not, your Lordship finds that the fact of property is admitted by the learned Judge, without the proper foundation of law to support it. But he proceeds to say, “though, _accurately speaking_, that property consists rather in the perpetual service, than in the body or person of the captives.” _Accurately speaking_, my Lord, I join issue with the learned Judge: but, _legally speaking_, the law is as he had stated it to be. Those who speak accurately reason from the real nature of Negroes, and draw their conclusions from thence: the Lords Talbot and Hardwick spoke legally, and drew their opinions from the fountain-head of law. Besides, my Lord, I conceive it to be impossible that the law should be as these interpreters or reporters have made it to be; because the result of it is plain—inconsistency, and positive absurdity. If Somerset is protected by the law of England in the enjoyment of his person and property, how, in appeal to common sense, can Mr. Steuart’s right in him remain exactly in the same state as before? “Yes, it may be said, he has a right to the perpetual service of him; for this is no more than the same state of subjection for life, which every apprentice submits to for the space of seven years, or sometimes for a longer time.” But by what mode or method does Mr. Steuart acquire this perpetual right to his service? There is no indenture of apprenticeship on the part of Somerset to him: there is no written contract of any sort or kind whatever, there is no parole agreement between them, to enforce this right of service. How is it to be maintained then? If by the purchase of him, property is the offspring of purchase; and, as such, Mr. Steuart claims him. If he is not his property, he has otherwise no right in him, nor to his services, and, again, if he is his property, who shall disseise him thereof?