Muratori, treating of the Roman slaves and freedmen, acknowledges that he is unable accurately to state the conditions on which they manumitted their slaves. In his treatise, "Sopra i Servi e Liberti Antichi," he has a passage thus:

Noi non sappiamo se con patti, e con quai patti una vulta si manomettessero que' Servi, che poi continuavano come Liberti a servire in Casa de' loro Padroni, con essere alzati a piu onorati impieghi. Sappiamo bensi dal Tit. ne Operis Libertorum, e dall' altro de bonis Libertorum ne' Digesti, che moltissimi acquistavano la Liberta con obbligarsi di fare ai Padroni de' Regaii, o delle Fatture, se erano Artefici, Operas, vel Donum. Questo si praticava verisimilmente dai soli Mercatanti, ed altri Signori dati all' interarse, ma non gia dalle Nobili Case. Per conto di questo, le antiche Iscrizioni ci fanno vedere, che moltissimi furono coloro, che anche dopo la conseguita Liberta seguitavano a convivere, e servire in quelle medesime Case, non piu come Servi, ma come Liberti, perche probabilmente tornava il conto agli uni e agli altri. I Padroni si servivano di Persone loro confidenti, e gia innestate nella propria Famiglia; ei Liberti cresciuti di onore, e di guadagno poteano cumulare roba per se e per li Figli. Non ho io potuto scoprire se i Romani tenessero Servi Mercenarj come oggidi. O di veri Servi, o di Liberti allora si servivano. Cio posto, maraviglia e, che il Pignoria, in trattando degli Ufizj de' Servi antichi, imbrogliasse tanto le carte, senza distinguere i Servi dai Liberti, e con attribuir molti impieghi ai primi, che pure erano riserbati agli ultimi. E piu da stupire e, citarsi da lui Marmi, che parlano di Liberti, e pure sono presi da esso, come se parlassero di Servi.

We know not whether they manumitted upon condition, or, if so, upon what conditions they manumitted formerly those servants who continued thenceforth as freed persons, but elevated to more honourable employments, to serve in the houses of their masters. We do indeed know in the Tit. de Operis Libertorum, and in another de bonis Libertorum of the Digests, that very many acquired their liberty with the obligation of giving to their masters presents, or doing work if they were artists, Operas vel donum. This was in all likelihood practised only by merchants or other masters given to making profit, but not by noble houses. As to these the ancient inscriptions exhibit to us that very many who obtained their freedom, yet continued to live and to do service in those same houses, no longer as slaves, but as freed persons, because

probably each party found it beneficial. The patrons kept about them persons in whom they had confidence, and who had already been engrafted on their families; the freed persons, grown to honour and making profit could create property for themselves and for their children. I cannot discover whether the Romans had hireling servants, as is now the case. They had then true slaves and sometimes freed persons. This being the case, it is matter of surprise that Pignoria, in treating of the employment of the ancient slaves, should have been so perplexed as not to be able clearly to distinguish slaves from freed persons, and should have attributed to the former many employments which were specially reserved for the latter and it is more to be wondered at, that marbles which speak of freed persons are referred to by him and explained as treating of slaves.

It is clear that even in the days of the Emperor Claudius, to whose reign, A. D. 45, the marble of which he treats refers, and probably long before that period, many of the freedmen of the Roman empire were bound to do certain services for the patrons who had been their masters, and that this obligation descended to their progeny. Hence this would still be a species of servitude.

The barbarians who overran the empire came chiefly from Scythia and Germany, as that vast region was then called which stretches from the Alps to the Northern Ocean. When they settled in the conquered provinces of Gaul and in Italy, they introduced many of their customs as well of government as of policy. Most of their slaves were what the writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries describe as coloni and conditionibus obligati. As Tacitus describes, in xxv. De Moribus Germanorum :

"The slaves in general are not arranged at their several employments in the household affairs, as is the practice at Rome. Each has his separate habitation, and his own establishment to manage. The master considers him as an agrarian dependant, who is obliged to furnish a certain quantity of grain, cattle, or wearingapparel. The slave obeys, and the state of servitude extends no further. All domestic affairs are managed by the master's wife and children. To punish a slave with stripes, to load him with chains, or condemn him to hard labour, is unusual. It is true that slaves are sometimes put to death, not under colour of justice, or of any authority vested in the master; but in a transport of passion, in a fit of rage, as is often the case in a sudden affray; but it is also true that this species of homicide passes with impu

nity. The freedmen are not of much higher consideration than the actual slaves; they obtain no rank in their master's family, and, if we except the parts of Germany where monarchy is established, they never figure on the stage of public business. In despotic governments they often rise above the men of ingenuous birth, and even eclipse the whole body of the nobles. In other states the subordination of the freedmen is a proof of public liberty."

At all ages, slaves who belonged to the absolute monarch, sometimes became elevated above the native nobility: witness the case of Joseph in Egypt; of Ebed Melech, who was black, in Judea ; of Haman, also a black, an Amalekite; of Mordecai, his successor; of Esther the queen; of Daniel the prophet, and Felix, governor of Judea, a Greek slave to the Roman emperor. But such things can never occur in a republic. To a political misfortune of this kind the prophet alludes-"Servants (slaves) have ruled over us"—than which nothing can be more expressive of the loss of liberty.

