Produced by hekula03, Harry Lamé and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)







  Transcriber’s Notes

  Text printed in italics has been transcribed _between underscores_,
  blackletter text ~between tildes~. Small capitals have been replaced
  with ALL CAPITALS.

  More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of this text.




  TRIAL
  OF PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN.,
  ON A CHARGE OF
  SLAVE TRADING.




  TRIAL
  OF
  PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN.,
  ON A CHARGE OF
  SLAVE TRADING,
  UNDER THE 5 GEO. IV, CAP. 113,
  _On Friday the 27th, Saturday the 28th, and Monday the 30th of
  October, 1843_,
  AT THE
  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY,
  LONDON.

  ~A Full Report from the Short-hand Notes of W. B. Gurney, Esq.~

  WITH AN ADDRESS TO
  _THE MERCHANTS, MANUFACTURERS, AND TRADERS OF GREAT BRITAIN_,
  BY PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN., ESQ.

  AND DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE CASE.

  LONDON:
  C. WOOD & CO., POPPIN’S COURT, FLEET STREET.
  1844.




  LONDON
  C. WOOD & CO., PRINTERS, POPPIN’S COURT, FLEET STREET.




CONTENTS.


                                                                    Page

  Address to the Merchants, Manufacturers, and Traders of Great
  Britain                                                             ix

  Opinions of Legal Authorities                                   lxxiii


  DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE CASE:--

  Letter from R. R. Gibbons, Esq. to Messrs. Zulueta & Co., and
  Summary of Dr. Madden’s Report                                       1

  Copy of a Letter from Messrs. Zulueta & Co. to Lord Viscount
  Sandon                                                               5

  Evidence of H. W. Macaulay, Esq. before the Select Committee on
  West Coast of Africa, forwarded to Messrs. Zulueta by order of
  the Chairman                                                         7

  Evidence of Captain Henry Worsley Hill, R.N., ibid                  80

  Additional Evidence of Captain H. W. Hill, ibid                    102

  Evidence of Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman, R.N., taken
  before the Select Committee on West Coast of Africa                107

  Evidence of Pedro de Zulueta, Jun., Esq., taken before the
  Select Committee on West Coast of Africa                           167

  Report from the Select Committee on the West Coast of Africa       187

  Proceedings instituted against Pedro de Zulueta, Jun.,
  Esq.--Arrest Aug. 23, 1843                                         209

  Application to take Bail (_from the Anti-Slavery Reporter_)        210

  Indictment for Felony                                              211

  Indictment for Conspiracy                                          214

  Proceedings in the Central Criminal Court, August 24, 1843
  (_from the Anti-Slavery Reporter_)                                 219

  Affidavit of Defendant and Mr. Edward Lawford in support of
  Application for Writ of Certiorari                                 219

  Motion to postpone the Trial of the Indictment                     222


  TRIAL OF PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN., ESQ.

  First day, Central Criminal Court, Friday, Oct. 27, 1843           235

  Second day,                        Saturday, Oct. 28               316

  Third day,                         Monday, Oct. 30                 391




  TO
  THE MERCHANTS,
  MANUFACTURERS,
  AND
  TRADERS OF GREAT BRITAIN.


The case, which will be laid before you in the following pages, must be
admitted to be one of an unprecedented character.

A merchant, to all practical purposes a British merchant, the junior
member of a firm of unquestioned respectability, in which his father and
brother are active partners with himself, which has been established for
upwards of seventy years in Spain, and of twenty in the City of London,
during which period they have maintained, both as merchants and as
individuals in private life, the character which will be found in the
following pages to have been given them upon oath by several of the most
eminent of their fellow-merchants--this individual finds himself
suddenly arrested, in the manner hereafter described, within the
precincts of his own private office, which is situated in the most
conspicuous spot in the City of London, whilst in the pursuit of his
ordinary business, upon a bench-warrant, as it is said (but which was
never shown to, or has been since seen by him), a true bill having been
found against him by the Grand Jury of the County of Middlesex. The
charge will be found in the two indictments inserted in pages 211 and
214, the former for felony, under the Act of 5 Geo. IV, cap. 113,
entitled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the
Abolition of the Slave Trade;” the latter for conspiracy, to do that
which the former indictment describes as done, _viz._ “manning,” &c.
&c., “and shipping certain goods on board a certain vessel, called the
Augusta, for the purpose of dealing in slaves;” and the penalty,
amounting, in fact, to a person in the rank and station of the accused
and of his family, to a forfeiture of life, and those objects which are
dearer than life itself. He is carried in custody to the police-station
on Garlick Hill, where shortly afterwards, a London attorney, whose name
he had never before heard, appears and prefers a charge of slave
dealing. The prisoner is immediately conveyed to the Central Criminal
Court, then sitting at the Old Bailey; there the two indictments are
read to him _pro formâ_, for they leave him in utter ignorance of who
the prosecutor is, or upon what depositions the Grand Jury had found the
bill, although his defence, to be effectual, must be directed against
them: they remain to this moment an undisclosed mystery, and no one is
answerable for the accuracy of those statements, whilst who the
prosecutor was, was only disclosed by the counsel for the prosecution at
the trial, before the examination of the witnesses began.

The prisoner’s application to the Central Criminal Court to be admitted
to bail was strenuously opposed by the prosecuting attorney in person,
when the Court, yielding to the representation of the probable result of
the refusal upon the members of an honourable family thus violently
taken by surprise and distracted, granted the application on terms
indeed which the Court itself deemed excessive, but which were the only
terms to which the attorney’s consent could be obtained. It was found
impossible, on account of the lateness of the hour, to meet with one of
the two individuals who had been approved of by the attorney; and under
these circumstances the Court consented to receive one security alone
for 2,000_l._, and the prisoner’s own recognizance for 6,000_l._ Thus
it happened, that he who had left his home, his wife, and his children
in the morning, with as assured a conscience as any of you can do,
returned about ten o’clock in the evening a prisoner, with the
possibility of a sentence of transportation hanging over his head, as
ignorant of his accuser, or of the facts deposed to against him, as if
he had fallen into the hands of the Inquisition.

The whole transaction, embracing the purchase and dispatch of the vessel
Augusta, named in the indictment, had formed part of the subject of an
examination, for which the house of Zulueta & Co. tendered themselves in
the person of Pedro de Zulueta, before a Select Committee appointed in
March, 1842, by the House of Commons, to inquire into the State of the
British Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, and which was sitting
in July and August, 1842, and the Report of whose proceedings had then
been nearly a year before the public. Before that Committee, among
several other witnesses, two officers of the navy (whose names may be
seen on the back of the indictments), who had been in command of British
cruizers on the African coast, and another individual, who it seems has
discharged the duties of a Judge at Sierra Leone, appeared and were
examined. Their examinations were published in the Report, and from
thence are inserted in the following pages; but it should be observed
that the last-mentioned of these three individuals did not appear in the
prosecution, his evidence being inserted here only from the anxiety that
a complete case should be placed before you.

As it is in the power of every reader to verify the correctness of any
observations that may be made upon the merits of the evidence given by
these individuals before the Committee, it cannot be improper to call
attention to the temper which evidently pervades it, not for the purpose
of invective, but because it is a circumstance of very great practical
application to the matter in hand. It is impossible not to be struck
upon its perusal with the absolute recklessness of statement, both as to
fact and theory. The most formidable conclusions are built upon the most
slender foundations. Facts and theories are so mixed up together, that
it is only after much sifting that it turns out that what was stated as
fact was no more than a theory in the speaker’s mind; and these
theories, too, embracing all questions, whether of commerce, of fiscal
science, policy, legislation, international law, education, morals, and
religion: after which, the character of individuals, or that of a
commercial house, is no doubt a matter about which much circumspection
cannot be expected to be exercised. The fate of Africa, the immense
interests of British commerce, of the commerce of the world; the
interpretation of existing laws, under which property, life, honour, may
be forfeited; their modification and adjustment; public opinion with its
powerful influence, so dangerous when misled, so difficult to be set
right; all these awfully important matters seem to hang upon the lips of
those two officers of the navy--and they do not seem to feel any
hesitation in disposing of such momentous interests. Can it be expected
that they would stop and consider before they make a statement regarding
private individuals, even though they may happen to be, to say the least
of it, accounted by the first men of this city, and in others of the
first cities of the world, honourable by birth, profession, and personal
character? The crime of which they would be guilty, were mere assertion
to be taken as positive proof, is according to the witnesses so heinous,
that it exceeds in their estimation almost every other, not only in the
law of man, but in the law of God; and yet it is to be imputed upon
their construction of some rumours which they themselves, it is quite
possible, indeed very probable, may quite unconsciously have helped to
mould into a shape by their readiness to accumulate this miscalled
evidence. Whether this representation of the general character of the
evidence given before the Committee by these individuals is, or is not,
correct, may be seen at once by a reference to it in the following
pages.

The first information, which any of the members of the house of Zulueta
& Co. had of even the existence of the Committee, was the receipt of a
letter (see p. 1) accompanying a copy of a lengthy Report, by a Dr.
Madden, on the Coast of Africa, which called forth a reply (see p. 5)
addressed by Zulueta & Co. to the Chairman of the Committee--a reply,
which, in truth, contains the whole of their case, and to which they may
well look back with just pride, since the keenest appetite for the
discovery of guilt has not been able to detect one single circumstance
contradictory of one tittle of its contents. Neither the examination
before the Committee in 1842, nor the trial in 1843, circumstances which
could not be foreseen or anticipated, have elicited one single fact at
variance with the statements of that letter, impossible as it was to
have contemplated at the time it was written, that its accuracy would be
subject to so severe a test as either the examination before the
Committee, which took place two months afterwards, or the trial, which
did not occur till after the lapse of more than a year.

After that letter was sent, it became known to the house of Zulueta &
Co. that further statements, unfavourable to their character as
merchants, had been made before the Committee; and in consequence of a
verbal representation of the unfairness of such mode of accusation,
copies of the examinations of two of the witnesses were sent to them.
The individual who now addresses you, then offered himself, at the
request of his partners, to be examined, the selection of himself being
made for no other reason than that he was thought more capable of making
himself understood.

It was thus therefore that I, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, appeared
before the Committee, and, as will be seen by the minutes of my
evidence, entered into an examination of every statement which was
brought before me as having been made by the witnesses concerning my
house, contradicted several of them, explained others, and volunteered a
description of the nature of the dealings of my firm with the two others
(whose names had been flung at us) from the time of the establishment of
Zulueta & Co. in London, twenty years ago. I also underwent a
cross-examination, of which one very remarkable feature was, that
Captain Denman himself, one of the witnesses against me both at this
examination and at the trial, was sitting close to several members of
the Committee, and was seen by me to whisper repeatedly into the ear of
more than one member, what, it is not unnatural to suppose, may have
been directions for the more effectual discovery of the truth.

