ences there should be noted the further circumstance, that a class of freemen was always near to the slaves in condition and suffering, with whom they were in association, and between whom and themselves there were frequent intermarriages,1 and that from these to the highest order in the State there were successive grades; the children of the highest gradually finding their way into those below them, and ways being open by which the children of the lowest might advance themselves, by intelligence, energy, or thrift, through the successive grades above them, until the descendants of dukes and earls were found cultivating the soil, and the man of obscure descent winning a place among the aristocracy of the realm, through his successful exertions at the bar, or his services to the State. Inevitably these influences must at length overthrow the * slavery [* 298] of white men which existed in England,2 and no other ever became established within the realm. Slavery was permitted, and indeed fostered, in the colonies; in part because a profit was made of the trade, and in part also because it was supposed that the peculiar products of some of them could not be profitably cultivated with free labor; and at times masters brought their slaves with them to England and removed them again without question, until in Sommersett's Case, in 1771, it was ruled by Lord Mansfield that slavery was repugnant to the common law, and to bring a slave into England was to emancipate him.4 shall from henceforth by us be free and of free condition." Barrington on Statutes (3d ed.), 275. See Mackintosh, History of England, c. 4. Compare this with a deed of manumission in Massachusetts, to be found in Sumner's Speeches, II. 289; Memoir of Chief Justice Parsons, by his son, 176, note. 1 Wright, Domestic Manners and Sentiments, p. 112. 2 Macaulay (History of England, c. 1) says the chief instrument of emancipation was the Christian religion. Mackintosh (History of England, c. 4) also attributes to the priesthood great influence in this reform, not only by their direct appeals to the conscience, but by the judges, who were 8 ecclesiastics, multiplying presumptions and rules of evidence consonant to the equal and humane spirit which breathes throughout the morality of the Gospel. Hume (History of England, c. 23) seems to think emancipation was brought about by selfish considerations on the part of the barons, and from a conviction that the returns from their lands would be increased by changing villeinage into socage tenures. 3 Robertson, America, Book 9; Bancroft, United States, Vol. I. c. 5. 4 Lofft, 18; 20 Howell State Trials, 1; Life of Granville Sharp, by Hoare, c. 4; Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, Vol. I. p. 189. The judgment of Lord Mansfield is said to The same opinion had been previously expressed by Lord Holt, but without authoritative decision.1 In Scotland a condition of servitude continued to a later period. The holding of negroes in slavery was indeed [* 299] held to be illegal * soon after the Sommersett Case; but the salters and colliers did not acquire their freedom until 1799, nor without an act of Parliament.2 A previous statute for their enfranchisement through judicial proceedings had proved ineffectual.3 The history of slavery in this country pertains rather to general history than to a work upon State constitutional law. Throughout the land involuntary servitude is abolished by constitutional amendment, except as it may be imposed in the punishment of crime. Nor do we suppose the exception will permit the convict to be subjected to other servitude than such as is under the control and direction of the public authorities, in the have been delivered with evident reluctance. 20 State Trials, 79; per Lord Stowell, 2 Hagg. Adm. 105, 110; Broom, Const. Law, 105. Of the practice prior to the decision Lord Stowell said: "The personal traffic in slaves resident in England had been as public and as authorized in London as in any of our West India Islands. They were sold on the Exchange, and other places of public resort, by parties themselves resident in London, and with as little reserve as they would have been in any of our West India possessions. Such a state of things continued without impeachment from a very early period up to nearly the end of the last century." The Slave Grace, 2 Hagg. Adm. 105. In this case it was decided that if a slave, carried by his master into a free country, voluntarily returned with him to a country where slavery was allowed by the local law, the status of slave would still attach to him, and the master's right to his service be resumed. Mr. Broom collects the authorities on this subject in general, in the notes to Sommersett's Case, Const. Law, 105. 1" As soon as a slave comes into England, he becomes free; one may be a villein in England, but not a slave." Holt, Ch. J., in Smith v. Brown, 2 Salk. 666. See also Smith v. Gould, Ld. Raym. 1274; s. c. Salk. 666. There is a learned note in Quincy's Rep. p. 94, collecting the English authorities on the subject of slavery. 