336

LAW OF HOLLAND AND POLAND.

c. de nudo jur. Quirit., n. 3. Zypæ, notit. jur., l. 6, tit. I. Christin. vol. 4, decis. 80, n. 2, et seqq. Papon, notair. 3, 1. 7, de lettr. d'affranchi, princ. Charond. Pandect. du droict franc. 1. 2, c. 2, sect. mergin. droict de suite ou poursuite. Autumn, confer de his qui ad eccles. Mornac, in l. 19. Denique D. ex quibus caus. major. Boer, ad cons. Bitur. tit. 1, § 1. Adde quæ dixi C. de Agricol."

§ 260. An occurrence related by Wicquefort,' is sometimes cited as a recognition of the same doctrine by Poland during the period of her independent existence. It in fact only shows that the estates of Holland, i. e., the government, were willing, in favor of a powerful nation, to construe the law of nations to the prejudice of a weaker, and in derogation of the rights of persons under private law, as explained by their own jurists. A certain Pole left his own country and went into Muscovy, where he attached himself to the suite of an ambassador who was to proceed to Holland. It does not appear that in Muscovy he had sold himself as a slave, or lost the status of a freeman.3 Wicquefort says, " s'estoit retirée en Moscovie et s'estoit mis à la suite de deux Ambassadeurs que le Czaar envoyoit en Hollande : mais son dessein estoit de ne retourner point dans un païs, où tout le monde est esclave. Il se deroba de la suite des Ambassadeurs et se retira chez le Resident de Pologne ; qui, craignant ce qui lui arriva depuis, le fit evader. Les Muscovites en firent tant de bruit, que les Estats de Hollande, aprés avoir fait occuper toutes les avenues de la maison, y firent entrer quelques officiers et soldats pour faire la recherche du fugitif. Ils n'y trouvèrent personne, et cependant ils firent cet affront au ministre public du roy de Pologne." The Polish Ambassador may be supposed to have held that a slave became free either by being in Holland or by being within the house of the representative of his native country. But the question here, apparently, was one of allegiance, not of personal status.

§ 261. Wicquefort in commenting on this, thus declares

1 Ambassadeur et ses Functions, par M. de Wicquefort, vol. I., p. 418.

'1 Phillimore, p. 342.

As the case is cited by some writers, e. g. Phillimore, l. c.

LAW OF FRANCE. BODIN.

337

the French law in such cases: "Le Polonois n'estoit point esclave né du Czaar; et s'il l'estoit devenu en allant demeurer en Moscovie, il recouvra sa liberté naturelle en mettant le pié dans un païs qui ne nourrit point d'esclaves, et où on ne devroit point scavoir ce que c'est que de servitude ou d'esclavage. Les Jurisconsultes Francois disent, que l'air de France est si bon et si bénin, que dès qu'un esclave entre dans le Roiaume, mesme à la suite d'un ambassadeur, il ne respire que liberté et la recouvre aussi-tost."

Bodin, in his Republic, book 1, c. 5, appears to be the oldest French authority. (Knolles' transl. London, 1606, p. 42.) "But in France, although there be some remembrance of old servitude, yet it is not lawful there to make any slave, or to buy any of others insomuch that the slaves of strangers, so soon as they set their foot within France become frank and free; as was by an old decree of the court of Paris determined against an ambassador of Spain, who had brought a slave with him into France.' And I remember that of late a Geneva merchant having brought with him unto Thoulouze a slave whom he had bought in Spain, the host of the house, understanding the matter, persuaded the slave to appeal unto his liberty. The matter being brought before the magistrates, the merchant was called for the Attorney General, out of the records, showed certain ancient privileges given (as is said) unto them of Thoulouze by Theodosius the Great, wherein he had granted, that slaves so soon as they come into Thoulouze should be free. The merchant alledging for himself that he had truly bought his slave in Spain, and so was afterward come to Thoulouze, from

1 Bynkershoek, Du Juge Competent des Ambassadeurs, (translated into French by Barbeyrac, and published in his edition of Wicquefort's Ambassador,) ch. 15, § 3, refers to Albericus Gentilis, De Jure Belli, Lib. II, and this passage in Bodin, for this case of setting free in France the slave of an Ambassador. He refers to Kirchener, (Legat., Lib. 2, c. 1, num. 233,) as disapproving of this. Bynkershoek agrees with him; but their objection is founded on the privileges granted to Ambassadors by international law. Barbeyrac says, in a note, that the decision was made-"En vertu de l'usage reçû en France, et ailleurs, selon lequel un esclave devient libre, dès qu'il a mis le pié dans les terres du pais. Voiez les auteurs, cités par Groenewegen, De Legib. Abrog. ad tit. Instit., De his qui sui vel alieni juris, p. 5. Mais ici l'esclave, en-qualité d'homme appartenant à l'Ambassadeur, est regardé comme n'etant point dans le pais." But this objection to it makes the precedent stronger in the case of private persons.

