With respect to the rest of the slaves, that is, the _Creoles_, or those born in the colonies, the services, the perpetual services, of these are claimed on the plea of the _law of birth_. They were born slaves, and this circumstance is said to give to their masters a sufficient right to their persons. But this doctrine sprung from the old Roman law, which taught that all slaves were to be considered as _cattle_. "Partus sequitur ventrem," says this law, or the "condition or lot of the mother determines the condition or lot of the offspring." It is the same law, which we ourselves now apply to cattle while they are in our possession. Thus the calf belongs to the man who owns the cow, and the foal to the man who owns the mare, and not to the owner of the bull or horse, which were the male parents of each. It is then upon this, the old Roman law, and not upon any English law, that the planters found their right to the services of such as are born in slavery. In conformity with this law they denied, for one hundred and fifty years, both the moral and intellectual nature of their slaves. They considered them themselves, and they wished them to be considered by others, in these respects, as upon a level only _with the beasts of the field_. Happily, however, their efforts have been in vain. The evidence examined before the House of Commons in the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, has confirmed the falsehood of their doctrines. It has proved that the social affections and the intellectual powers both of Africans and Creoles are the same as those of other human beings. What then becomes of the Roman law? For as it takes no other view of slaves than as _cattle_, how is it applicable to those, whom we have so abundantly proved _to be men_?