2 39 Geo. III. c. 56. May's Const. Hist. c. 11. 4 Amendments to Const. of U. S. art. 13. See Story on the Constitution (4th ed.), c. 46, for the history of this article, and the decisions bearing upon it. The Maryland act for the apprenticing of colored children, which made important and invidious distinctions between them and white children, and gave the master property rights in their services not given in other cases, was held void under this article. Matter of Turner, 1 Abb. U. S. 84. This thirteenth amendment conferred no political rights, and left the negro under all his political disabilities. Marshall v. Donovon, 10 Bush, 681. See also United States v. Cruikshanks, 94 U. S. Rep. 542. manner heretofore customary. The laws of the several States. allow the letting of the services of the convicts, either singly or in numbers, to contractors who are to employ them in mechanical trades in or near the prison, and under the surveillance of its officers; but it might well be doubted if a regulation which should suffer the convict to be placed upon the auction block and sold to the highest bidder, either for life or for a term of years, would be in harmony with the constitutional prohibition. It is certain that it would be open to very grave abuses, and it is so inconsistent with the general sentiment in countries where slavery does not exist, that it may well be believed not to have been within the understanding of the people in incorporating the exception with the prohibitory amendment.1 The common law of England permits the impressment of seafaring men to man the royal navy;2 but this species of servitude was never recognized in the law of America. The citizen may doubtless be compelled to serve his country in her wars; but the common law as adopted by us has never allowed arbitrary discriminations for this purpose between persons of different avocations. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. Near in importance to exemption from any arbitrary control of the person is that maxim of the common law which secures to the citizen immunity in his home against the prying eyes of the government, and protection in person, property, and papers, against even the process of the law, except in a few specified cases. The maxim that "every man's house is his castle," is made. 5 State Trials, 276; 1 Bl. Com. 419; Broom, Const. Law, 116. 1 The State has no power to imprison a child in a house of correction who has committed no crime, on a mere allegation that he is "destitute of proper parental care, and is growing up in mendicancy, ignorance, idleness, and vice." People v. Turner, 55 Ill 280; s. c. 8 Am. Rep. 645. Compare Prescott v. State, 19 Ohio, N. s. 181; s. c. 2 Am. Rep. 388. 2 Broadfoot's Case, 18 State Trials, 1323; Fost. Cr. Law, 178; Rex v. Tubbs, Cowp. 512; Ex parte Fox, 8 There were cases of impressment in America before the Revolution, but they were never peaceably acquiesced in by the people. See Life and Times of Warren, 55. 4 Broom's Maxims, 321. The eloquent passage in Chatham's speech on General Warrants is familiar: "The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow [* 300] a part of our constitutional law in the clauses prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and has always been looked upon as of high value to the citizen. If in English history we inquire into the original occasion for these constitutional provisions, we shall probably find it in the abuse of executive authority, and in the unwarrantable intrusion of executive agents into the houses and among the private papers of individuals, in order to obtain evidence of political offences either committed or designed. The final overthrow of this practice is so clearly and succinctly stated in a recent work on the constitutional history of England that we cannot refrain from copying the account in the note below.1 through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the king of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." And see Lieber on Civil Liberty and Self-Government, c. 6. a 1 .6 Among the remnants of jurisprudence which had favored prerogative at the expense of liberty was that of the arrest of persons under general warrants, without previous evidence of their guilt or identification of their persons. This practice survived the Revolution, and was continued without question, on the ground of usage, until the reign of George III., when it received its death-blow from the boldness of Wilkes and the wisdom of Lord Camden. This question was brought to an issue by No. 45 of the North Briton,' already so often mentioned. There was a libel, but who was the libeller? Ministers knew not, nor waited to inquire, after the accustomed forms of law; but forthwith Lord Halifax, one of the secretaries of state, issued a warrant, directing four