I can hardly restrain the expression of my feelings when I consider now
the use which has been made of the unreserved frankness, the unguarded,
because unsuspecting, candour of the statements made by me before that
Committee. The thought never occurred to me, that evidence, professedly
taken for the benefit of the public service, required any thing more
than substantive truth, and a general bearing upon the points in
question; nor could I ever have conceived that it would be scanned with
critical severity, in order to take advantage to my detriment of the
worst construction that might be put upon this or that verbal slip, so
as to place my very existence at stake upon it. I considered myself as
doing nothing more than (whilst attempting to eradicate from the minds
of the Committee any unfavourable impression, which might have been made
upon them by incorrect statements against the character of my house)
affording information for placing the legislation on the subjects before
the consideration of the Committee on a more satisfactory basis--not by
indulging in assertion of crude theories, or in vague declamations, but
by the simple statement of a practical case--anxious to show in the
instance of my house the situation in which a firm of acknowledged
honour and respectability, whose private character, and the prominent
political position of one of its members in another country, renders
them at least very unlikely abettors of the slave trade--may yet be
placed, because, living in England, they happen to have a mercantile
intercourse with persons residing in places where this trade is
unhappily one of the existing evils, and in which therefore those
persons may be more or less implicated, inasmuch as it is well known
that no trade whatever can be carried on with a country where the slave
trade exists without its being, in some measure, of more or less direct
assistance to this illicit traffic. And as the assertion which had been
made against some of our correspondents tended, if true, to place this
position of merchants in England in a very striking light, I did think
that whilst the statements made _might_ be true (and to disprove them
could not be in my power nor in the power of any man in my situation)
the proper and fair course was not to controvert the matter at all; but,
taking the statements for granted, practically to direct the attention
of the Committee to the position in which British merchants are left
upon the very case itself, which was made out by the bitterest impugners
of the character of British commerce.

I appeal to every man who reads my evidence before the
Committee--without a previous determination to find out some one upon
whom an experiment of the power of the Act of 5 Geo. IV may be tried,
and a corroboration of the theory respecting the alleged existence of
British slave trading--whether upon any other hypothesis, but that of
conscious innocence or of consummate effrontery, my answers to the
questions put by the Committee can be possibly reconciled with common
sense or common prudence, much less be consistent with that deep
skilfulness and far-seeing intelligence, which have been so lavishly
attributed to me and to my partners for the purposes of my destruction.

Not for an instant, even when those outraged feelings, which have not
been spared, possessed greatest sway over my mind, has the thought
occurred to me, that at the time of my examination the object of any one
member of the Committee, or even of Captain Denman himself (for I have
alluded to the fact of his being present), could be the collecting
materials for a secret accusation before a Grand Jury; and I wish very
distinctly to protest against any such inference being drawn from my
remarks, not for the sake of the members of the Committee, who are above
being injured by insinuations, but for my own sake, who alone could be
injured by the supposition. I am conscious of having appeared before
several men whose names are, and have been ever since I can recollect
having heard them, associated in my mind with nothing but what is
honourable and high principled: I received from some of them
complimentary expressions upon the apparent candour and openness, the
straightforward character of the evidence given; and I cannot help
believing that my statements were considered moreover valuable, as
tending to show the inexpediency, the gross injustice, of encouraging on
the one hand trade with countries in which slave trade prevails, and
yet, on the other hand, attempting to make the natural and well-known
tendency of all trade to mix itself with the general state of society of
the country into which it is carried, the evidence of some peculiar
criminal knowledge in the parties necessarily nearest in contact with
those countries, and visiting that knowledge upon them, after the
community have derived profit and advantage from the transaction,
although it is well known that the parties so to be sacrificed have it
not in their power to guard any but themselves from being directly
instrumental to the deviation of the trade into channels rendered
illegal by Act of Parliament. I venture to assert, that the prominent
feature of my evidence was felt by the Committee to be its
_unconnectedness_ with any party or theory; and this feature stamped it
with the character of truth which, if fairly and honestly stated, must
at times militate against one theory or another.

This is an offence to all who thrive upon theories, and in exactly the
proportion of their affected or unreasonable belief of them. An
instinctive alarm takes possession of such minds, and as they themselves
cannot conceive that other people may have no theory of their own to
serve upon that particular subject, which to them, and therefore in
their opinion to all, must be paramount, they are disposed to imagine
one theory of their own, which they at once fix upon the party thus
offending against the assumed mental necessity of universal theorism. If
the writer is not much mistaken, the irritation which is produced by
this process of the mind, still more if self-interest is at the bottom,
will materially help to reveal the moving-spring of the proceedings
which are recorded in the following pages.

Be this as it may, one thing is altogether unquestionable (and indeed
there has been no attempt to disguise the fact, and to it I beg to call
the attention of every man in Great Britain)--it is this: Pedro de
Zulueta could never have been placed in the position in which he was
(charged with felony under the finding of the Grand Jury), with the
remotest chance of a conviction, if he had not voluntarily offered
himself for examination before a Committee of the British House of
Commons--the way being this--a London attorney lays hold of the printed
Report of the proceedings; every part of the evidence given by Pedro de
Zulueta, that was destructive of the hypothesis of his being a
well-knowing and wilful abettor of an alleged slave trading speculation
_in 1840_, is disconnected from those passages in which he had stated
that, _in 1842, when he was speaking_ (after hearing and reading a mass
of evidence given for the first time before that Committee), he had
heard statements about his correspondents being participators in the
slave trade which might be true, which were not, he felt, material to
himself, and which, as he had not the means of disproving, he _then_
stated that he must _then_ believe; and then using this intelligible
admission, _made in 1842_, the only one that could be found at all
available, as the only presumptive proof of _guilty knowledge in 1840_.
Nothing could be done or attempted against the house of Zulueta & Co.,
much less against the individual who was attacked, without this
management, this distortion of the evidence--for some knowledge of some
kind must be made out _in_ 1840, and although the fallacy was
transparent, it might and unfortunately did serve for the purpose of the
attack at the heart, and might still serve for the next, but not the
sole object, of the prosecution. It is true, that the whole of the
evidence given by me was read at the trial, for so the law requires it;
but that same law, as was observed, also permits that those parts of a
man’s statements which make in his favour should not be believed or
taken for any thing, whilst such admissions as might be made to appear
criminatory of himself are received as evidence against him. By such a
process of distortion alone could a case be made out against my house,
or fixed upon myself, who was totally unknown to the so-called witnesses
as they themselves admitted, and who did not personally appear in any
part of the transactions excepting at my own examination before the
Committee. If the facts are not so, let it be at once explained what
other circumstance marked me out for prosecution. Let the reader of the
following pages, after perusing the trial carefully, attempt to solve
the problem for himself of how (apart from the fact of my appearing, and
of the application which is made of my statements before the Committee
of the House of Commons) the firm of Zulueta & Co. came to be prosecuted
in my person to the exclusion of others. Let every other part of the
evidence given before and at the trial, of matter of fact, by the
witnesses on the transaction of the Augusta be considered, and where is
one single fact that can connect Zulueta & Co. with the alleged, and
only alleged, designs of the parties by whose orders they had acted in
that transaction--an acting in itself admitted to be innocent? And if
the reader does not find any other solution of the difficulty, it is
clearly demonstrated that Pedro de Zulueta has been prosecuted upon
partial statements from his own evidence, given before a Committee of
the House of Commons, where he appeared voluntarily, where he was
encouraged to explain transactions of business, and neither refused nor
even hesitated to answer one single question that was put to him, as
conducive to a great public object; but without the slightest intimation
of the ulterior object to which it has been perverted.

For the purpose not certainly of clearing up the question, but of
sophisticating a very plain case, it will perhaps be asked, whether, if
a man should avow himself before a Committee of the House of Commons to
have been guilty of a crime, or to have partaken in it, is it meant to
be contended that his candour is to be the safeguard of his guilt? One
short answer is, that the remark is inapplicable to the case; for no
such avowal has been even contended to have been made, but on the
contrary a distinct and repeated general and circumstantial disavowal
was made. Whether my declarations did or did not amount to such degree
of information in my mind, at the time of giving my evidence, as
presumed a knowledge two years before, that would be brought under the
description of the _guilty knowledge_ described in legal phraseology, in
an Act of Parliament, very obscure as is generally admitted, and never
before put in practice, this was the utmost that the ingenuity of the
prosecution could make out of my evidence--and this cannot be called an
avowal of crime. The question is not, whether a crime avowed before a
Committee of the House of Commons should or should not be prosecuted,
using the avowal as one of the means of conviction--a question, which
even so put is argued, I believe, on both sides by eminent lawyers--but
whether in my case, such as it is, I have not a right to complain of the
grossest and most unparalleled breach of good faith--whether the use
made of my evidence is not one against which the conscience of every man
revolts--whether it is likely to facilitate the public service, or to
increase the respect due to the British Legislature at home and abroad,
or to their proceedings--even if in other respects the course adopted is
free from legal objections, which I believe is at least doubtful.

The fact itself is unquestionable, and I must repeatedly assert it--that
the materials for my prosecution were collected from my own evidence as
laid before the public, in the printed Report of the Committee, for
whose information it was given--that in collecting these materials the
statements, although formally read as they were made, were virtually
vitiated--that, although the whole was read, only that part which was
thought susceptible of some adverse construction was avowed to be of any
necessary weight; and statements, such as they were, which had been
_made in 1842_, after information that was at any rate only furnished in
that year, were applied for the purpose of raising _a presumption of
guilty knowledge in 1840_.

I have insisted so much upon this point, because it is very material
that it should be borne in mind throughout the perusal of the following
pages. I do not hesitate to believe that the unsophisticated sense of
the people of this country will revolt at the fact of a Committee of the
House of Commons having been turned into a trap wherein to take a man--a
snare to his good faith--the more effectual, because the members who
happen to compose the Committee stand high for honour and integrity in
the land, and therefore their very names seemed to afford a guarantee
that the fairest construction would be put upon the words of a
respectable individual, who appeared voluntarily before them, without
assuming from the outset that he is a self-convicted felon, who comes
before them for no other purpose than to deceive, and who must be
listened to only in order to see if he does not betray himself into some
acknowledgment of his crimes, of which advantage is to be taken to
secure the ends of justice, which he craftily endeavours to defeat. It
may suit those who want such a monster of craft and subtlety in order to
justify the monstrous proceedings, which have been deemed necessary to
support a mischievous and unfounded theory that British capital is
employed in the slave trade--it may suit them, to make me out to be this
desideratum in their system; but, without laying claim to any more
extended or more favourable notoriety than that which is on record, I
venture to say that the attempt must fall to the ground, by the weight
of its intrinsic absurdity, before the common sense of the people of
this country.

But what the Committee thought of the evidence, after hearing at length
the very individuals who appeared against me at the Old Bailey, and
after hearing my own evidence, which formed the chief weapon against me
in that Court, will be found in their own Report, printed in the
following pages. Every reader may judge for himself, whether, in point
of fact, it is not an anticipated condemnation of such proceedings as
have been inflicted upon me--a verdict of not guilty, not only upon the
transactions of the Augusta, but upon the whole of Zulueta & Co.’s
agency for the houses mentioned, in my evidence, if the representation
given by me of the transaction be substantially correct. In page 203 the
following words will be found:--“In the first place, it is fair to state
that we have no evidence, or reason to believe, that any British
merchant, concerned in the trade with the West Coast of Africa, either
owns or equips any vessel engaged in the slave trade, or has any share
in the risk or profits of any slave trade venture”--a declaration this,
the correctness of which every one conversant with the characteristic
features of British commerce must acknowledge. Have any facts been
elicited subsequent to this Report, and previously to the prosecution
being instituted--any new evidence, which was not before the Committee
of the House of Commons? This is a question which happily every reader
of the following pages may settle for himself. Let him, as he peruses
the evidence, at each stage of it ask himself the question--Was this
before the Committee of the House of Commons? That it was, must be the
answer upon every point. Not one statement was elicited from a single
witness which had not been before the Committee. There was indeed an
unworthy attempt to create a false impression about some casks and
shackles having been left on board, even after the most unsparing of the
witnesses for the prosecution had acquitted the vessel of even the
shadow of a suspicion of containing the least implement available for a
slaving equipment. How the attempt was foiled by their own witness
afterwards will be seen; and I will not say a word more about an attempt
upon which the very existence of a fellow-creature perhaps might hang,
leaving it to be visited with the feeling of abhorrence which it must
excite in every reader. Apart from this, there was before the Committee
much more against me than there was before the Court, as may be seen by
a comparison of the evidence as given before the one with that given
before the other; because the nature of legal proceedings keeps the
witness, even if otherwise disposed, within the limits of matter of
fact--limits, which before the Court they did attempt to transgress, as
may be seen very prominently in the case of the chief of them, but from
which before the Committee it was in their power to wander, and they did
accordingly so wander at every moment. Is it not fair to infer, that it
was not to serve the purposes of justice, but at the very best that of
some fancied expediency, that this prosecution was undertaken--a
prosecution demonstrated to have been undertaken against the recorded
sense and opinion of the Select Committee of the House of Commons?
Suppose, for a moment, that by some quibble of law, by the forced
interpretation of an Act of Parliament, admitted to be sufficiently
obscure--not to speak of attempts to pervert evidence, or of the effort
to carry off the victory, which constitutes the very essence of all
legal conflict between individuals, and which of itself renders the
right of private prosecution of public wrongs the destruction of civil
liberty and of individual security--suppose, that by such means, what to
the deliberate judgment of the Committee of the House of Commons did not
appear to deserve even animadversion, might have been made out before an
Old Bailey Jury to be such evidence of guilt, as to have procured an
adverse verdict--is this the kind of justice which the people of this
country would have approved? Impossible! I cannot believe it: the idea
cannot be for a moment entertained.

