Arthur William Hodge - The Law

The Law

At the time of Hodge's trial, slavery was still legal, but the trade in African slaves had been abolished by the Slave Trade Act 1807. Enslaved Africans were not formally freed till the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

While some slave owners proscribed rules of conduct for the disiciplining slaves to remove fear of arbitrary or excessive punishments, these rules were not binding in law. During his unsuccessful bail application, Hodge's counsel argued that "A Negro being property, it was no greater offense for his master to kill him than it would be to kill his dog," but the court did not accept the submission. Indeed, the point was dismissed without any serious discussion.

Part of the answer is that the boundaries of the legality of slavery were little explored under the common law, and it does not seem implausible that slavery could be permitted under the common law on the one hand, but for it to constitute a crime to kill a slave on the other. Most cases dealing with the status of slaves are well documented and well considered (see generally, slavery at common law). Hodge did not have an opportunity to appeal his conviction in the eight days before execution.

Hodge may have been sentenced to hang for political reasons.

• Several slave uprisings occurred in the British Virgin Islands before the trial, including a major one in May 1790 at the Pickering plantation. Hanging a notoriously cruel slave owner might have been intended to help maintain control of the remaining slave population, who had grown restless as a result of the passing of the Slave Trade Act. If this was the intent, it was not effective, as major rebellions broke out in 1823 and in 1830, and a planned uprising was uncovered in 1831.
• The Governor of the British Virgin Islands, Hugh Elliot, was an abolitionist. Elliot personally supervised the proceedings against Hodge, but since the trial was conducted before an independent judge with a sitting jury, it is unlikely he could have influenced its outcome. He was aware that the economy of the British Virgin Islands might collapse without slave labor. Nearly three years elapsed from the murder without anyone choosing to indict Hodge until Elliot was appointed governor.
• The third is that the British Virgin Islands were considered to be beset by lawlessness at the time. Elliot was reported to have been struck by the "state of irritation ... almost of anarchy" in the British Virgin Islands. Arresting a significant local figure like Hodge, putting him on trial, and executing him was a decisive demonstration of authority in an attempt to restore better legal order.

And finally petty personal squabbles may have played a role in indicting Hodge. William Cox Robertson was a young man who had returned to Tortola and become engaged in a three way exchange of insults between himself, Hodge and George Martin. (Robertson's father may have been killed by Hodge in a duel.) During the series of arguments Martin went to Hodge's house on 3 January 1811 "and there most wantonly insulted and assaulted him" according to court records, before doing the same thing to Robertson later that day. Hodge then made "half-uttered threats of calling out", ie. challenging him to a duel. Martin decided that "it better not to fight him, without first attempting to deliver himself from such a desperate enemy, by bringing him to public justice" since Hodge was known to be an excellent pistol shot and duellist.

This may have started a chain of events that ultimately led to Hodge being arrested and tried for Prosper's death - not in the pursuit of justice after an atrocity, but because one man was afraid to duel against another. This is not to dispute that George Elliot acted upon principle, but had it not been for the petty squabbles of rich men, it is unlikely the events would have been set in motion that led to Hodge's historic trial and execution.