Five-minute digest

Somerset v. Stewart (Somerset's Case)

Lord Mansfield (Court of King's Bench)

Summary

Somerset v. Stewart, decided by the Court of King's Bench in London in June 1772, is the most famous English case on slavery. James Somerset was an African who had been enslaved and bought in Virginia by Charles Stewart, a Scottish customs official in the American colonies. In 1769 Stewart brought him to England. In 1771 Somerset left his master's service. He was recaptured and put in irons aboard the ship Ann and Mary, which was to carry him to Jamaica for sale. Three people who had stood as Somerset's godparents at his baptism in London applied for a writ of habeas corpus, which required the ship's captain to bring Somerset before the court and show the legal cause for holding him. The abolitionist Granville Sharp, who had already fought several cases for enslaved Africans in England, helped organize the case, and five lawyers argued for Somerset without fee, among them Serjeant William Davy, Serjeant John Glynn and the young Francis Hargrave. They argued that English law did not recognize slavery, that a person in England could not be forcibly removed from the country, and that the liberty of the subject protected everyone on English soil. Stewart's lawyers, supported by West Indian planters, argued that property in slaves was lawful in the colonies and that thousands of slaves already lived in England. Lord Mansfield, the Lord Chief Justice, had hoped the parties would settle, and he warned of the consequences for the many slaveholders in England. On 22 June 1772 he gave judgment. As reported, he held that slavery was so odious that it could be supported only by positive law, that no such law existed in England, and that the master therefore had no power to force Somerset out of the country. Somerset was discharged. The precise holding was narrow: it forbade the forcible removal of a slave from England, and Mansfield did not declare slavery abolished. But the case was widely understood, in Britain and the colonies, to mean that slavery could not exist in England, and many enslaved people in England acted on that belief. American slaveholders feared its implications, and abolitionists cited it for decades. Its principle that slavery requires positive law later shaped arguments in American cases on slaves taken into free states. Slavery continued in the British colonies until Parliament abolished it in 1833.

Top Lessons

A writ for every person
Habeas corpus protected Somerset even though he had been treated as property. The law's protections must reach the powerless.
Related across the library
- United States v. The Amistad, Lesson: Law over politics
  Law over politics. The President's administration wanted the Africans returned, but the courts followed the law and the evidence. Independent courts protect the powerless.
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Lesson: The legitimacy of a court
  The legitimacy of a court. The joint opinion argues that a court without purse or sword depends on public confidence in its principled character, and that overruling a divisive decision under pressure would spend that confidence. Its critics reply that the Court's legitimacy depends on faithful interpretation, not on constancy for its own sake.
- Ex parte Milligan, Full Text
  to entertain the application for the writ of habeas corpus and to hear and determine it and it could not be denied for the power is expressly given in the th section of the Judiciary Act of as well as in the later act of Chief Justice Marshall in Bollman's case construed this branch of the Judiciary Act to authorize the courts as well as the judges to issue the writ for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the commitment and this construction has never been departed from But it is maintained with earnestne...
- West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Lesson: Overruling a precedent
  Overruling a precedent. The Court had decided Adkins in 1923 and reaffirmed its rule in 1936. Hughes explains why the question was open again and why the earlier dissents now persuade a majority; Sutherland insists that a sound decision should not give way merely because times are hard. The case is a lesson in how courts weigh stability against correction.
- Areopagitica, Lesson: Virtue must be tested to be real
  Virtue must be tested to be real. Milton's central moral claim is that goodness which has never faced temptation is untried innocence, not virtue. Since the fall, good is known alongside evil, and the Christian is a warfaring soldier who must see vice, understand it, and still choose the better. Shielding adults from every bad book cannot make them good.
Courage and persistence
Granville Sharp and volunteer lawyers worked for years to bring such cases. Justice often depends on people willing to act for others at their own cost.
Related across the library
- United States v. The Amistad, Lesson: Law over politics
  Law over politics. The President's administration wanted the Africans returned, but the courts followed the law and the evidence. Independent courts protect the powerless.
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Lesson: The legitimacy of a court
  The legitimacy of a court. The joint opinion argues that a court without purse or sword depends on public confidence in its principled character, and that overruling a divisive decision under pressure would spend that confidence. Its critics reply that the Court's legitimacy depends on faithful interpretation, not on constancy for its own sake.
- The Woman in White, Lesson: Marian's courage
  Marian's courage. Marian is the first character whom the reader sees through another's eyes as unfashionable, and she becomes the one Fosco respects most. Her night on the verandah roof in the rain, her watchfulness at Blackwater Park and her rescue of Laura from the asylum make her the moving force of the plot, as Walter acknowledges in the last line.
- Fletcher v. Peck, Lesson: The innocent purchaser
  The innocent purchaser. The legislators of 1795 were widely believed to have been bribed, but Fletcher and Peck had bought years later and far away. The Court asked whose rights should suffer when an original transaction was tainted, and answered that a purchaser for value without notice keeps his title.
- The Republic and The Laws, Lesson: A people is joined by justice, not by numbers
  A people is joined by justice, not by numbers. Scipio's definition says a crowd is not yet a people. A commonwealth exists only where citizens share an agreement about what is right and a common interest. When rulers or majorities stop serving that common good, the community loses the thing that made it a commonwealth.
Narrow holdings, broad effects
Mansfield decided only that Somerset could not be forced out of England, but people understood the case to mean far more. Ideas of justice can outrun the words of a ruling.
Related across the library
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, Lesson: Persistence in the courts
  Persistence in the courts. Dred and Harriet Scott pursued their claims from 1846 to 1857 through trial, appeal, a new federal suit and two arguments in Washington. Their case is a reminder that great constitutional decisions begin with particular families and long, costly litigation.
- West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Lesson: Overruling a precedent
  Overruling a precedent. The Court had decided Adkins in 1923 and reaffirmed its rule in 1936. Hughes explains why the question was open again and why the earlier dissents now persuade a majority; Sutherland insists that a sound decision should not give way merely because times are hard. The case is a lesson in how courts weigh stability against correction.
- United States v. The Amistad, Statement of the case and arguments of counsel
  the governor-general Would such evidence on one of our own courts be deemed adequate to set aside a judicial proceeding or an act of a public functionary done in the due exercise of his office How then can it be adequate to such an end before the tribunals of a foreign country when they pass upon the internal municipal acts of another government and when the endeavor is made to set them aside in a mater relating to their own property and people But admit this evidence to be competent and sufficient admit these n...
- United States v. The Amistad, Lesson: Law over politics
  Law over politics. The President's administration wanted the Africans returned, but the courts followed the law and the evidence. Independent courts protect the powerless.
- United States v. The Amistad, Summary
  United States v. The Amistad is the Supreme Court case that freed the African captives who had seized the Spanish schooner Amistad. In 1839 Portuguese slave traders kidnapped a large group of people, most of them Mende, from the region of present-day Sierra Leone and carried them illegally to Havana, in violation of Spanish laws and treaties against the African slave trade. There José Ruiz and Pedro Montez bought fifty-three of them, with forged papers calling them Cuban-born slaves, and shipped them on the Amis...

Somerset v. Stewart (Somerset's Case)

Summary

Top Lessons

A writ for every person

Courage and persistence

Narrow holdings, broad effects

Verified Quotes