But this is not all. We have seen what the Committee of the House of
Commons decided. The Government--the proper, and the only proper agents,
in a prosecution of this kind, upon whom, if sufficient ground existed,
it was a bounden duty to have taken it in hand--seem to have treated the
matter in the same manner as the Committee. All the documents which have
been received in evidence, and some which were offered and were not
received by the Court--that, in short, which forms all the evidence
against the accused at the trial, and more, were in possession of
Government before the last Administration went out (the proceedings
before the Committee alone excepted)--that Administration did not take
up the prosecution. The law-officers of the present Administration have
had them also, and moreover the proceedings before the Committee, one of
the members of which was a leading member of the preceding
Government--they have not taken up the prosecution. A print in the
favour and confidence, as it seems, of the parties to the late
proceedings, has stated, that the actual law-officers of the Government
were consulted and decided against their being undertaken; that again,
when the bill was found by the Grand Jury, the prosecution was offered
to them, but that they declined to be parties to it. These statements
are followed up by remarks upon the apathy and indifference of the
Government, which can only serve to render the testimony borne to the
fact the more unexceptionable, because unwilling; for, otherwise, they
afford only a lamentable specimen of how much mischief is done to a
cause, the sole merit of which must consist in its being one purely of
humanity, by its being used for the purposes of political warfare. This
indeed is to trade with the cause of the slave.

The fact remains unshaken, that neither the Attorney-General of the
present nor of the late Administration has prosecuted by himself or by
others, and therefore the Queen’s name was as much usurped under the
cover of the forms of the Court, as that of the public, whose name is
invoked in support of these proceedings. I will venture to say, that no
one who has really looked into them for himself, and is possessed of all
the facts from the examination before the Committee of the House of
Commons, can think with other feelings than those of shame and
indignation, that they can take place in England--feelings, the more
strong, because such proceedings are pretended to be undertaken in order
to serve a cause with which, if they are identified, they will only
serve to disgrace it. I cannot but believe that all this is felt by the
majority (I know it is felt by very many) of the members of a society,
whose zeal may be imposed upon at times, but the majority of whom must
have that real benevolence of heart and soundness of judgment, which
will make them wish for no other principle of action than that contained
in the well-expressed sentiments of a noble lord--“That a good, however
eminent, should not be attained otherwise than by lawful means[1]:” it
may be added, that by no other can it be permanently attained.

  [1] Lord Aberdeen’s Letter to the Lords of the Admiralty, 20th May,
  1842.

The Society, to which I am alluding, was not more eager to start or to
adopt the prosecution than the Committee of the House of Commons
disposed to find a ground for its being undertaken, or than the last and
the present Administration; indeed, the Society volunteered a disavowal
of any connexion with the proceedings at their commencement, and did not
express even an approval of them. In this, their organ only represented
faintly the sentiments more strongly and decidedly repeated to myself by
many members of that Society in a tone of unequivocal reprobation, and
viewing the proceedings as calculated only to injure the cause which
they had at heart. That such has been a very generally prevailing
impression is fully attested by the plaintive remarks of the organs of
the prosecution, and the libellous stimulants which, whilst the
proceedings for the trial were in progress, they thought it necessary to
apply. It is, indeed, but too true that a society, proposing to itself
the accomplishment of some great moral and benevolent object, is most
specially bound to confine itself to the use of such means only as are
of as unexceptionable and even as benevolent a character as the end.
Crime is, indeed, a just object of abhorrence; but a society, like the
Anti-Slavery Society, is specially bound to guard themselves against the
danger of encouraging one species of crime in their attempt to put down
another; every one of the means they employ or sanction must be of as
unquestionable purity as the end they profess to aim at: expediency, as
distinct from justice, must be jealously guarded against, apt as it is
to insinuate itself into all human proceedings, and never more subtilely
than under the cloak of zeal in a good, cause: the smallest degree of
evil to be done must stand as an insurmountable barrier to the
accomplishment of the most undoubted good. It is in the power of man to
destroy the very end in view, whilst he thinks he is advancing it; but
he cannot alter the law of Providence, which dooms to certain defeat,
even amidst the tokens of apparent triumph, whomsoever dares to modify
for himself the moral code of the universe: the moment that violent
hands are laid upon it, in order to smooth down a difficulty in the way
of action, the very end itself becomes contaminated. All this is evident
enough, and approves itself to the enlightened conscience. A society, as
a body, taken in the abstract, may be supposed less likely to be led
away by such apparently _short cuts_ when presenting themselves in their
path; but these societies are, in practice, managed by individuals of
whom the least scrupulous are sure to appear as the most zealous and
most efficient--they are the most busy and the most forward--and, hence,
the additional necessity for caution on the part of the more
conscientious, inasmuch as the names of the good are too often the cover
of the deeds of the bad, whose power consists exclusively in the moral
weight attached to the acts which the good are made to appear as having
sanctioned.

It would have been well for the credit of the Anti-Slavery Society,
therefore, if the London Committee had retained the position in which
they placed themselves by their own act of disavowal; instead of which,
after being taunted by one or two prints, which have, pending the
proceedings, used every exertion in their limited power to stimulate the
passions of those whose good sense it was necessary to mislead, the
London Committee have passed and published the following resolution:--

  “At a meeting of the Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery
  Society, held at No. 27, New Broad Street, London, on Friday, December
  8, 1843, Josiah Forster in the Chair,--The conduct of Sir George
  Stephen, in the prosecution of Pedro de Zulueta, Jun., in October
  last, being taken into consideration, the following resolution was
  unanimously adopted--

  “That this Committee feel it to be due alike to Sir George Stephen
  himself, and the public interests of justice and humanity, to express
  their high sense of his philanthropic and public spirited conduct, in
  carrying on, upon his own responsibility, the prosecution of Pedro de
  Zulueta, Jun., and another, for slave trading; a course in which the
  decision of the Grand Jury, and the declared opinion of the Judge,
  have fully sustained him, and by which it may be hoped a salutary
  check will be given to the notorious implication of British capital
  and commerce in that nefarious traffic.

  JOSIAH FORSTER, Chairman.”

Here, after using that description of the charge, which is calculated to
convey a false notion of what was, and could alone, even by the worst
construction and perversion, be imputed, as if the charge had been
dealing in slaves, they express a high sense of the philanthropic and
public spirited conduct of the prosecutor--necessarily including the
inquisitorial proceeding before the Grand Jury--the mode of apprehension
of the accused--the resistance to his being released on even large bail,
and to his having time given him to prepare his defence--the shrinking
from appearing as a witness in public, and stating there what he, the
prosecutor, had been ready to swear before the Grand Jury--the bringing
up of a witness to raise an appearance of the existence of facts, the
very contrary of which had been deposed to before the Committee of the
House of Commons by the leading witness for the prosecution in
Court--all this forms that conduct, which must have been taken into the
consideration of a committee of a benevolent society, and which in
discharge of a duty of both justice and humanity that committee have
pronounced as both philanthropic and public spirited.

The resolution proceeds to state, that in the course adopted by the
prosecutor he has been fully supported by the decision of the Grand Jury
and the declared opinion of the Judge. It is impossible to estimate what
value to attach to the finding of a Grand Jury without knowing upon what
evidence their finding was based. In the present case, one fact is
beyond all dispute, viz. that Sir George Stephen appeared before the
Grand Jury as the first witness, his name standing as such on the back
of the indictment, and that he did not present himself in the
witness-box at the public trial, although in Court from the beginning to
the close of it--from which it results, that the Grand Jury had before
them a witness, giving to them in private, evidence which he did not
think proper to give in public. Must not the inference be permitted,
that the Grand Jury would have thrown out the bill, as the Petty Jury
threw out the indictment, unless some evidence, which was not offered to
the latter, had been given to the former by a witness, and that too,
unfortunately, by a witness who seems to have preferred the secret
inquisitorial form, which still remains in British law, to the open and
public path which was before him, and which is the proper boast of
British justice?

Regarding the support derived from the expressions of Judge Maule, when
applied to by Serjeant Bompas for an order for the payment of the
expenses of the prosecution, it is not for me to speak; but that it does
not extend to a sanction, in point of propriety, to the part taken by
the prosecutor, nor to the manner in which he has discharged it, is very
obvious.

This, however, is not the point to which I wish now to refer. The object
of this publication, and of the preceding and following remarks, is not
any vindication of myself, nor a crimination of the motives of any one
beyond what the statement of facts may carry in itself; my vindication I
consider ample in the exhibition of the facts themselves--in the
verdict of the Jurors, after hearing a trial of two days duration, after
a long and elaborate charge delivered when a clear day had elapsed
subsequent to the defence--a verdict, which was not agreed to without
consideration, which was pronounced by the foreman in the emphatic
manner which the crowded Court witnessed, which was received by the
spectators, consisting of some of the most respectable merchants,
bankers, and professional men of the City of London, who had sat daily
and patient witnesses of the proceedings, in a manner which has been
noticed by the public press, and echoed by the leading journals of
London, of Liverpool, and of other important mercantile cities of
Europe.

The chief object proposed in this publication, and in these
observations, is to place before my brother-merchants, in a connected
form, the whole of the facts, which form my case, or rather the case of
the firm of Zulueta & Co., from the first communication which preceded
my examination before the Committee of the House of Commons, to the
close of the proceedings at the Old Bailey, in order that the merchants
of England may judge for themselves, and reflect upon the position in
which they are placed, as resulting from the principle and doctrines
which the proceedings contained in the following pages have disclosed to
emanate from an Act of Parliament which has been passed these twenty
years, but which has been for the first time tried upon my case. It may
be said, that by merchants in general it is hardly known: we all know
that dealing in slaves is prohibited, under severe penalties, by the law
of England--we know that it is repugnant to the prevailing tone of
education, to the opinions and feelings of our people--we know that, at
all events, as it is carried on and can only be carried on, it is at
variance with the spirit of Christianity, and therefore no man need read
an Act of Parliament to abstain from having any, the slightest, concern
in or with such a traffic; but even if these considerations were not
enough--which England surely will not suffer to be supposed of her own
merchants--even if these considerations did not go to the extent of
precluding British merchants from laying out their capital on slave
adventures, whether for themselves or others’ account, common prudence,
in which respectable merchants in this country cannot be said to be
deficient, does at once warn a man not to trust his funds to the issue
of speculations which afford no security, over which he can exercise no
control--so much so, that it is hardly possible to conceive in what
shape, looking at all like business, British capital could be lent for
the purpose or on the security of a slave trade adventure. All this has
contributed to maintain merchants in utter ignorance of the provisions
of this Act of Parliament, or of the use which might be made of its
legal phraseology: but now, when a merchant, not at all suspected by his
fellows--for that is on record--has been, to the astonishment of every
one, dragged from his office to the police-station, and to the Old
Bailey dock (more especially when this is done in spite of the
resolution of the House of Commons’ Committee, in spite of the opinion
of the law officers of the Crown) by a London attorney, it is time to
look at the exposition of the law and the practical application of its
provisions, which so extraordinary a proceeding has elicited; the more
so, as it has been stated that “higher game is in view,” and that the
prosecutor is still occupied in analysing the evidence given before the
Committee; and when the Anti-Slavery Committee adopt and publish a
resolution, in which it is stated, in reference to the late prosecution,
that by it “it may be hoped a salutary check will be given to the
_notorious_ implication of British capital and commerce in that
nefarious traffic, the slave trade.” At any other time the absolute
folly of the assertion would have suffered it to remain unnoticed;
experience has shown, however, that there is somewhere the means, and
that the will does exist, of doing mischief to an appalling degree.