messengers, taking with them a constable, to search for the authors, printers, and publishers; and to apprehend and seize them, together with their papers, and bring them in safe custody before him. No one having been charged or even suspected, no evidence of crime having been offered, -no one was named in this dread instrument. The offence only was pointed at, not the offender. The magistrate who should have sought proofs of crime deputed this office to his messengers. Armed with their roving commission, they set forth in quest of unknown offenders; and, unable to take evidence, listened to rumors, idle tales, and curious guesses. They held in their hands the liberty of every man whom they were pleased to suspect. Nor were they triflers in their work. In three days they arrested no less than fortynine persons on suspicion, - many as innocent as Lord Halifax himself. Among the number was Dryden Leach, a printer, whom they took from his bed at night. They seized his papers, and even apprehended his journeymen and servants. He had printed one number of the North Briton,' and was then reprinting some other numbers; but as he happened not to have printed No. 45, he was released without being brought before Lord Halifax. They succeeded, however, in arresting Kearsley the publisher, and Balfe the printer, of the obnoxious number, with all their workmen. From them it was discovered that Wilkes was the culprit * The history of this controversy should be read in [* 301] connection with that in America immediately previous to of whom they were in search; but the evidence was not on oath; and the messengers received verbal directions to apprehend Wilkes under the general warrant. Wilkes, far keener than the crown lawyers, not seeing his own name there, declared it. ridiculous warrant against the whole English nation,' and refused to obey it. a But after being in custody of the messengers for some hours, in his own house, he was taken away in a chair, to appear before the secretaries of state. No sooner had he been removed than the messengers, returning to his house, proceeded to ransack his drawers; and carried off all his private papers, including even his will and his pocket-book. When brought into the presence of Lord Halifax and Lord Egremont, questions were put to Wilkes which he refused to answer; whereupon he was committed close prisoner to the Tower, denied the use of pen and paper, and interdicted from receiving the visits of his friends or even of his professional advisers. From this imprisonment, however, he was shortly released on a writ of habeas corpus, by reason of his privilege as a member of the House of Commons. - however, bills of exceptions were tendered and allowed. Mr. Wilkes himself brought an action against Mr. Wood, under-secretary of state, who had personally superintended the execution of the warrant. At this trial it was proved that Mr. Wood and the messengers, after Wilkes's removal in custody, had taken entire possession of his house, refusing admission to his friends; had sent for a blacksmith, who opened the drawers of his bureau; and having taken out the papers, had carried them away in a sack, without taking any list or inventory. All his private manuscripts were seized, and his pocket-book filled up the mouth of the sack. Lord Halifax was examined, and admitted that the warrant had been made out three days before he had received evidence that Wilkes was the author of the North Briton.' Lord Chief Justice Pratt thus spoke of the warrant: The defendant claimed a right, under precedents, to force persons' houses, break open escritoires, and seize their papers upon a general warrant, where no inventory is made of the things thus taken away, and where no offenders' names are specified in the warrant, and therefore a discretionary power given to messengers to search wherever their suspicions may chance to fall. If such a power is truly invested in a secretary of state, and he can delegate this power, it certainly may affect the person and property of every man in this kingdom, and is totally subversive of the liberty of the subject.' The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with one thousand pounds damages. "Wilkes and the printers, supported by Lord Temple's liberality, soon questioned the legality of the general warrant. First, several journeymen printers brought action against the messengers. On the first trial, Lord Chief Justice Pratt - - not allowing bad precedents to set aside the sound principles of English law held that the general warrant was illegal; that it was illegally executed; and that the messengers were not in- Four days after Wilkes had obdemnified by statute. The journey- tained his verdict against Mr. Wood, men recovered three hundred pounds Dryden Leach, the printer, gained damages; and the other plaintiffs also another verdict, with four hundred obtained verdicts. In all these cases, pounds damages, against the messen |