The condition of slaves, however, is little different from that of a free person. The estimation, too, in which they are held, is high, for they are, in a popular superstition, ranked with “a son, a nephew, and an ox;” and though the last of these appears somewhat ludicrous to the ear of an European, yet we must recollect that the religious value of an ox was high in the land, probably from the tinge of Brahminism with which the Burmans are dashed. It is interesting to compare the state of the slaves of Burmah with the condition of the same class among the Visigoths, who may, in some respects, be looked upon as the Burmans of Europe. Prescott has given an able sketch in his “Ferdinand and Isabella:”[170]— “The lot of the Visigothic slave was sufficiently hard. The oppressions which this unhappy race endured, were such as to lead Mr. Southey, in his excellent introduction to the ‘Chronicle of the Cid,’ to impute to their co-operation, in part, the easy conquest of the country by the Arabs. But, although the laws in relation to them seem to be taken up with determining their incapacities, rather than their privileges, it is probable that they secured to them, on the whole, quite as great a degree of civil consequence as was enjoyed by similar classes in the rest of Europe. By the Fuer Juzoo, the slave was allowed to acquire property for himself, and with it to purchase his own redemption.[171] A certain proportion of every man’s slaves were also required to bear arms, and to accompany their master to the field.[172] But their relative rank is better ascertained by the amount of composition (that accurate measurement of civil rights with all the barbarians of the north) prescribed for any personal violence inflicted on them. Thus, by the Salic law, the life of a free Roman was estimated at only one-fifth of that of a Frank,[173] while, by the law of the Visigoths, the life of a slave was valued at half of that of a free man.[174] In the latter code, moreover, the master was prohibited, under the severe penalties of banishment and sequestration of property, from either maiming or murdering his own slave,[175] while, in other codes of the barbarians, the penalty was confined to similar trespasses on the slaves of another; and by the Salic law, no higher mulct was imposed for killing than for kidnapping a slave.[176] The legislation of the Visigoths, in those particulars, seems to have regarded this unhappy race as not merely a distinct species of property; it provided for their personal security, instead of limiting itself to the indemnification of their masters.”