The offensive rule seems to have found less acceptance in the possessions of other countries than with us. It has been inferred, after careful inquiry, that slaves in the Spanish and Portuguese settlements are not always incompetent as witnesses, while the _Code Noir_ of Louis the Fourteenth, amidst ungenerous prohibitions, allowed their evidence to be heard, “as a suggestion, or unauthenticated information, which might throw light on the evidence of other witnesses,” and afterwards, by later edict, sanctioned the testimony of slaves, “when white witnesses were wanting, except against their masters.”[93] But the rule is the natural complement of Slavery; and it cannot be disguised that it has prevailed, with corresponding degrees of force, wherever Slavery has been recognized. Its prevalence with us is only another illustration of the power of Slavery. If you would find the country where slaves have been most completely despoiled of the right of testimony, you will not go to Greece or Rome, for in these classic lands the slaves were admitted to testify in certain cases; nor will you linger even in the Dark Ages, for there were then excepted cases; nor will you search English precedents, for the villein was incompetent only against his lord, and not always against him; nor will you look to the colonies of Spain, Portugal, or France, for in all of these the cruel rule was mitigated; but you will turn to those States of our Republic where the slave is not permitted to testify against his master or any other white person, and where even free colored persons, having no master, are smitten with the same incapacity to testify against any white person. GROUNDS FOR THIS INJUSTICE. From examples of history the way is easy to an inquiry into the grounds on which this proscription is founded. The true reason may be traced to the unhappy prejudices engendered by Slavery, and to the policy of sustaining this wrong. Indeed, it is hardly less essential to Slavery than the lash itself. An early statute of Virginia places the rule on the ground that none but Christians should be witnesses, and even among these “Popish recusants convict” were inadmissible.[94] But it is generally vindicated by dwelling on _the degraded condition of the slave, and the interest he may have to conceal or deny the truth_.[95] A careful examination will show that this apology is baseless as Slavery itself.