As explaining the practical operation of the law, then, I shall look
upon the summing up of the learned Judge, not with a critical eye, in
order to decide whether the law has been well or ill administered--this
is the province of a professional man, into which it would be
preposterous for me to enter. Upon the propriety or impropriety of the
Judge’s acts and opinions, or even of his exposition of the law and its
requirements, I must be understood as maintaining a complete reserve.
For the present purpose, and for every practical purpose that can affect
others, the law must be taken as laid down by his Lordship. As to its
meaning, the evidence which is required under the Act to bring an
individual to trial, the degree of evidence which will send a case to
the Jury, that upon which a case in answer shall be demanded of the
accused--until it is otherwise declared by competent authority--until
then, those who really wish to obey the law must look upon the late
administration of it as that which is to be expected, and the extent and
applicability of the Act of Parliament to be that which is exhibited in
the late proceedings.

The first consideration which presents itself is the nature and
definition of the offence. In the outset of his summing up, the learned
Judge stating the nature of the charge, alluding to the vessel which the
prisoner is alleged to have employed, lays down, “that it was not
necessary to be proved that the ship in question (the Augusta) was
intended to be used for the conveyance of slaves from the coast of
Africa. If there was a slave adventure--if there was an adventure, of
which the object was that slaves should be brought from the coast of
Africa, that there should be slave trading there--and if this vessel was
dispatched and employed for the purpose of accomplishing that object,
although it was intended to accomplish that object otherwise than by
bringing home the slaves in that vessel--that is within the Act of
Parliament. So, if the goods were loaded for the purpose of
accomplishing the slave trade ... the crime charged in this indictment
would be committed, the allegations in the indictment would be
supported, and the prohibition of the Act of Parliament would be
violated.”

Such is the nature of the offence. If there is a slave adventure in the
port of destination of the vessel and goods which you dispatch, for the
purpose of accomplishing which they may be said to have been intended,
the prohibition is violated; but as, in the case of the vessel and the
goods in question, no attempt was even made to prove the existence of
any such adventure, but only a general slaving character of the port of
destination, it follows that not even the existence of such particular
slave adventure is necessary to be proved in order to support an
indictment under the Act, but it is enough if a general slaving
character of the trade at the port of destination is proved, in order to
lay the ground of an indictment. Let this general slave trading
character be discovered by any one of a port in Africa, to which you may
have sent goods--and of course, if a port not in Africa is (as may very
well be) largely concerned in the trade, the case is not very much
altered--and you stand open to a charge under the Act, for the crime has
been committed. It is as when a man is found murdered in the street--the
crime has been committed--the only thing is to find out the criminal.
How this is done under the Act of Parliament on the slave trade is the
next thing to be seen.

“The employment, the dispatch of the vessel,” says the learned Judge,
“is no conclusive proof of the guilt, till going further, and showing
that the party doing so did it for the illegal purpose charged.” But
then, for the purpose of beginning the inquiry, without which there
would have been no beginning of it, the foundation must be laid in the
employment of the vessel by the person accused. If slave trading is
intended, and the vessel be sent for the purpose, the important
consideration then is, whether the person employing the vessel is
cognizant of the intention. We have seen the large meaning of the terms
slave trading. It is not like wine trade--dealing in wine: it is not
dealing in slaves, but dealing in Manchester and Birmingham goods,
adapted and purposely manufactured for the African markets, so long as
it is found that slave traders, that is, as heretofore the term has been
understood, dealers in slaves--resort to the port for which they are
shipped. Of course the crime having been committed by some one, that is,
by the person who intended that slave traders should use them for slave
purposes--and no other will be supposed as possible--the existence of
the law punishing such an intention demands that an inquiry should be
made. For this purpose the commission-agent in England, who employed the
vessel, must be laid hold of--not that in that one act there is a
conclusive proof of guilt, until it be further shown that he was
cognizant of and intended the illegal object, but because an inquiry is
imperative under the Act. With whom the right and duty of making it
rests it matters not--any one that may be so disposed from a
philanthropic and public-spirited motive. It is not enough that a
Parliamentary inquiry has been made already--it is not enough that the
law-officers of the Crown see no reason to institute a further
inquiry--it matters not, if the case has been lying in all its details
before the public, the ends of public justice are never satisfied until
the so-called inquiry takes the shape of a bill before the Grand
Jury--_the inquisition_ of the country. There certain depositions are
secretly made upon oath, which you shall never see; and upon this _mild_
and _fair_ procedure you will have your very life, and the life of every
one dear to you placed in jeopardy, for I believe that there is nothing
in the mercantile profession which is likely to prepare a man, and a
man’s family, for his being treated as a felon. It is indeed true, that
in the evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons merchants
are treated by some of the witnesses in a tone and manner becoming only
those times in which merchants were tolerated for the sake of the money
that might be extorted from them, but otherwise were considered as a
caste whose instinct was money-making by all means, right or wrong, and
against whom every crime might be presumed; but, whatever may be in the
heart of some, and whatever may rise to their lips, against a profession
which England honours and distinguishes, a distinct avowal dare not be
made such as will justify the insinuation that there is absolutely
nothing in carrying a merchant, considered respectable, from his private
office to a felon’s den, without his knowing his accuser, or upon what
he is charged, which ought to shake his mind or that of his family.

But, then, unless you are proved to have been cognizant of the intended
purpose, you will be acquitted. The nature of the offence has been
explained and laid down to embrace a very wide compass. If there existed
a slave adventure at the port of destination of a vessel, to accomplish
which that vessel carried goods, the offence has been committed. The
penalty, to whomsoever committed it, is by the Act only short of the
greatest imposed by the law. You employed the vessel--this is not
conclusive of guilt, until it is shown further that there was slave
trading intended, and that you were cognizant of the intention. Let us
see how both things are to be proved and brought home to you. Heretofore
the way between your office and the Old Bailey is one which there is no
merchant, trading with countries wherein the slave trade is allowed to
exist, may not be dragged through without risk or responsibility by any
ruffian in London. Now, perhaps, though not exactly at the earliest
stage that may be desirable for the safety of the innocent and the
repose of honourable families--still now, perhaps, the requirements of
the law in regard to proof are commensurate with the facility afforded
on the outset, and with the terrible penalty which follows a conviction.

The Judge proceeds upon this part of the evidence as follows: “It
appears from the evidence, that the Gallinas is a place described by
some witnesses of great experience--two captains in the navy, and
Colonel Nichol, who was the governor of a district in the neighbourhood”
(about 1,500 miles from it, see his evidence), “whose employment was
mainly to watch the slave coast, of which the Gallinas forms a part, and
to contribute to the putting down the slave trade--that the Gallinas is
a place of slave trading, and of no other trade at all.” His Lordship
continues as follows: “It is said, and I think with great probability,
that the Gallinas is not generally known as a slave trading place, in
fact, it seems very little known at all; it seems to be a place where
any other description of felons may resort to concert their schemes and
hide their stolen goods, and which, of course, they do not make public,
and which is not likely to be known by honest and true people. Except
those employed as police or otherwise in aid of justice, as these
captains were, of course it would not be spoken of at all. There might
be slave traders in London knowing it very well, but they would be
perfectly silent probably, and hardly mention it by name even in
speaking one to another. It is very probable, therefore, that the place
was not very well known; that when these persons spoke of the Gallinas,
they might say the Gallinas on the coast of Africa; and a person might
be very conversant with the geography of Africa in an honest way, who
had not been active in putting down the slave trade, and yet might not
know where it was, except that it was on the coast of Africa.”

It is impossible more correctly to state, in stronger language, or more
clearly, the possibility of the place of destination of a vessel being
a slave trading place, and that exclusively, without in the least
diminishing the great probability of its being unknown to the party in
England who ships goods for that place as a commission-agent, by order
and for account of somebody else abroad. Thus, the great probability of
my statement before the Committee of the House of Commons of the
ignorance of the character of the trade carried on at Gallinas was
completely vouched for, and the observation, that those who knew were
not likely to tell, and not likely to as much as name the place, was
forcible in my favour, since the house had entered and cleared the
Augusta _for Gallinas_, and not for _Africa_, as ships with destinations
for the West Coast are generally dispatched, and as the Augusta might
most certainly have been, had the house even suspected an improper
object which required concealment. It is singular that, in the
explanations prepared for instructing counsel, the case is stated in
nearly the same terms as to the ignorance of the character of the place,
as those used by Judge Maule. Merchants easily understand this, because
it is the case more or less with every one. In shipping goods by foreign
order and for foreign account to distant ports in all parts of the
world, with which there is hardly any communication, and with which the
shipper himself has none, and need not have any for the purpose of such
a transaction, it most frequently happens, that the nature of the trade
carried on at that particular port is very imperfectly or rather not at
all known. In the multitude and the rapidity of operations which must be
disposed of almost without thinking, the inquiry (not being either
interesting or profitable, and of course quite unnecessary) is not made,
or indeed as much as thought of, especially when heretofore, I believe,
it will be acknowledged that it has not been considered that the nature
of the trade carried on at any place could involve the mere shipper,
without a connexion or any interest in that place, in the slightest
responsibility.