In the negro case, 15 Causes Cel. p. 12, Loysel's Institutes is cited as mentioning the same or a similar case occurring in 1571.

338

LAW OF FRANCE. BODIN.

thence to go home to Geneva, and so not to be bound to the laws of France. In the end he requested that if they would needs deal so hardly with him, as to set at liberty another man's slave, yet they should at least restore unto him the money he cost him whereunto the Judges answered, that it was a matter to be considered of. In the mean time the merchant, fearing lest he should lose both his dutiful slave and his money also, of himself set him at liberty, yet covenanting with him that he should serve him so long as he lived."

In the French edition, Paris, 1577, the corresponding passage is as follows. "Et me sousvient estant en Thoulouze qu'un Gènevois, y passant, fut contraint d'affranchir un esclave qu'il avait achepté en Espagne, voyant que les Capitouls le vouloient declarer franc et libre, tant en virtu de la coustume generale du Royaume, que d'un privilège spécial, que l'Empereur Theodoze le Grand leur donna, ainsi qu'ils disaient, que tout esclave mettant le pied en Tholouze etait franc; chose toutefois qui n'est pas vrai-semblable."

In the argument of the case of Jean Boucaut and others, claimed as the slaves of Verdelin in the French Causes Celèbres. tom. 15, p. 12, a case is mentioned as having occurred in 1552, at the siege of Metz, where a demand having been made by the Spanish General, for a slave who had escaped into the town, upon M. de Guise commanding the place, the latter, "fit réponse que la franchise que l'esclave avoit acquise dans la ville de Metz, selon l'ancienne et bonne coutume de France, ne lui permettoit pas de le lui rendre."

'In the original, after this mention of the contract for a life service, is added— "qui est une chose rejettée en terme de droit"-this apparently has been overlooked by the English translator. The meaning is probably that such a contract would not be enforced by a legal tribunal.

2 From the remainder of the passage it appears that the author's doubt does not refer to the correctness of the rule, but to its origin; that is, whether it was, as supposed, a local or municipal rule derived from a special Imperial decree. He argues that no Roman colony nor even Rome itself ever had such a privilege in the times of the Roman Empire, and refers the decision to the general custom of France-" tant en virtu de la coustume générale du Royaume." The language of the ordinance of Thoulouse is given by Mr. Justice Campbell, 19 Howard, 497, and his argument rests upon the doctrine, thus repudiated by Bodin,-that the law or principle was derived from "special ordinances or charters."

Two other instances are cited by M. Tribaud in Causes Celèbres, tom. 15, pp. 31, 32, of slaves having been declared free in Thoulouse, after having escaped from Spain.

CUSTOMARY LAW OF FRANCE.

339

Barrington on the Statutes, p. 254, note, says, "It appears from Boulainvilliers, that the question was formerly much agitated in the French courts of justice:' but in the Institutes Coustumières, (published at Paris, 1679,) it is laid down with great precision that a slave becomes free as soon as he enters the French territories and is baptized. "Toutes personnes sont franches en ce Royaume, et si-tost qu'un esclave a atteint les marches d'iceluy se faisant baptiser est affranchi.”

In a treatise entitled, Remarques du Droit François, &c., 4to. Paris, 1680, par M. H. M. Advocat, p. 11, commenting on the title De Jure Personarum, it is said, "La France n'admet point de différence des personnes, sçavoir d'estre libre ou serf, car par la loy générale de ce Royaume toutes les personnes sont libres et franches et l'on observe le premier article de la Coutume de Bourg. qui ordonne de la sorte. C'est pourquoy quand un serf et un esclave se refugie en France, aussi-tost qu'il en a atteint les marches et qu'il s'est fait baptiser, il est affranchy."

Argentré, tom. I. p. 4, is another authority cited, 1 Burge, p. 738, to the effect that slaves on entering France became free.

