is concerned, that if the Convention con-
tinue the institution of slavery, this article
in the Declaration of Rights would not ne-
cessarily set any man free, because it might
be said that he was deprived of his liberty
by the law of the land. But it appeared to
those of the committee who agreed to this
change, that if the policy of freedom was to
be adopted in Maryland, as we believed it
was, there was no necessity of retaining the
word " free," but that the proposition better
be expressed in general language.
Now the reason why " liber homo" was
put in Magna Charta was that there were
some in England who were not free; and the
barons of England did not intend to declare
that the serfs of England should be entitled
to the same privileges with themselves. As
great as that Magna Charta, was an advance
in civilization, it did not intend to declare
the right of all Englishmen, but was only
intended to secure the rights of the barons
and their class. Now if slavery is abolished
in Maryland, every main in the State will be
free, and the word "freeman" would mean
no more than "man." Or if it did mean
more, it could not apply to the people of Ma-
ryland, but to the people of some foreign
country where despotism still prevails and
where all are not free. And if this Conven-
tion shall determine not to emancipate the
slaves, no man's right to his slaves would be
taken away or impaired by this article as it
now stands. If the Convention should eman-
cipate the slaves then the article would be
more consistent with the facts, for if there is
no man in the State who is not a freeman,
then there is no use in making the distinction
here. We have, for many years past, gone
beyond Magna Charta in regard to all white
people, and if we now include all of the other
races, there is no use in this word "free " to
indicate a distinction which does not exist ;
for the only class of persons who will not be
free are those persons in confinement awaiting
trial or serving out the penalty for the crimes
of which they have been convicted, and they
have been deprived by the law of the land of
the rights which they had before,
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I hope the old
language of Magna Charta, which is conse-
crated by so many centuries, will be retained
by this Convention, and restored to the bill
of rights wherever It has been removed, unless
there can be shown that some decided im-
provement is made in the phraseology by the
proposed change. Every syllable of that
great and ancient charter is held by Lord
Coke to be so important that it ought not to
escape the attention of the learned reader.
And I beg to ask the chairman of the com-
mittee (Mr. Stirling) if be will not forego his
opposition to this amendment in consider-
ation of the opinion of Sir Edward Coke,
upon this point of adhering strictly to the
language of Magna Charta. He says : |
"It is called 'Magna Charta,' not that it
is great in quantity, for there be many vol-
uminous charters commonly passed, specially
in these later times, longer than this is; nor
comparatively that it is greater than Charta
de Foresta, but in respect of the great im-
portance and weightiness of the matter, as
shall hereafter appear.
"As the gold-finer will not, out of the
dust, threads, or shreds of gold, let pass the
last crumb, in respect of the excellency of the
metal, so ought not the learned reader to let
pass any syllable of THIS LAW, in respect to
the excellency of the matter."
Now I find that everywhere, in all the re-
newals of Magna Charta by successive Kings
of Great Britain, the same phraseology is
preserved that is sought to be restored by the
gentleman from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller.)
In the original charter of King John, the 25th
article was in these words :
"No freeman shall be seized, or impris-
oned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any
way destroyed; nor will we condemn him,
nor will we commit him to prison, except by
the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law
of the land."
That was the original language in the char-
ter of King John. in the renewal of that
charter, with some amendment to it, it was
substantially made to read as follows :
"No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned,
or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any
way destroyed; nor will we condemn him,
nor will we commit him to prison except by
the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law
of the land."
In the charter of King Henry III., the lan-
guage as preserved, is nearly the same as that
ill article 22 of this bill of rights. The
"nullus liber homo" of the original is pre-
served.
" No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned,
or dispossessed of his free tenement, or lib-
erties, or free customs; or be outlawed, or
exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we
condemn him, nor will we commit him to
prison, excerpt by the legal judgment of his
peers, or by the laws of the land."
This phraseology was doubtless used, us
the chairman of the committee has suggested,
because villeinage or serfdom then existed in
Great Britain; and the barons did not intend
that these rights, that they were claiming
from the King, and receiving by Magna
Charta, should beextended to that class of
people. But I think it is very appropriate
that we should continue the phraseology
there used, in this Declaration of Rights.
For although this Convention may pass the
section which abolishes slavery in this State,
yet it is not proposed, as I understand, to put
the freed negro upon an entire equality with
the white man; and in that case it will not
be literally true that they will be tried by
their peers, for negroes do not sit on juries. |
