt's remarks in the case of Smith v. Gould, where he articulated the notion that upon arriving in England, enslaved individuals were automatically free. Holt’s assertion clearly established a legal precedent against slavery in England, emphasizing that while one might be a villein (a form of serfdom), slavery was not permissible.

The Somerset case became critical not just for its legal outcome but also for its role in shaping public discourse around slavery in England. Lord Mansfield's judgment, while not explicitly articulating the popular phrase regarding the purity of England’s air, nonetheless directed us all towards the legal and moral unfeasibility of slavery in Britain. This shift in sentiment supported the emergence of abolitionist movements in the subsequent decades.

Thus, while the catchy phrase captures the spirit of the decision, it is essential to recognize its origins and how it became conflated with the judgment itself in popular memory.

[Olofin/ 4Qua of Orion]