The regulations and colonial statutes respecting slavery seem to have been framed on the principles of humanity, and with attention to the genius of the Christian religion; yet, in consequence of the supplementary force of the Roman law in the Dutch system of legislature, there appeared to be one capital defect in the code, _viz._ that a slave was considered as a real property, incapable of personal rights, from which consideration the ill-treatment of a master towards his slave was not so much estimated on the principle of personal injury, as that of a proprietor abusing his own property; and although a slave, under such a system, might obtain a portion of property for himself with the consent of his master, his possession was always precarious, and depended on the discretion of his proprietor (in the same manner as a _peculium adventitium_ with the Romans), becoming only the unlimited property of the slave, if the master allowed him to keep it after his emancipation.
It was conceived, that considering the civil law only as a supplement to the positive law, continued in force on Java under the proclamation of the Earl of Minto of 11th September 1811, the code respecting slavery might, together with the other parts of legislation, be amended and established, on principles more consistent with humanity and good sense, by a declaration, that slaves in future should not be considered as objects of real property, but as objects possessing personal rights, and bound only to unlimited service; and that, in consequence thereof, slaves should never be transferred from one master to another, without their own consent given before witnesses or a notary. That a master should possess no other power over his slave, than to exact service in an equitable manner; that he should inflict no corporal chastisement on him after he had attained a certain age, nor beyond such a degree as would be given to his children or common apprentices; that all personal wrongs done to a slave, either by his master or by others, should be estimated by the common rules of personal injuries, and not by the principle of a proprietor abusing his own property; that the punishment for murder committed by a master on his slave, should be the same as that of murder committed on a free person; that every slave should have a right to acquire property of his own, by his private industry or labour, or by the bounty of others; that this property should never be removeable at the discretion of the master; that by this property the slave should always have a right to redeem his liberty, after having continued with his master for the term of seven years, and on paying the sum which, on estimation, subject to the approval of the magistrate, should at the time be thought an adequate equivalent for his personal services.