But what follows? The character of the place is thus settled: “That it
is itself a slave trading place appears to be very evident from the case
on the part of the prosecution. Probably those honest persons, those
honestly dealing persons, who know best about it, are those who have
been called upon by their public duty to ascertain it. Such persons have
been called, and they give it this character and description, and they
state that it is distinguished from other parts of the coast of Africa;
for on other parts of that coast, it is said, slaves are sold as one
article of export, but that other things, such as palm-oil--I believe
that is the principal thing--and ivory, and wood, and other things, are
sold in immense quantities on the coast of Africa; but that that is not
the case at the Gallinas. They might be carrying out goods to other
parts of Africa, intending to bring home palm-oil, or slaves, as might
be most profitable; they might intend to bring home an honest commodity,
and not have to do with this dishonest and perilous commodity; but it
appears difficult to conceive what a person, carrying a cargo of goods
to the Gallinas, could intend to do with it, unless he intended to have
those goods employed in the slave trade. The prisoner might say they
were to be employed by others in the slave trade; that would be plain
and simple: it is wrong, but it is a plain and simple account of that
which was intended to be done. It is a place, as it appears, without any
trade; and if there be an obvious plain interest in a person carrying
goods to that place, it appears to me that it may be taken that they
were for the purpose of the slave trade. If that be the plain and
obvious inference, it appears to me that might be the inference very
properly drawn by Colonel Nichol, that this was a slave adventure,
unless the contrary were proved.” Here the character of the place seems
the only point upon which the observations of the learned Judge bear;
and that character having been laid down as very probably indeed unknown
to any one but the dealer in slaves, and the police employed against
them, they do not seem to touch the prisoner. But at the same time an
answer is suggested which the prisoner might give about what was
intended, thus seeming to imply, that he ought to be furnished with
evidence in answer, capable of accounting for what was intended, without
which the full weight of an inference by one of the witnesses must
remain, so far attaching to him the knowledge that he must necessarily
be supposed to entertain of what was intended by others. I had said
before the Committee, in the evidence read in Court, that the house knew
nothing of what was to be done with the goods. Therefore, this not being
admitted, it seems to follow that the law, as laid down by Judge Maule,
requires some plain and simple account of what was intended to be done
with the goods from the commission-agent in England who ships them by
order and for account of a merchant residing abroad. It had before been
laid down, that to ship the goods for slave trade purposes is an offence
under the Act, if the shipper was cognizant of the intent: it is now
said, that the port is an exclusively slave trading port, and it is not
suggested that this was probably unknown, as it had before been said, to
any but the dealer in slaves and the police employed against them, nor
any account taken of the statement of the accused before the House of
Commons, which had been read in Court, disclaiming the very possibility,
as a mere shipping-agent, of any knowledge of what was to be done with
the goods: the only answer suggested is one which may give a plain and
simple account of what the merchant abroad intended to do with the goods
at such a port. It seems to follow, therefore, that the mere
shipping-agent in England is bound by the Act to be provided with such
an account; and if he does not give it, the inference, to be drawn as to
the object of the shipment from the character of the port, will not
only attach to the adventure, but will cut deeper, since if you are
bound to have and to produce a knowledge, and you do not produce it, it
seems that the account is to be held not to be producible.

The notion that the Act of Parliament must be understood, not only as
punishing a proved guilty knowledge, but as demanding from the accused
party proof of an innocent knowledge of the plans and objects of a
foreign merchant residing abroad, in respect of a transaction, in which
the former has had no other share than that of a simple shipping agency
in England, by order and for account of the latter, pervades the whole
of the proceedings, and shows itself more clearly in the remarks that
follow. “It is possible,” continues the Judge, “that this might be an
adventure, not slave trading; if so, nothing can be more simple than to
prove it: Martinez & Co. might prove that it is an honest adventure. If
it was a dishonest adventure, it could not be expected that Martinez &
Co. should be called to give evidence at all; but if it were an innocent
adventure, it would be very easy for them to be called. It is true that
persons are to be convicted, not by evidence they did not produce, but
by evidence produced against them--not on suspicion, but on conviction;
but where such evidence is offered of the trade being slave trading, as
is offered here, namely, that the vessel was loaded with goods” (in
itself, as the learned Judge had formerly stated, not conclusive of
guilt)--“that a cargo of goods was dispatched” (to which the same former
observation applies) “to a place, where slave trading is the only known
object for which vessels _ever_ go” (known to slave traders and the
police employed against them, as was also aptly remarked by his
Lordship; although one of these, Captain Denman, seems to have known of
800 tons, according to his evidence (see p. 329); and upwards of 1,000
tons, according to his official dispatch to the Governor of Sierra
Leone, dated 12th December, 1840[2], as having been landed at Gallinas,
without being able to say that the object was slave trading)--“a
slave-mart and nothing but a slave-mart--you have a case, though it is
an answerable case; but if the answer, which if it exist could be easily
given, is not given, it may very fairly be inferred that the vessel was
proceeding on a slaving voyage, a voyage either for the purpose of
bringing home slaves, or of landing those goods for the purchase of
slaves.”

  [2] Vide “Report. West Coast of Africa. Part II, Appendix,” &c. p.
  460.

The learned Judge is still upon the point of the nature of the
adventure, as indicated by the nature of the trade said to prevail at
Gallinas; and as in the former observations, since the name of Gallinas
has been laid down as probably conveying no information to any but slave
dealers and the slave police, the prisoner seems to remain untouched.
But then it is laid down that an answer, which of course somewhere must
exist, could be easily given by the accused. How so? but that the law,
this special Act of Parliament, must be so understood as to require the
simple shipping-agent in England to prepare himself with a full
knowledge of the plans and the objects of the foreign merchant abroad,
who orders certain goods to be purchased and shipped for his account.
The learned Judge has not lost sight that in the universal practice of
law, a conviction is only justifiable by evidence produced--that is,
produced against, not by that which the accused party does not produce:
but he feels it his duty, under the Act of Parliament he was expounding,
to warn the Jury that the case is not so to be treated; for the
operation of that Act, when to be applied to a commission-agent in this
country, shipping goods to a place about which such evidence is offered
as that it is a slave-mart, and a slave-mart only, even although the
knowledge of that fact has been previously stated to be most probably
confined to dealers in slaves, and the police employed against them,
upon whose testimony alone it stood before the Court--in such a case,
when dealing with the 5th Geo. IV, the _onus probandi_ lies with the
accused. In the course of mercantile transactions, the commission-agent,
who buys and ships goods by order and for account of a foreign merchant
residing abroad, and to a port with which the former has no intercourse
of trade whatever, would not be supposed nor could be expected to
possess any further knowledge than that necessary to complete, in
England, his own part of the transaction; but not so for the purposes of
the Act in question. The reasoning seems to be this: here is a law which
makes a certain knowledge guilty, if the object of the party abroad,
originating the transaction be in deed and in fact a guilty one. In
order to give force and strength to the operation of this law, it must
be so laid down as to render necessary some knowledge of either an
innocent or of a guilty nature, in the party residing in England, of the
plans and objects of the party abroad by whose order and for whose
account he has shipped goods to the port indicated to him. This or that
knowledge must exist in the agent: he must be called upon to produce
even the very foreign merchant himself, over whom the Court can give the
accused no control, over whom he himself is not shown to possess any,
and whose testimony after all could not be trusted; since that of the
accused, as recorded before the Committee, is not. If in this, or in
some other way, he does not prove knowledge of an innocent object, the
object must be taken to be a guilty one; and as the law must be
understood to require a knowledge, and he shows no innocent knowledge,
the inference remains of a guilty knowledge: from which it seems evident
that shipping agency business cannot be safely undertaken, as has been
heretofore done, at least for merchants residing in countries in which
slave dealing still exists, not only in Africa, but Cuba, Brazils, the
United States, and other places. But merchants in England are required
to master the whole object and plan of their correspondents abroad; and
that the sincerity of his endeavours will be measured only by the
result, is what common prudence will teach a man to expect from the
machinery which is set on foot in order to apply to this Act of
Parliament that notable remark, that _who wills the end wills the
means_.

And thus, after having laid down that the Act requires a proof of
innocence in the party accused, a knowledge of something innocent
intended--which, if not given, must leave the inference of guilty
knowledge, inasmuch as _no knowledge_, ignorance of the object, cannot
be taken as an answer--the accused, if he cannot produce his
correspondent, or if he did not possess himself at the time of making
the shipment, of a plain and simple account of his plans, is left to the
mercy of such inferences as may be drawn; and upon this view of the
requirements of the Act of Parliament he is to be considered as
withholding something which cannot be supposed to be favourable to him.
This inference will not be counterbalanced--it cannot be when once
admitted; it must either be destroyed by the plain and simple account of
what the merchant abroad intended, or its edge will be blunted by
nothing else. The accused’s character may be “of the very highest,”
perfectly unassailable; the position he occupies in the mercantile
profession may be very high, the profession itself in this country being
reckoned on a level for honour and principle with the highest; and men
of unblameable character, of considerable standing and independence,
conscientious and upright, moving in society where good taste and right
feeling prevail, are not likely to put their property, their character,
their consciences, in jeopardy, especially by partaking in transactions
to which their habits and feelings, and those of persons around them,
stand opposed, and all that for very paltry advantage. It is pointed out
by the learned Judge, that although a very grave charge, and of a very
highly penal nature, still the slave trade--the dealing in slaves--“is a
trade, which till a recent period was lawful for persons in this
country, and many persons of very good character certainly did engage in
that trade, and a great number of persons justified it. I suppose,” he
continues, “those same persons would now say it is not to be engaged in,
because it is a prohibited thing--it is a regulation of trade enforced
by very severe penalties made by this country--but that the dealing in
slaves is in itself a lawful, right, good, and proper thing, which ought
not to be prohibited. Those persons would now consider slave trading as
a thing prohibited only by positive regulations. There is no one who
does not at once perceive that practical distinction between them. There
is no person who, in point of feeling and opinion, does not perceive the
difference there is between a thing which is prohibited by positive law,
and that kind of thing, against which, if there were no law at all
against it, the plain natural sense and conscience of mankind would
revolt. This trading in slaves, in the opinion of a great many persons,
is itself an abomination, a thing which ought to be considered with the
greatest horror, whether prohibited or not; but those who think it was
right when it was not prohibited, probably do not think it so very bad
if it be committed now, since it has been prohibited by law, only that
it is to be avoided on account of the penalty to which it subjects the
individuals engaged in it. This has some bearing on the question of how
far considerations of character would have weight with respect to such
an offence.” The opinion entertained by the individual in question
against the slave trade may be as strong as the strongest for any thing
that appears, who has stated without its having been contradicted, that
neither himself nor his family have ever been suspected of having the
smallest interest in slave dealing, or in slave property, about which he
has stated how his fathers have proceeded: an individual, who may,
perhaps, have a very strong opinion as to the moral and religious duty
of obedience to positive enactments by competent authority, and who said
something to that effect in the evidence before the Committee of the
House of Commons, which had been read in Court.

This as to the character of the party. As to the inducement, when it is
alleged that the smallness of the agency commission charged shows that
the transaction was considered to be one in the ordinary course of
shipping business, that consideration is pressed down by the weight of
the radical defect in not having given a plain and simple account of
what was intended by the foreign merchant. “It is alleged,” says the
Judge, “that the profit on this transaction would be extremely small. I
do not think that the petty gain of this one transaction is the matter,
for it appears that Pedro Martinez & Co. do a great deal of business,
and it is possible that whenever persons have a large and valuable
business to conduct, _there is some small portion that the correspondent
and agent would willingly get rid of if he could_; but he is not allowed
to pick and choose, but he must take the whole.” In short, a London
merchant, of the character which has been described, is to be supposed
as not at all unlikely to commit a felony, if the alternative be to lose
a valuable connexion.