1

§ 262. According to Heineccius, in a note as editor in 1726, Lugd. Batav. to Vinnius' Commentaries, Lib. I. tit. 3, the law of Germany differed from that of France and Holland, at least in respect to fugitive serfs. After referring to Bodin, Charondas, Gudelin, Zypæ, etc., as authority for escaped slaves becoming free," Itaque, in Belgis et Gallia, et servi ipso jure liberi fiunt

It is to be observed that at this time serfdom, as the condition of a Christian European, still existed in France. The author of the work last cited in the text adds to the statement there quoted-"Il est vray qu'en Bourgogne, il y a des mortaillables, que la France peut appeller adjectos glebæ, c'est à dire, des hommes tellement attachés, à la terre qu'ils ont pris par emphiteose, qu'ils ne la peuvent quitter. Ce qui est un espèce de servitude." And Bodin, at the page last cited, says,"I have seen the Lord of the White Rock in Gascongne claim to have not only a right over his manumised subjects, and also that they were bound to trim his vines, to till his grounds, to mow his meadows, to reap and thresh his corn, to carry and recarry whatsoever he should command them, to repair his decayed house, to pay his ransom, and also the four ac customed payments used in this realm; but also that if without his leave they should change their dwelling places wherein they were born, or depart out of his land, he might lead them home again in a halter; unto all which the aforesaid services his manumised people yielded, saving unto the last, which by a decree of the Parliament of Thoulouse was cut off, as prejudicial unto the right of liberty." This is noticed in argument of the negro case, vol. 15, Causes Celèbres (ed. Amsterdam, 1766,) p. 11. See Mainmorte in Encyc. Fr., 20 Howell's State Tr. p. 1370. An edict of Louis XVI., 1779, was for the abolition of this kind of serfdom.

340

LAW OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE.

eo adventatantes. Ast in Germania non solum dominis conceditur ut possint homines proprios vindicare, etsi eo profugerint ubi illa servitus non sit recepta (vid. Dan. Mevii Consil. jurid. de statu et vindicatione hominum propr.) verum etiam-quibus, dam locis, ipso jure fiunt servi quicunque perigrini eo adveniunt, emorandi et habitandi causa, veluti in Algonia, ubi ideo sæpe auditur paroemia: Die Luft macht eigen, id est, ipse aer homines proprios facit. Hert de homin. propr. sect. 3, § 3. Tale et olim fuit jus Wildfangiatus in Palatinatu electorali et provinciis vicinis, de quo Londorp. Act Pub. Continuat. Lib. 10, p. 126."

By the private international law of these provinces then, the peaceful alien, not protected by some special treaty, and of whatever condition at home, was regarded either as a stray chattel which the lord of the soil might appropriate, or an enemy who might be enslaved; as under the doctrine of the early Roman law. See Ante, p. 151, note 2. The passage indicates a disregard of all private international law as a protection for aliens, whether bond or free. The right accorded to feudal lords of reclaiming their serfs, was an effect of a law prevailing as between the different petty sovereigns recognized in the constitution of the German empire, at a time when feudal bondage still existed in the respective dominions of each.'

§ 263. To the Flemish and French authorities, before cited, so far as they justify the international disallowance of the master's claim of ownership, it may perhaps be objected that the distinction of race which, in the fourth chapter, was described as having about the close of the 15th century acquired recognition in universal jurisprudence-the law of nations-supporting the chattel slavery of Moors, Negroes and Indians, was not noticed, and that the rule given by these authorities should be taken to apply only to European serfs, bondsmen under feudal

In Dred Scott's case, 19th Howard 495, Mr. Justice Campbell cites, from the Capitularies of Charlemagne a rule for the rendition of fugitive slaves. Chattel slavery as well as serfdom, was probably then prevailing in all the dominions of this Emperor. See Ante, p. 159, n. Other similar laws of that time might have been cited. "Etiam Caroli M., Ludovici Pii et Lotharii leges de servis supersunt in Lib. 44, Car. M. et Longob. Imo et Guilielmi Siciliæ Regis et Frederici Imp. extant de servis fugitivis constitutiones in plac. Neap. Sed ab hoc tempore id est A. C. 1212, aut non multo secus, Christiani se mutuo in servitutem redigere desierunt.” Huberus, Prælectiones, Lib. I. tit. IV. 6.