believe to be the case) it is a mark that distinguishes him from the man who feels and is capable of these moral sensations, who knows their application and the purposes of them, as sufficiently, as the Negroe himself is distinguished from the highest species of brutes. [17] There are two cases referred to in Mr. Hargrave’s argument, (p. 52. and p. 54.) which are not only fully explanatory of the above principles, but support the opinion of the Lord Chancellours, Hardwick and Talbot; and are in direct proof of the whole of my argument. The cases I allude to, are those of Butts and Penny, and Gelly against Cleve. The first was an action of _Trover_ for 10 Negroes; and there was a special verdict, &c. The Court held, that _Negroes being usually bought and sold amongst Merchants, and being infidels_, there might be a property in them sufficient to maintain the action. In the second case, the Court is said to have held, that _Trover_ will lie for a Negroe boy, because _Negroes are Heathens_; and therefore a man may have property in them; and the Court without averment will take notice, that they are _Heathens_. Now upon two judicial determinations are the very reasons of my argument held and alledged. _Negroes are infidels_: _Negroes are Heathens_: of course unpossessed of those religious and moral truths, which the Gospel impresses upon all minds capable of receiving them; and therefore the law, regarding the inferior state of their nature, has considered them merely as _property bought and sold among merchants_. [18] Vid. his Spirit of Laws, vol. i. p. 341. [19] See also the Assiento, or Contract made with the South Sea Company, for supplying the Spaniards with Negroes by treaty of commerce between Great Britain and Spain, in the year 1713-14; wherein they are considered as dutyable commodities, and named merely as matters of merchandize; and if thus conceived of at this time, and on so solemn an occasion as a Treaty of Peace, by what new law or magic is it that they are now become the subjects of the Crown of England, and intitled to the benefit of the Habeas Corpus? TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources. Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a predominant preference was found in the original book. Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. Pg ix: ‘himself a Vellein’ replaced by ‘himself a Villein’. Pg 47: ‘the objects of of’ replaced by ‘the objects of’. Pg 70: ‘Δὸς ϖοῦ ϛῶ’ could be replaced by ‘Δὸς ποῦ στῶ’ to avoid the unusual pi and stigma characters.