And thus, whilst the most unimpeachable character is not a proof to any
extent against the suspicion of a felonious knowledge and intent, and
whilst the token of innocence afforded by the charge of the ordinary
rates allowed in legitimate business is not considered of weight--as a
compensation in some other way is possible, and the disposition to
barter conscience and duty for money is such a thing as people who
conduct a large business are not quite unlikely to lend themselves to if
they are not allowed to pick--so, likewise, the supposed extent of the
connexion of the merchant is no bar to their being supposed anxious to
retain one more under felonious conditions. Neither the superiority of
his knowledge and education, nor his skilfulness, are likely to make him
either apprehensive or disinclined to the commission of a crime, whilst
these qualities render him obnoxious to the remark, “that it may very
generally be taken, that people know what they are about, unless they can
show there was some particular concealment, some hinderance to their
knowledge;” “unless they,” so accused, “can show,” that they did not
know (not if those who accuse them have shown that they _did_ know),
then all the qualities of character, station, extent of business,
education, are against the accused; and unless the accused can show,
that he had a knowledge of something innocent having been intended by
the foreign merchant, any peculiar circumstances of the case, which may
appear to be of a favourable nature to the accused, must be considered
only in that light which may diminish the improbability of his having
had a guilty knowledge. Thus, as the employment of the British flag for
the purpose of dealing in slaves stares every body in the face, and was
a very strong feature in the present case, not only against any
knowledge on the part of the charterer of the vessel and shipper of the
goods in England, but even against there having been any guilty intent
in the merchant abroad, who had the choice of other flags equally secure
and less easy of detection and punishment, the favourable inference
hence arising must be neutralised. “If Jennings” (the master of the
vessel) “was an adventurer, if he were, as suggested, a very clever and
intelligent person, and very conversant with every thing to be done on
this occasion, a competent master of the vessel, supposing the slave
trade to be intended, a thing which requires qualities one is sorry to
see exercised so ill--a great deal of courage, sagacity, and presence of
mind, and an unscrupulous readiness to employ them for the commission of
this felony, not to be found in everybody--a man of such a description
would be the paramount object of a slave trader, whose aim would be,
whoever the owner may be, to elude all search, so to manage the thing as
that the cruizers of any country shall not stop him. Probably, if the
adventure succeeds, it must succeed by such means, so that one sees a
perfectly good reason why, consistently with this being a slave trading
voyage, it may have been English owned.” Not a word appears in the
proceedings against the character of this man, neither does it seem
intended by the learned Judge to impugn it, simply to say that _if_ the
man did possess the qualities of cleverness and courage attributed to
him, these qualities being very serviceable for wicked purposes, it is
to be inferred that they were intended to be applied to a slave trade
adventure, since no plain and simple account of a lawful intent on the
part of the foreign merchant has been given by the charterer in England,
with whom the law is to be supposed to make a knowledge imperative. The
prosecutor knew, although it was not before the Court, that this man had
been tried for the very identical offence in this matter of the Augusta
at Sierra Leone, and had been acquitted; for _the chief witness in this
prosecution_, in which, be it observed, Jennings is coupled with me (see
the indictment, page 211), _was the prosecutor in the proceedings
against him before the criminal court of that colony_; and he himself
stated before the Committee of the House of Commons (see Lieutenant
Hill’s evidence, page 84), that Jennings had been acquitted. And here,
by the way, let it be noticed, that _Jennings is at this moment under a
prosecution in London for the very crime for which he was tried at
Sierra Leone and there acquitted_, the chief and really the only
witness, upon whose sworn depositions before the Grand Jury here the
bill against Jennings has been found, being the very same person who
instituted the prosecution at Sierra Leone, which terminated in the
acquittal of Jennings. And thus, while the individual so acting is at
this moment on his way to take possession of his appointment as
governor of the Gold Coast, the unfortunate man, who he knows cannot be
tried a second time, is in prison.

Further, as the vessel had been admitted (how reluctantly may be easily
seen) by one witness not to have been furnished with equipment of any
sort for slaving purposes, and had been rescued from the attempt to
raise a doubt upon this point, by the evidence of another witness, this
is shown also as in no way serving the shipping-agent in England without
giving the plain and simple account of what was intended by the foreign
merchant residing abroad. “I should think it would be quite a matter of
course, even if the vessel was intended to be sent to promote the slave
trade, that she should not go out with shackles or leagers, or any thing
of that kind on board; for if they are on board, the vessel would be at
the mercy of any Custom-house officer.”

The vessel had, however, been at Cadiz, where, according to the
representation made on behalf of the prosecution she was really meant to
go first, in order to provide herself with the slave instructions, which
the Court would not receive, though strongly pressed, as evidence
against the agent who had managed the vessel in England so far as
chartering and loading her; and yet, although it had been said by
Serjeant Bompas “that wherever a vessel leaves a place such as Spain, or
some place where she may leave with impunity, with all her equipments
complete,” she does so; and although this vessel, which has been charged
by the prosecution to have gone into Cadiz for the very purpose of
helping the illegal object imputed: she is found not to have been there
equipped--and that not from any great attention to the safety of the
adventure, for the letters contended to be so clearly slave instructions
for the voyage seem to have been there put on board--still the
observation is not the less applied, that she was not equipped for the
slave trade, because she could not have been so in an English port,
without any reference to the fact that the prosecution had contended she
could and would have so been at a Spanish port. There she had, however,
touched; and that too, according to the prosecution, for the very
express purpose of helping the illegal object in a manner more
condemnatory than any other. The thing demanded from the prisoner is,
however, a plain and simple account of the intent of the foreign
merchant in this transaction, and without his being able to give that,
every other circumstance which may be favourable to him, either vanishes
away, or converts itself into a weapon against him.

Again, the counsel for the defence had put the following case to the
Jury:--“You may be manufacturers of guns or gunpowder, or
commission-agents living in this country, who, for the purpose of
shipment, purchase those goods; in either case a party comes and says--I
want 1,000 muskets and six tons of gunpowder to be shipped to a certain
place on the coast of Africa. I ask you, are you first to consult the
map to ascertain the place, and, having ascertained where it is, are you
to go to Captain Hill or Captain Denman and inquire whether they have
been upon the coast of Africa, and can tell you the character of the
trade carried on there? Are you next, the person being a Spaniard or a
Portuguese, to inquire whether they ever deal in slaves; and if you find
they do, are you to say, I will execute no order you give me?”

Upon this the learned Judge remarks:--“That Zulueta & Co. stand in a
very different situation from that of a person who is simply the
manufacturer or dealer in goods, and who has those goods ordered, and
who, inquiring Where shall I send them? is answered, Send them on board
the ‘Augusta,’ now lying at Liverpool. It would be a strong thing from
that circumstance to infer that a person sending those goods on board
had any thing to do with slave trading; but that appears not to be the
nature of this transaction. In regard to there being a slave trading,
all that is done, is done by Zulueta & Co. It is not merely that they
had goods sent on board the ship, but they chose the number of the goods
to be sent on board the ship, goods which they had bought, for which
they had negotiated; and they made out such charter-party, and that
charter-party provides that the ship shall proceed to Gallinas on the
coast of Africa.”

In the case of the manufacturer of the goods, described as receiving an
order and executing it, and shipping the goods on board a vessel for the
Gallinas, it would be _strong_ to infer that he had any thing to do with
the slave trade. Why so, but because every one of these acts is
compatible with ignorance of the objects that are or may be intended?
Now, the learned Judge had previously established that the acts of
buying and shipping, chartering, and dispatching, are not necessarily in
themselves conclusive of guilt, which of course they are not; how, then,
is the inapplicability of the comparison put by the counsel for the
defence to be maintained, but by laying down the principle, that for the
purpose of a defence under this charge, the commission-agent must, at
all events, be required to be possessed of, and therefore to be able to
give, a plain and simple account of what the merchant abroad intended;
and this once laid down, nothing that comes short of it must be suffered
to tell in his favour.

The preceding remarks are scattered over the whole of the summing up,
and accompany a recapitulation of the particulars of the case. They are
here brought together in succession, for the purpose of showing the
manner in which the circumstances of the case, in a proceeding of this
kind, are treated. It is very true that an introductory remark precedes,
laying down “that it is necessary undoubtedly, on the part of the
prosecution, that there should be a case made of knowledge, on the part
of the prisoner, of the purpose for which this adventure was meant.” The
whole process which follows is of a nature which would appear contrary
to this principle, unless with the qualification that the proof is to
consist in the prisoner not giving himself a plain and simple account of
something innocent meant by the foreign merchant residing abroad; and as
if the law left no alternative to the shipping-agent, who buys and ships
the goods in England by his order, but to do this; or, _ipso facto_, by
not doing so, to stand self-convicted of the guilty knowledge.

Under this view of the requirement of the law, which I have now followed
throughout this charge, the concluding remarks of the Judge seem to be
dictated. “Now, inasmuch as there are two other partners, and it is
probable there might be some other persons in the concern, there arises
this consideration. It is true, supposing that there were a case made,
but that the prisoner was innocent of it, that he could not call
Martinez & Co. on that supposition, as he might on the supposition of
there being no slave trading; for Martinez & Co. would not be innocent
persons, and they would not be willing to come into this country and
say, ‘We carried on the slave trading, but it was disguised from our
correspondent, Zulueta & Co.’ If you think there is a case requiring an
answer, the question then is, would there have been any difficulty in
the prisoner calling his two partners, and others conversant with the
business of the firm, and proving that Zulueta & Co. knew nothing at all
about this, that they had not the least suspicion, that Martinez & Co.
never communicated the fact to them, and that the illegal purpose was
utterly unknown to them, for some reasons which the prisoner cannot
give, but which his partners could? It would be extremely desirable they
should do it, if the defence existed in point of fact.” And lastly, the
learned Judge concludes his address to the Jury, by directing their
attention to the evidence of the character of the prisoner, remarking,
that it is “a character I should say very strong indeed, and almost
conclusive, supposing the case were one that did not admit of an answer
in point of fact.”

Here the same principle of demanding a justification of innocence is
carried out, which pervades the whole of the summing up, and of every
part of the management of the case by the Court. It is not said, in any
one part of the charge, that the prosecution have made out either a case
of slave dealing, or any knowledge of such a thing being intended, or
known to be intended by the prisoner, against which a contrary case
should be opened and proved; but only that evidence which the prisoner
should give of innocence is pointed out; and, what is most remarkable,
the following circumstance was not thought worthy of notice.

Mr. Fitz-Roy Kelly (the counsel for the defence) had in the outset, when
Mr. Serjeant Bompas was opening the evidence for the prosecution,
brought into Court every book, letter, and paper of the firm of Zulueta
& Co., with the clerks in whose keeping these documents constantly are:
they consisted of the journals, ledgers, letters, bill-books,
memorandum-books, original letters of the house of Martinez & Co., of
the Havannah, and Martinez of Cadiz, since 1839, one year before these
transactions originated, up to 1841, one year after their termination;
and, as will be found in page 303, Mr. Kelly made the following
tender:--“I ought to add, as the notice to produce has been referred to,
and is now upon the table, that the notice calls upon the prisoner, Mr.
Zulueta, to produce all the books, documents, and accounts of his house,
between certain dates, at all relating to the transaction in question;
and all letters written, and copies of letters written by this house, or
any body for them in relation to this matter. My Lord, every document
there mentioned is here in Court, and in two minutes ready to be put
upon the table.... The greater part are in Spanish, and the prisoner at
the bar can distinguish them; but the clerks who kept these books, the
corresponding clerk, and the clerk in whose handwriting they are, are
ready to speak to any thing my learned friend may call for from the
beginning to the end.” This is not taken any notice of by the learned
Judge, when pointing out that the prisoner should have called his own
father and his own brother, the only partners in the house, to prove
that Zulueta & Co. had no knowledge of any slave trading being intended,
although the prisoner himself had so stated the fact to be before the
Committee of the House of Commons, in the evidence which had been read
in Court; and if the statement was objectionable, as being from the
party now deeply interested himself, when in a very different situation,
it is not perceived how that objection would not have held with tenfold
strength at that moment against their evidence. Thus it remains on
record, that nothing short of a plain and simple account of what the
merchant abroad intends, made out by the defendant, will answer any
purpose of the slightest advantage to himself. It is enough in the case
of a vessel employed by an agent in England to carry goods, bought and
shipped by himself, by order and for account of a foreign merchant
residing abroad, if the prosecutor show a general slaving at the port of
destination.

And thus have I disposed of the last point which I proposed to
illustrate out of the summing up of Justice Maule, in order to show the
position of merchants who have intercourse of business with countries
wherein slavery, and the slave trade, is still permitted to exist.

