country or age be traced back to any other source. Immemorial usage preserves the memory of positive law long after all traces of the occasion, reason, authority, and time of its introduction, are lost; and in a Case so odious as the condition of slaves must be, taken strictly, the power claimed by this return was never in use here: no master ever was allowed here to take a slave by force to be sold abroad because he had deserted from his service, or for any other reason whatever; we cannot say, _the Cause set forth by this return_ is allowed or approved of by the laws of this kingdom, and therefore the man must be discharged.” I must confess, I have been greatly puzzled in endeavouring to reconcile this judgment with this state of it, and with my comprehension. “We pay due attention to the opinion of Sir Philip York and Mr. Talbot,” are the words of the Noble Lord who delivered the judgment of the Court; and yet the judgment is, in operation and effect, directly subversive of the opinion. Now I must take for granted that this opinion would not have been cited, especially in so affirmative a manner, if it had had nothing at all to do with the Case then before the Court: because such citation would have been unmeaning and unnecessary. This being admitted, it follows, that the law laid down in this opinion was either the law of the Case, or it was not. If it were the law of the Case, the judgment would have been governed by that law, and consequently contrary to what it is. If it were not the law of the Case, in order to shew what the law is, and that the law and the judgment might correspond with each other, as cause and effect, it would seem, _ex necessitate rei_, that the doctrine advanced in this opinion should have been set aside by the superior force of legal argumentation and authority. But the reasoning upon the judgment stands thus: In the Premises this opinion is cited as authority; then, without any middle term denying that authority, the conclusion is, by the judgment, that it is no authority at all. Under these problematical circumstances the only solution possible to me was, that there might be two decisions intentionally contained under one judgment: that is to say, that the opinion of Sir Philip York and Mr. Talbot, was the law upon the general merits of the question; and that this judgment of the Court was the law upon this particular state of it. Thus for instance: if the return made to the writ of Habeas Corpus in this Case had denied the lawfulness of the writ itself, and Mr. Steuart had claimed Somerset upon the ground only of being his commercial _property_; then the opinion of Sir Philip York and Mr. Talbot had operated as law and authority: but as the return had admitted the right of slavery, and Mr. Steuart had claimed Somerset as his slave, there being no laws of slavery now _in use_ in this country, either for Negroes, or for any other species of the human being, the judgment of the court was, _from the insufficiency