is some resemblance to that of the serf of Russia, and the 'villein' under the feudal system; but still the world is accustomed accurately to distinguish their condition from that of slave, and it does not define slavery to say that it is the condition of a serf or a villein.' There is still something essential to it which is not reached by these terms.

The importance of ascertaining accurately what slavery is, may be seen by referring to some of the definitions which have been given of it. From these it will be seen that, according to some of the different views which are held of its nature, it is easy to construct an argument in its defence. Paley's definition is this: "I define slavery," says he, "to be an obligation to labour for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant."* Substantially the same is the idea of the author of the article before referred to in the Biblical Repertory, and as this may be regarded, without impropriety, as expressing the sentiments of those who apologize for slavery, or who regard it as consistent with Christianity, it is important to quote the words of the writer at length. He says, "Neither inadequate remuneration, physical discomfort, intellectual ignorance, moral degradation, is essential to the condition of a slave. Yet if all these ideas are removed from the commonly received notion of slavery, how little will remain. All the ideas which essentially enter into the definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the authority and claim of the master. The manner in which men are brought into this condition; its continuance, and the means adopted for securing the authority and claim of masters, are all incidental and variable. They may be reasonable or unreasonable, just or unjust, at different times and places. p. 279. "Slavery, in itself considered, is a state of bondage, and nothing more. It is the condition of an indi

* Moral Philosophy, book iii. ch. 3.

vidual who is deprived of his personal liberty, and is obliged to work for another, who has the right to transfer this claim of service, at pleasure."-p. 289. In discussing the question whether the nature of property enters into the idea of slavery, the writer remarks that, "a man has property in his wife, in his children, in his domestic animals, in his fields and forests," and goes on to observe that, "where it is said that one man is the property of another, it can only mean that the one has a right to use the other as a man, but not as a brute or as a thing.-When this idea of property comes to be analyzed, it is found to be nothing more than a claim of service either for life, or for a term of years."-p. 293. According to this view, slavery is comparatively a harmless thing. No one should be alarmed at the idea of being himself a slave, or of having his children reduced to this condition; and no one should regard slavery as essentially an undesirable condition of society, and still less as having in it any thing that is morally wrong. The idea of regarding a slave as a chattel or a thing is expressly discarded, and all the property which it is supposed there can be in the slave is that harmless possession which a man has in his wife and children. If this be the just idea of slavery, then it would hardly be worth while to argue the question whether it is right or wrong, or whether it is, or is not, in accordance with the Bible. It may be remarked here only that this is a view which will calm the feelings, allay the suspicions of guilt or responsibility, save from the compunctious visitings of remorse, and meet the wishes of all those south of Mason's and Dixon's line' who desire to preserve this domestic institution in its purity. Whether this is the true notion of slavery, however, it may be well to consider. I would observe, then,

(1.) That slavery is not a mere condition of apprenticeship, or that the service which a slave is bound to render to his master is not that which the apprentice is bound to

render to his employer. There may be something in common, but all men make a distinction between them. Even in the system of apprenticeship' in the West Indies, there was an accurate, and a very obvious distinction, between that condition and the state of slavery which this was intended to supersede. An apprentice is bound to his master; he works for him; his time is his; and the master avails himself of whatever physical strength or skill the apprentice may have, or may acquire while he is with him.

and so far there is that which the relation has in common with slavery. The relations resemble each other also in the fact, that the apprentice is usually placed in this condition without being consulted, or in accordance with the will of another. But this relation is designed to be temporary; it is for the good of the apprentice himself; it contemplates his own future usefulness and happiness, and there is a full equivalent supposed to be rendered for his labour. The care of the master over his morals and habits, and the instruction which he is expected to receive in the employment to which he designs to devote his life, are regarded as an ample compensation for any service which he can render. The master, in fact, avails himself of no unrequited labour of the apprentice; has no claim of property in him; has no power to continue the relation beyond a specified period; and has no right to transfer the apprentice to another. The condition is one also that is consistent with a regular advance in knowledge of all kinds, and in which the master has no control over any of the other relations which the apprentice may sustain, or into which he may choose prospectively to enter. In all this it differs from slavery.

(2.) Nor is slavery to be confounded with the condition of a minor. There are many things indeed that are common between slavery as it has always existed, and the condition of those who are under age. A minor, like a slave, has no right to vote; is not eligible to office; cannot be

held in law by contracts which he makes, and in his time and labour is subject to the will of another. But we never confound the two conditions, and never suppose that the description of the one is a correct representation of the other. Nature, not force, has made the condition of a minor. In the arrangement, his own good is consulted. The whole arrangement is with reference to his own future welfare. It contemplates his being ultimately raised to all the dignities and rights of a citizen, and nature has secured, in the affections of those under whom minors are commonly placed, the best possible pledge that their interests will be sacredly regarded. Slavery does none of these things.

(3.) Nor is slavery merely a governmental affair-an assertion of power like that under a hereditary monarchy, or like a transfer of a portion of a people from one government to another, by treaty.* There may be much in common between such a condition and slavery, but we never confound them-except where we wish to throw dust in order to render the subject obscure. The authority asserted over the slave is often hereditary; the power is claimed of making laws for him without his consent, and without representation; the power over him is an usurped power; it deprives him of the rights of a freeman, and he is transferred from one master to another without his consent—as the inhabitants of Poland, Belgium, Louisiana, Canada, Florida, and Normandy have been, or as the Cherokees, Choctaws, and Seminoles have been removed from Georgia and Florida, to the country west of the Mississippi. But we never think of confounding these things with slavery. Slavery is the right of an individual owner, not the operation of a government. It is control over the individual, and not over the mass. It contemplates properly no arrangement for masses as governed, but of individuals as owned.} It transfers none by communities, but sells them as individuals. It is not the mere power of making laws for others,

* See Biblical Repertory, 1836, p. 294.

or of commanding their services for war; it is the power of controlling their time, a claim on their whole earnings, and of receiving all the avails of their skill and labour. It is not the right of transfer by treaty or conquest, but the power to sell them. The idea of slavery is not that of suffering the deprivation of rights as a community, but as individuals; and if laws are ever made for them regarded as a community, it is not because they are considered as any part of the government, but only to guard the rights of those who own them. In every essential feature slavery is removed from the aspect of being a governmental affair; for while it has some things in common with such an arrangement, still the world makes an accurate distinction between them. Besides, it would settle nothing as to the question of right and wrong to show that it was a mere governmental transaction. There are great questions of right and wrong in relation to the government of Nero, and the conquests of Attila, and the authority claimed by the Emperor of Morocco, or by the Sultan, as really as in relation to the rights claimed by the master over the slave.

(4.) Nor is it a mere relation in which legislative bodies alone are concerned.* It has indeed a relation to governments, and the makers and administrators of the laws have much to do with it. It is, indeed, a relation between man and man-for the slave is a man, and is, in some respects, regarded as such. But the usual relations in civil life are those of compact and agreement; of buying and selling; of commerce, apprenticeship, marriage, mutual aid, in regard to which each party is voluntary, and each party has guarded rights. Nothing of this kind occurs in slavery. There all is involuntary on the part of the slave, and he is never considered and treated as a neighbour, or an equal. In no respect does the law regard him as on a level with the master.

(5.) Slavery is not a thing which pertains wholly to a legislature to regulate, and with which an individual, or an

* See Biblical Repertory, 1836, p. 293.