I began by showing the facility afforded by the law to any individual
whomsoever, who may choose to undertake a prosecution, not only without
the consent, but against the recorded judgment of the Legislature, and
the known opinion of those officers of the Crown who are especially
charged with the prosecution of public offenders. I have shown, that
this may be done by any man--whether from motives of private resentment,
or of private interest, or of wanton malice--whether under a fanatical
hallucination, or from a desire of vain-glory, or from a combination of
all or of some of the very worst passions of the heart with the less
inexcusable errors of the head, it matters not: the search for the
particular motive operating in any one given instance is indeed
unprofitable, and whilst it cannot do much towards reclaiming the
perpetrator of the mischief, would but little improve the moral tone of
mind of his victim, yet the fact itself remains unaltered, _viz._ that a
prosecution of this kind, in the name of the Queen, which the forms of
justice require to be used, and on the plea of a public spirit, may be
taken up by any man in defiance of a recommendation to the contrary by
the House of Commons, upon a case canvassed and decided upon by a
Committee of that House, and against the opinion of the law officers of
the Crown. It has also appeared, that to the general and very powerful
objections which are suggested by the common sense and reason of mankind
against this practical reversion to the state of savage life in which a
man can take such means of attack upon his fellow-man as he thinks will
effect his purpose best, with this sole difference, that the
self-appointed public prosecutor may inflict even greater mischief with
the weapon of the law than the savage with the knife, and more securely,
this evil is added, _viz._ that this private avenger of public wrongs
may adopt the form of a secret information before a Grand Jury, thus
avoiding the necessity of appearing as the accuser, unless he chooses so
to do, at his own most convenient time, and always preserving the
secrets of his own statements, by means of which the first blow at all
events will have been successfully, irremediably, and fatally inflicted,
and thus placing himself above any responsibility on that account. Then
it has been seen, that at this stage of the proceedings, and under all
the ignorance as to the prosecutor and as to the depositions upon which
he is charged, inseparable from the nature of the proceedings, a man,
reputed honourable, as unsuspecting himself as unsuspected by his
fellow-citizens, may be dragged from his office and from the bosom of
his family, with imminent risk to his business, and with still more
fearful effect upon his dearest connexions; and under the shock of his
own feelings, which so awful a situation must naturally produce, is
conducted as a common felon under charge of the police to the
station-house, and thence to the Old Bailey, whence he can only be
suffered to depart (of course in exactly the same state of ignorance
under which he entered the Court), when the person who arrested him
shall have consented, and on such terms as he shall consent to; and then
only will he be allowed to return to his distracted family and prepare
his defence--against what? against a technical definition of some facts
in which he has played some part, but which being so defined as to
square with the application which may be meant to be made of a certain
Act of Parliament, is sure to bear no kind of resemblance to the real
manner in which the said facts occurred, and of course none at all to
the impression which they left on the mind of the accused, or to the
form in which alone they can present themselves to his mind; and,
therefore, such a definition can convey no information of the nature of
the depositions secretly made against him, and cannot consequently
assist him in preparing evidence against them. He must launch into the
regions of imagination for every possible construction which may be
given by any man to those facts which have been really done by him, and
prepare evidence upon every one of such possible constructions, at an
expense and amidst perplexity which may be supposed, and after all most
likely to no purpose, for probably the construction to which the proof
will be directed by the prosecution may be one against which no
counterproof has been prepared; and indeed it will be so, for with this
very object the proof will be directed to the construction least likely
to occur to the accused, and that upon which a counterproof will be most
difficult--for all which the nature of the Act of Parliament has been
seen to afford peculiar advantages.

In this state of things the trial comes on. The facilities thus far
given to an unknown accuser have been seen, and to so frightful an
extent, that even if the trial proceeds no further, an amount of
incalculable and irreparable evil and misery may have been perpetrated.
These facilities, it has been further seen, are not at all balanced by
the strictness of the requirements of the law from the prosecution, they
are all applied against the accused. The definition of the crime by the
Act of Parliament is itself loose and capable of an unlimited
application, and it is understood and laid down in the very largest,
thereby including acts which are notoriously and expressly admitted to
be in themselves perfectly innocent: the only qualification is the
_knowledge_. This is brought to a lower point in the scale, _viz._
_suspicion_. With a show of ingenuousness, as if to put down _a
quibble_, which in Court sounds like a zeal for the truth, the question
is made to be, not whether _you knew_, but whether _you suspected_; and
next, whether _you had reason to suspect_; the tendency really being
towards the real point, to which you are only being gently let down,
_viz._ whether witnesses can be found who will say that they themselves
_knew_ very well a great many things, which ought therefore to have been
known by yourself, and that therefore you must at least _have
suspected_.

Then the prosecution is not limited to the proof of one particular
charge: here it is suffered to remain quite at large--they need not
define the act they mean to charge, whether it is this, or that, or any
thing else, upon the accused. The knowledge of the intent, in which
every lawyer in the land whom you may consult previous to entering into
any operation, will tell you, _before you are indicted_, that the guilt
consists, after being brought down to a lower point, as observed before,
is made out to be, 1st, any knowledge, not the knowledge in the
particular case; 2nd, the knowledge of _others_, not _your_ knowledge;
and the proof of it is no further put upon the prosecution than so far
as to make out a case of _probable knowledge_, founded upon evidence of
some general acts done by certain persons on other occasions, not the
one in question, in distant countries--acts to which you are not shown
to have been a party, or even probably acquainted with--persons in
respect of whom all your proceedings in England are admitted to be in
themselves, and as done towards them, perfectly innocent; such acts
being done upon such other occasions by such persons in countries far
away, little known, with which no regular means of communication
exist--countries almost unknown to every one in England, and not at all
proved to be known to yourself: and all this evidence given by
individuals not in circumstances analogous to those in which the accused
stands, but by individuals, and by no others, who in the exercise of a
peculiar duty have sometimes visited the countries in question; and
therefore leaving the whole of the case open to this remark, that whilst
it is not at all shown, either from your own acts, or from the facts
themselves, that you in England must necessarily _have known_, there is
an evident impropriety in pushing the witnesses to the extent of
proving, that nothing but what they said to have happened on other
occasions in other places, could have been the ultimate issue of an
unaccomplished speculation, intercepted by one of the witnesses, to his
evident advantage.

It has lately been shown that such a case of probable knowledge, so made
out, and so substantiated, will go to the Jury; and in going to the Jury
nothing will avail you, as far as the law goes, but your being able to
give “a plain and simple account of what was intended by a foreign
merchant residing abroad,” whom you must even bring over to give
evidence of what he intended to do with goods shipped by yourself in
England, in consequence of a simple order as a mere commission-agent, or
to show an impossibility of your being aware of that intent whatever it
may be. Without complying with one or other of these two requirements,
your case shall go to the Jury, accompanied by every unfavourable
inference; and what should have been for your advantage is turned
against you. The readiness and openness of the party accused in giving
every explanation upon the very first intimation of a suspicion existing
on the subject--the credit attached by every one capable of correctly
estimating those explanations, whatever circumstances of a favourable
nature may lie on the very surface of the case itself--the
respectability of the accused, his rank in society, and high character,
as vouched by men of the first standing, and who have every opportunity
of knowing him and his acts--his wealth, his education, his
knowledge--qualities peculiarly adapted to this kind of felony, which is
intimated to be the felony of the honest, the wealthy, the educated, the
well-informed--all these things seem in the exposition of the law to be
literally against him. Nevertheless, these circumstances, combined with
the impression produced by the inquisitorial nature of the original
proceedings, together with the irresistible force of that axiom, that “a
man must be proved to be guilty, and not called upon to prove himself
innocent,” may--and thanks be to God, did, in the instance before
us--blunt the edge of the murderous weapon brandished over the head of
the accused.

There may be something so revolting in the whole conduct of such
proceedings to the consciences of men, as to stand in the way of a
conviction by an English Jury; but it has been seen in what way every
other indignity may, at all events, be safely inflicted; and as
affecting men and families of certain education and feeling--who, be it
never forgotten, are the very parties said to be most obnoxious to the
charge--a verdict of guilty need not arrive, to produce evils as great
or greater than any penalties which it is possible for any human law to
impose. And when it is considered--first, that the legitimate popular
sense of words is distorted in order to call _slave trading_ that, which
is neither directly nor indirectly _dealing in slaves_; secondly, that
under the guise of a question of fact, a very subtle metaphysical
argument about the nature and the degree of knowledge in the mind of an
individual, is the thing really submitted to minds the least likely to
apprehend the very nice distinction upon which the decision must
hang--and, lastly, when every means are industriously resorted to in
order to make it appear that the crime largely prevails in the class to
which the accused is likely to belong, and to represent that the only
difficulty is to get over the technicalities of legal evidence, but that
moral evidence abounds--when all these things are taken together, it is
easy to discover how much even the failure of such a prosecution as
this, facilitates the next attempt: perhaps it may be practically found
that it does so, more than its success could have done.

The resolution of the London Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society of
the 8th of December, which has been already quoted, broadly states the
prevalence of the crime among British merchants; and another, of a still
more recent date, besides repeating the same assertion in another form,
clearly intimates that the obstacle to its being visited as it deserves,
does not consist in the want of proof of the existence of the guilt, but
in “the difficulty encountered in the course of the prosecution in an
English Court of Law:” that is, in the technicalities of the rules of
evidence, even after the stretch of these rules, which this particular
Act of Parliament would, by the experience of the late proceedings, seem
to demand.

These resolutions, just published, passed by the Committee on the 29th
December, are as follows:--

  “Zulueta’s Trial.--At a meeting of the Committee of the British and
  Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, held at 27, New Broad Street, on Friday,
  December 29, 1843, George William Alexander, Esq., in the chair, the
  following resolutions were adopted:--

  “I. That this Committee, regarding the recent trial of Pedro de
  Zulueta, Jun., on a charge of slave trading, in the Central Criminal
  Court, on the 27th of October last, and following days, as an event of
  the highest interest and importance, feel it their duty to express
  their sentiments on the state of things which has been developed by
  it.

  “II. That, abstaining from all comment on the verdict of the Jury,
  this Committee regard the following points as brought out with great
  force by this trial, _viz._--

  “1. That articles of British manufacture are principally used on the
  coast of Africa in barter for slaves.

  “2. That British merchants who are engaged in furnishing such supplies
  to slave traders are practical supporters of the African slave trade.

  “3. That, although a British merchant may furnish supplies to the most
  notorious slave traders in the world, the evidence by which a charge
  of aiding and abetting the slave trade can be substantiated against
  him is of such a nature that it is extremely difficult, if not almost
  impossible, to prosecute such an offender to conviction.

  “4. That the practice of aiding and abetting the slave trade by
  supplying goods to slave traders prevails to a considerable extent
  among British merchants, and that, by a portion of the mercantile
  community, it is not regarded with the sentiments due to its
  flagitious character.

  “III. That this Committee regard in particular the last fact now
  stated with the deepest and most poignant regret; and that they
  earnestly invoke, not so much the fear of punishment as the sense of
  honour, of justice, and of benevolence, in the British community, for
  the correction of so great an evil.

  “IV. That the difficulties encountered in the course of this
  prosecution in an English court of justice, and the extended
  ramifications of the slave trading interest which have been developed
  by it, have, in the judgment of this Committee, confirmed the
  principle held by the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, that
  the only effectual mode by which the slave trade can be abolished is
  the abolition of slavery itself.

  “JOHN SCOBLE, Secretary.”

In these resolutions, the Committee describe the particular matter which
they had under their consideration, _viz._ the supply of British goods.
Not so in the previous resolution of the 9th of December (see page
xxvi). In it a hope is expressed, that by the proceedings against Pedro
de Zulueta, “a salutary check will be given to the notorious implication
of British capital and commerce in that nefarious traffic.” How this
implication takes place is not pointed out. Upon the merits of the
matters contained in these resolutions, it is not, of course, my
intention to enter; I take them as they are put forth, for the only
purpose which perhaps gives them any value or importance, _viz._ as
expressions of the sentiments and opinions of people who show every
disposition to sanction, and have the pecuniary means required in order
to encourage or to assist others in the use of that power of private
prosecution which every one possesses, even if they themselves are not
inclined to exercise it in their own persons.

