Those charters were the fundamental constitutions of the colonies, with some immaterial exceptions, up to the time of the revolution; as much so as our national and state constitutions are now the fundamental laws of our governments. The authority of these charters, during their continuance, and the general authority of the common law, prior to the revolution, have been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.[5] No one of all these charters that I have examined--and I have examined nearly all of them--contained the least intimation that slavery had, or could have, any legal existence under them. Slavery was therefore as much unconstitutional in the colonies, as it was in England. It was decided by the Court of King's Bench in England--Lord Mansfield being Chief Justice--before our revolution, and while the English Charters were the fundamental law of the colonies--that the principles of English liberty were so plainly incompatible with slavery, that even if a slaveholder, from another part of the world, brought his slave into England--though only for a temporary purpose, and with no intention of remaining--he nevertheless thereby gave the slave his liberty. Previous to this decision, the privilege of bringing slaves into England, for temporary purposes, and of carrying them away, had long been tolerated. This decision was given in the year 1772.[6] And for aught I see, it was equally obligatory in this country as in England, and must have freed every slave in this country, if the question had then been raised here. But the slave knew not his rights, and had no one to raise the question for him. The fact, that slavery was _tolerated_ in the colonies, is no evidence of its legality; for slavery was tolerated, to a certain extent, in England, (as we have already seen,) for many years previous to the decision just cited--that is, the holders of slaves from abroad were allowed to bring their slaves into England, hold them during their stay there, and carry them away when they went. But the toleration of this practice did not make it lawful, notwithstanding all customs, not palpably and grossly contrary to the principles of English liberty, have great weight, in England, in establishing law. The fact, that England _tolerated_, (i.e. did not punish criminally,) the African _slave-trade_ at that time, could not legally establish slavery in the colonies, _any more than it did in England_--especially in defiance of the positive requirements of the charters, that the colonial legislation should be consonant to reason, and not repugnant to the laws of England.