header-logo header-logo

09 June 2023 / Malcolm Bishop KC
Issue: 8028 / Categories: Features , Equality , Human rights
printer mail-detail

The abolition of slavery: why words don’t count

125535
It’s not what was said but what others thought was said… Malcolm Bishop KC reflects on the abolition of slavery & the extraordinary legacy of Somerset

‘The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe; let the black go free!’ These words of Lord Mansfield in the celebrated case of Somerset v Stuart have echoed down the ages as a landmark judgment in the history of the abolition of slavery. But there’s a slight difficulty. He never said it. In fact, it is not easy to discover what he did say, because in 1772 when the judgment was given the law reports had not yet attained the accuracy of later years. There was no court recordings and Mr Pitman’s shorthand had not yet been invented. Reporters took down what the judges said as best they could, as did newspapers who in those days would report in extenso the judgments of topical cases, and Mansfield’s famous words appear to have been taken from a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll