Suppose, my Lord, that a fleet of merchant ships belonging to the African company, containing twenty thousand Negroes on board (more or less, it is of no matter), bound from Africa to America, should, by strange, contrary, and adverse winds, be driven and wrecked upon the coast of England; that the ships were lost and destroyed, but that the Negroes had been landed in safety on this shore of freedom: would the African company, my Lord, be justified and entitled to re-ship these Negroes in other vessels, to the end that they might be conveyed to their destined ports in America? Or, would the pure air of this country, as has been insisted on, set them, with caps of liberty on their heads, free and at large; thereby robbing, for so I must call it, these merchants of their property to the amount of one million of money, at the allowance, and on the moderate computation, of fifty pounds price for each individual Negroe? In this kingdom of commerce, my Lord, where the rights of merchants are so well distinguished, and the laws of trade are so minutely known, I should presume that the case would not admit of a question. Of what use would the charter of this company be to them, if the laws protective of that charter should be found inadequate and ineffectual to the maintenance and security of their property? But again: it has been observed, that by the statute of the 5th of George III. chap. xliv. a number of canoe-men, and other Negroes, in Africa, were vested in the Crown. Now, by canoe-men, I suppose, my Lord, are meant, African sailors. Suppose then, that one hundred, for example, of these sailors should, by some contrivance or other, find their way into England; would the King, my Lord, have authority to remand them to their place of duty? or, would writs of Habeas Corpus, in despite of this act of Parliament, protect them here; thereby determining the right of the Crown in them? The case, my Lord, speaks and determines for itself. Wherein then, my Lord, differs the case of Mr. Steuart from these? Their importance is greater, but the principle throughout is the same. I believe it is not denied that Mr. Steuart was the _bona fide_ purchaser of Somerset, in the legal course of trade. I do not apprehend that any evidence was offered to shew that he had stolen him, or that he came by him otherwise surreptitiously. If my memory does not fail me, the property was proved, by affidavit, before your Lordship; or it was stated in the return made to the Writ of Habeas Corpus; but in either way it is of no concern, since the title-deeds are not now before the Court as the objects of Litigation[5].