In the appendix to the Theodosian code, Const. 5, we read— Inverecundâ arte defendetur, si hi ad conditionem vel originem reposcuntur, quibus tempore famis, cum in mortem penuria cogerentur, opitulari non potuit dominus aut patronus.

It is forbidden as a shameless trick, that an effort should be made to regain to their condition or original state, those whom the master, or patron could not aid, when, in a period of famine, they were pressed nearly to death by want.

This exhibits the obligation on the patron of the person under condition, and on the master of the slave, to support them, and the destruction of their title by the neglect of their duty.

Muratori observes, that in process of time, the special agreements and particular enactments regarding the conditions, gave such a variety as baffled all attempts at classification and precision.

At a much earlier period, slaves had become a drug in the Italian market. When, about the year 405, Rhadagasius, the Goth, was leading upwards of three hundred thousand of his barbarians into Italy, the Emperor Honorius ordered the slaves to be armed for the defence of the country, by which arming they generally obtained their freedom; Stilichon, the consul, slew nearly one hundred and fifty thousand of the invaders in the vicinity of Florence, and made prisoners of the remainder, who were sold as slaves at the low price of one piece of gold for each.

Jacobs estimates the aureus at eleven shillings. It is supposed to have contained about 70 grains of gold, which will make the price of a slave, at that time, about $2.60. But Wilkins (Leges Saxon.) informs us that, in England, about the year 1000, the price of a slave was £2 16s. 3d. sterling, not quite the value of two horses. But, of these slaves of Stilichon, numbers died within the year, so that Baronius relates (Annals, A. D. 406), that the purchasers had to pay more for their burial than for their bodies; according to the remarks of Orosius, in this state of the market, it was easy for the slave to procure that he should be held at a condition, and thenceforth the number under condition greatly increased, and in process of time became more numerous than those in absolute slavery.

In the year 541, the fourth council of Orleans was celebrated, in the thirtieth year of King Childebert. The ninth canon:-Ut episcopus, qui de facultate propria ecclesiæ nihil relinquit, de ecclesiæ facultate si quid aliter quam canones eloquuntur obligaverit, vendiderit aut distraxerit, ad ecclesiam revocetur, (ab ecclesia, in other editions.) Sane si de servis ecclesiæ libertos fecit numero competenti, in ingenuitate permaneant, ita ut ab officio ecclesiæ non recedant.

Be it enacted, That a bishop who has left none of his private property to the church shall not dispose of any of the church property, otherwise than as the canons point out. Should he bind or sell or separate any thing otherwise, let it be recalled for the church. But if, indeed, he has made freemen of slaves of the church to a reasonable number, let them continue in their freedom, but with the obligation of not departing from the duty of the church. The canon xxii. of the same council is

Ut servis ecclesiæ, vel sacerdotum, prædas et captivitates exercere non liceat; qui iniquum est, ut quorum domini redemptionis præstare solent suffragium, per servorum excessum disciplina eeclesiastica maculetur.

That it be not lawful for the slaves of the church, or of the priests, to go on predatory excursions or to make captives, for it is unjust that when the masters are accustomed to aid in redeeming, the discipline of the church should be disgraced by the misconduct of the slaves.

In Judaism, God had established a limited sanctuary for slaves and for certain malefactors, not to encourage crime, but to protect against the fury of passion, and to give some sort of aid to the

feeble. Paganism adopted the principle, and the Christian temple and its precincts became, not only by common consent, but by legal enactment, the sanctuary instead of the former. Like every useful institution, this too was occasionally abused.

The xxixth canon was—

Quæcumque mancipia sub specie conjugii ad ecclesiæ septa confugerint, ut per hoc credant posse fieri conjugium, minime eis licentia tribuatur, nec talis conjunctio a clericis defensetur: quia probatum est, ut sine legitimâ traditione conjuncti, pro religionis ordine, statuto tempore ab Ecclesiæ communione suspendantur, ne in sacris locis turpi concubitu misceantur. De quâ re decernimus, ut parentibus aut propriis dominis, prout ratio poscit personarum, acceptâ fide excusati sub separationis promissione reddantur: postmodum tamen parentibus atque dominis libertate concessâ, si eos voluerint propriâ voluntate conjungere.

Let not those slaves who, under pretext of marriage, take refuge within the precincts of the church, imagining that by this they would make a marriage, be allowed to do so, nor let such union be countenanced by the clergy: for it has been regulated that they who form an union, without lawful delivery, should be, for the good order of religion, separated for a fixed period from the communion of the church, so that this vile connection may be prevented in holy places. Wherefore we decree, that such persons, being declared free from the bond of any plighted faith and made to promise a separation, should be restored to their parents or owners, as the case may require; to be, however, subsequently, if the parents or owners should grant leave, married with their own free consent.

As we have seen in some parts of the East at an earlier period, now in this portion of the West, the slaves were made incapable of entering into the marriage-contract without the owner's consent.

In this same council, canon xxx., provision is made for affording to the Christians, who are held as slaves by the Jews, not only sanctuary of the church, but in the house of any Christian, until a fair price shall be stipulated for and paid to the Jewish owner, if the Christian be unwilling to return to his service. This is a clear recognition of the right of property in slaves.

Canon xxxi. of this council provides, that "if any Jew shall bring a slave to be a proselyte to his religion, or make a Jew of a Christian slave, or take as his companion a Christian female slave, or induce a slave born of Christian parents to become a Jew under