In diſcuſſing the relation of maſter and ſervant, I ſhall, firſt, conſider the ſeveral ſorts of ſervants, and how this relation is created and deſtroyed: ſecondly, the effect of this relation with regard to the parties themſelves: and, laſtly, it's effect with regard to other perſons.
I. As to the ſeveral ſorts of ſervants: I have formerly obſerved[1] that pure and proper ſlavery does not, nay cannot, ſubſiſt in England; ſuch I mean, whereby an abſolute and unlimited power is given to the maſter over the life and fortune of the ſlave. And indeed it is repugnant to reaſon, and the principles of natural law, that ſuch a ſtate ſhould ſubſiſt any where. The three origins of the right of ſlavery, aſſigned by Juſtinian[2], are all of them, built upon falſe foundations. As, firſt, ſlavery is held to ariſe "jure gentium" from a ſtate of captivity in war; whence ſlaves are called mancipia, quaſi manu capti. The conqueror, ſay the civilians, had a right to the life of his captive; and, having ſpared that, has a right to deal with him as he pleaſes. But it is an untrue poſition, when taken generally, that, by the law of nature or nations, a man may kill his enemy: he has only a right to kill him, in particular caſes; in caſes of abſolute neceſſity, for ſelf-defence; and it is plain this abſolute neceſſity did not ſubſiſt, ſince the victor did not actually kill him, but made him priſoner. War is itſelf juſtifiable only on principles of ſelf-preſervation; and therefore it gives no other right over priſoners, but merely to diſable them from doing harm to us, by confining their perſons: much leſs can it give a right to kill, torture, abuſe, plunder, or even to enſlave, an enemy, when the war is over. Since therefore the right of making ſlaves by captivity, depends on a ſuppoſed right of ſlaughter, that foundation failing, the conſequence drawn from it muſt fail likewiſe. But, ſecondly, it is ſaid that ſlavery may begin "jure civili;" when one man ſells himſelf to another. This, if only meant of contracts to ſerve or
