Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/62

 was limited by a constitution of Antoninus, which enacted, that, if a man put his slave to death without sufficient reason, he was liable to the same penalty  as if he had killed another man's slave. The same constitution also prohibited the cruel treatment of slaves by their masters, by enacting that, if the cruelty of  the master was intolerable, he might be compelled to sell the slave ; and the  slave was empowered to make his complaint to the proper authority. A constitution of Claudius enacted, that if a man exposed his slaves, who were infirm, they should become free ; and the constitution also declared, that if  they were put to death, the act should be murder. It was also enacted, that in sales or division of property, slaves, such as husband and wife, parents and  children, brothers and sisters, should not be separated.

A slave could not contract a marriage, and no legal relation between a father and his children was recognized. Still nearness of blood was considered an impediment to marriage after manumission : thus, a manumitted slave could  not marry his manumitted sister.

A slave could have no property. He was not incapable of acquiring property, but his acquisitions belonged to his master ; which Gaius considers to be a rule of the Jus Gentium, that is, "the law which natural reason has established among all mankind." Slaves were not only employed in the usual domestic offices and in the labors of the field, but also as factors or agents for  their masters in the management of business, and as mechanics, artisans, and  in every branch of industry. It may be easily conceived, that under these circumstances, especially as they were often intrusted with property to a large amount, there must have arisen a practice of allowing the slave to consider  a part of his gains as his own. This was his "peculium;" according to strict law, this was the property of the master, but according to usage, it was considered the property of the slave. Sometimes it was agreed between master and slave, that the slave should purchase his freedom with his peculium, when  it amounted to a certain sum. If a slave was manumitted by the owner in his life-time, the peculium was considered to be given with the liberty, unless it  was expressly retained. Transactions of borrowing and lending could take place between the master and slave with respect to the peculium, though no  right of action arose on either side out of such dealings. In case of the claim of creditors on the slave's peculium, the debt of the slave to the master was  first taken into the account, and deducted from the peculium. The master was only bound by the acts and dealings of the slave, when the slave was employed  as his agent or instrument.

It is a consequence of the relation of slave and master, that the master acquired no rights against the slave in consequence of his wrongful acts. Other persons might obtain rights against a slave in consequence of his crimes, but their right could not be prosecuted by action until the slave was