Somerset v Stewart (1772)

Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 is a landmark decision by the Court of King's Bench, which ruled on the legality of slavery on English soil. It arose from the attempted forced transportation of James Somerset, an enslaved African man, from England to Jamaica for sale. Somerset had been purchased in the American colonies by Charles Stewart, a British customs officer. Upon their arrival in England in 1769, Somerset eventually escaped, but he was recaptured and detained on a ship set to sail for Jamaica. His three godparents, following his Christian baptism, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his detention.

Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, presided over the case. He granted temporary liberty to Somerset while arguments were prepared, and the case drew significant public attention. Somerset's legal team, backed by abolitionist Granville Sharp, argued that slavery had no legal basis in English common or statutory law. They contended that while slavery might be recognised in colonial territories, it could not be upheld in England without positive law (i.e. explicit legislation). In contrast, Stewart's legal team defended the property rights of slave owners and warned of economic and social disruption if Somerset were freed.

When the matter was ultimately decided in June 1772, Lord Mansfield delivered a judgment that has echoed through legal history. He stated that slavery was "so odious" that it could only be supported by positive law, and no such law existed in England. Mansfield refused to rely on customary practice or foreign laws, making it clear that English courts could not authorise the forced removal of a man to be sold as a slave. Consequently, Somerset was ordered to be discharged.

The ruling did not abolish slavery outright in England or its colonies, but it marked a critical turning point. Mansfield limited his decision to the facts before him, stating that the case resolved only whether a slave could be forcibly removed from England. Nevertheless, abolitionists hailed the decision as a moral victory. It was widely interpreted as a blow to the legal institution of slavery within England and galvanised the anti-slavery movement both in Britain and abroad. The case sent ripples across the Atlantic, particularly among the American colonies where slavery remained entrenched.

Despite its significance, later commentary by Lord Mansfield, such as in R v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton (1785), emphasised the narrow scope of the decision clarifying that it merely prohibited the forced deportation of slaves from England, not slavery in general. The celebrated line “England is too pure an air for a slave to breathe” was never uttered by Mansfield himself but likely originated from Somerset's counsel or earlier common law traditions. Regardless, Somerset v Stewart remains a foundational case in the legal and moral discourse surrounding slavery, liberty, and the role of English law in upholding human dignity.