Now, although it is not distinctly stated in the resolution just quoted
how this _notorious_ implication of British capital is supposed to take
place--not to say any thing at present about a most unjustifiable use of
the word _notorious_, which, in these matters, is constantly made--the
mode in which the implication takes place must be supposed to be large
enough to be notorious--large enough, when even a check to it is made
the object of hope and the subject of a resolution, which, as it conveys
a serious charge against fellow-citizens, nothing but a very
overwhelming sense of the necessity of a _check_ could have induced the
Committee to overcome the painfulness of publishing. The term could not
properly apply to any direct concern in the slave trade; _that_ would be
something more than _implication_. It cannot be confined to the supply
of goods, since this is a subject treated in a separate set of
resolutions. It must be taken to apply to other operations also, such as
occur in the progress of a mercantile intercourse with other countries
in which slavery, or the slave trade, are permitted to exist, and must
apply to all or any transactions with those countries, at least, unless
a clear and distinct separation can be made that will render it quite
certain and quite capable of proof that neither the slave trade nor
slavery can possibly be forwarded directly or indirectly by the
transaction. This is the only certain way of avoiding _implication_.
This sense of the charge against British merchants at large, is perhaps
the only one which can render either intelligible or practicable the
observation which was so emphatically delivered by the learned Serjeant
Bompas in his opening speech at the trial, that “if merchants in this
country would not accept bills drawn by slave traders, if they would not
send goods from this country to be employed for the purpose--in fact,
the trade could not be carried on at all.”

And whether this rather extraordinary assertion be or be not correct, I
deal with it as with the resolutions of the Anti-Slavery Committee--it
is quite enough, upon such a question, and with such momentous interests
at stake, that such opinions prevail in certain quarters, and that the
power exists of giving them that fatal effect which these proceedings
reveal, in order to force upon us, as merchants, the consideration of
whether any mercantile transactions whatsoever can possibly be carried
on with countries wherein the slave trade or slavery exist, with any
real safety to our persons and to our property, whilst things remain as
they have been shown to be in the practical development of the law.

It is very true, that previous to the late elucidation of its working,
there were such high legal authorities on the subject, as will be found
in the pages immediately following this address; and even now, if a case
is placed before the very highest counsel of the land, you will be told
that _knowledge, wilful knowledge_, of the _guilty_ intent can condemn
the acts upon which you are seeking advice--that that, of itself, will
condemn the most indirect--and nothing short of that can condemn the
most direct act of abetting the slave trade. But, in order to make good
a charge, the evidence of a _probable knowledge_ is made up of those
very acts which, without presupposing the knowledge, you had been told
are innocent, perfectly legal, and such as you could perform. When once
that case of probable knowledge is thus made out, you are called upon to
meet it with a case of your own, in which you cannot allege, with any
success, the innocent nature of your acts; for although those have been
already declared to be innocent in themselves, they are also taken as
evidence that you must be possessed of _a knowledge_ of what they were
intended to be made subservient to by a foreigner at some thousands of
miles distant, in a country which to you may be _terra incognita_.

The question resolves itself therefore into one of prudence, about which
you will be told by the learned Counsel, and properly told, that you
alone can be, and you alone must be, the judge, _viz._ whether, under
the state of the law which has been developed, it is safe to enter into
any dealings, not which you know or suspect (this is _a fraud of the
law_), but which _may be_ rendered subservient, however indirectly by
others, to a slave trading purpose. The letter of the law seems to speak
of _knowingly and wilfully_ aiding and abetting the slave trade, and so
it is expounded by the highest legal authority of the land, when
consulted upon any one case in perspective; but the practice renders
this a most _egregious fraud_ on the part of the law itself, which
presents itself under false colours; for, whilst in theory it does not
permit of any other advice being given for its observance than that just
mentioned, in practice it has been seen how the proof of your knowledge
is established, not by evidence produced against you, but by that which
you do not produce when a case of probable _knowledge_, founded upon
knowledge of others in totally different circumstances, has been made
out.

These things speak for themselves and show what is the practical
situation of merchants trading with countries in which dealing in slaves
and slave negotiations are both legal and of common occurrence. I need
not say, that the United States, Cuba, Brazils, and a large portion of
Europe, without talking of Africa, fall exactly under this description.
It has been admitted, for indeed it cannot be denied, that it is
impracticable to draw a line of separation, in order to distinguish the
illicit from the licit traffic, in countries where they both subsist,
for they are interwoven and mix themselves with, and merge the one into,
the other. This is perfectly clear, and indeed the only intelligible
account of the matter. Under such a view of the nature of the
thing--after what has been brought to light in the late proceedings as
to the mode in which a man may be attacked, with ruin staring him in the
face at the first onset, whatever the subsequent result may be, seized
on--laid hold of at any, perhaps the most critical, moment--after what
has been seen of the method in which his prosecution will be suffered to
be carried on, and the manner in which the evidence will be made to
bear, in order to prove the _knowledge_ which constitutes the
guilt--after seeing that no precaution can guard a man against the
attack, and no endeavour to ascertain the real sense of the treacherous
law, which speaks one thing and means a very different one--after seeing
that as a merchant of wealth, character, and education, he carries in
those very circumstances as many presumptions of guilt--after it has
been shown that the only thing which can save him, according as the law
is laid down and administered, is that which in the nature of mercantile
transactions is, and must be in almost every case impossible--after all
this, which the late proceedings have so strongly brought to
light--there remains but one safe course, _viz._ to abstain from all
mercantile intercourse with countries in which slavery or the slave
trade exists.

The absurdity which appears on the face of such a statement as this just
made, involving as it does the cutting off communication with half the
world at least, and leaving the communication with the other half very
much on the footing of an inconsistency, renders the accuracy of the
rule, as a conclusion from the preceding reasoning, very suspicious. I
appeal, however, to every candid and honest mind whether it be or it be
not the conclusion which, but for its _absurdity_, (if so it is to be
called) would be imperative, and such as could not be avoided without
manifest want of honesty. If such is the real fact--if the conclusion is
just and legitimate, and yet it leads to something absurd and wrong;
then the principles upon which it proceeds must themselves be the
_wrong-doers_. The state of the law, which leaves no other alternative
than that of an impracticable absurdity on the one side, and on the
other an exposure, imminent and threatening, to an indictment, followed
up by the most terrible consequences, even if a conviction does not take
place--must be wrong. It deserves a stronger epithet, lest it should be
thought that by wrong is only meant _unwise_--it is positively of the
very nature of a national crime--it is a deep moral stain upon the
people who suffer this state of things to continue in all its hideous
deformity, whilst the victims to such a state of the law could only be
looked upon as barbarously sacrificed: the people tolerating its
continuance, when once made aware of what was being done, could be
considered only as a race of heartless, cruel tyrants. In the pursuit of
a praiseworthy object it is very possible, and indeed it is not
uncommon, for a nation no less than for an individual to betray itself
into a very false position, which is made so much the more mischievous,
because, in the case of the nation no less than the individual, people
are found ready to take advantage of that position. But so soon as the
evil reveals itself in this practical shape, the nation, quite as much
as the individual, is called upon to remove the very possibility of a
repetition of the act of oppression arising from that false position.

And what is the false position in which this country appears before the
whole world in the matter before us? It is this. Here is a people with
whom trade and manufactures form very important elements of wealth,
independent of the justly admitted tendency of both to promote
civilization--a most important, but not the present consideration--these
people thrive largely by their mercantile intercourse with Cuba, with
the Brazils, with Spain and with Portugal, with the United States, with
Africa, so much so, that they cannot dispense with that trade. Those of
their people who follow the commercial career in all its branches, their
merchants, manufacturers, and ship-owners, and conduct the intercourse
with those countries, materially contribute to the welfare and to the
prosperity of every class of the community in which they live. They
contribute not a little to the support of the State, and when an
emergency arises, when the credit of the country and the honour of the
Crown are at stake, they are among the first upon whom the call is made,
and is not made in vain: and yet the state of the law among this people
who derive the important benefits, which have not certainly been
exaggerated, from a commercial intercourse with the countries just
mentioned, is such as to place those of their fellow-countrymen, who
conduct that intercourse, and are therefore nearest in contact with
those countries, liable to be dragged from the scene of their labours,
so vital to the prosperity of this people, as common felons, upon an
indictment secretly procured and obtained; and their very acts,
notoriously necessary for carrying on the very operations of commerce,
which the country cannot dispense with, are in the first instance to
form the presumption of the guilt, and afterwards the proof of it,
unless they can prove them to be _not guilty_. It is true that this
people have anathematized a branch of trade which subsists in those
countries, and have expunged that trade from their code of licit
pursuits at an immense sacrifice to themselves, and are determined to
extinguish it among the nations of the earth, as far as it can be done
by lawful means; but inasmuch as they cannot dispense with all other
intercourse with other countries, although fully aware that from that
intercourse the proscribed traffic must necessarily derive assistance
(since it cannot be separated from any one licit pursuit in the
countries wherein it prevails), they are bound so to construct the law
as to protect the men who conduct that intercourse, against any attacks
which may be founded more or less on the use to which others, and not
themselves, may turn the acknowledged necessary and legitimate acts,
without which the intercourse cannot exist. And if such be the meaning
of the law, as I have no doubt whatever there is not one man in Great
Britain at all acquainted with these matters, who has not been, to this
moment, in the understanding that such and no other was the state of the
case--if it be not meant that the intention is that a law shall be made
with apparently one meaning, and to be used for a quite different
purpose--when the perversion which it seems to authorise shall have been
discovered, sharpened by the application of the right of private
prosecution, and in the form of a secretly procured indictment, which
destroys before it convicts--there is only one of these honest courses
left--_either let the law--a clearer law--be substituted for that which
exists, or let it be clearly explained; and, at all events, let the
right of prosecution be placed exclusively in hands, and limited to a
course of proceeding, which will afford some guarantee for its right
use_. Let us cast away from us the worst features of the Inquisition.

It cannot be meant to leave matters so--that the nation shall be
deriving all the benefits of commercial intercourse with the countries
already mentioned, trusting to our desire for profit as merchants to get
the better of our prudence as reasonable men--that we shall be content
to run the risk of private prosecution, and secretly procured
indictments, of arrest, imprisonment, ruin, disgrace, transportation,
the sacrifice of all that is dear to a man on earth; and, therefore,
that the nation will go on prospering by our labour, whilst we ourselves
may be told that we need _only be a little more_ careful. And all this,
as if it was meant to be insinuated that if a victim is now and then
made, it is expedient that it should be so; that it is not extremely
harsh, since merchants are to be thought of only as men accustomed to
risks, and therefore who get obdurate against adversity--as if it were
assumed, that as to the victim so made, it is sure to be some one who
has deserved his fate by a more than ordinary degree of temerity, by
going a _little_ too far, or by an act of rebellion against the attempt
to fix the brand on his forehead, which really, when once we have
suffered ourselves to be so far stigmatised, there can be little doubt
will be designated as a degree of fastidiousness to which an exclusively
money-making and money-loving race can have no just pretensions. You may
trust to their rapacity (it would seem to be argued by this defamatory
process, which before it is openly avowed must work its way by implying
as much in action, as, if it were not too revolting, would be stated in
as many words)--you may trust to their rapacity for any necessary amount
of risk being encountered, and therefore no fear of trade being given
up, because we make it a _little_--only just take care that it shall not
appear too dangerous.

This is not, I am sure, the position which is meant to be taken by the
country towards a profession heretofore deemed honourable, and which has
become interwoven with the highest ranks of our society. It is not, it
cannot be meant, that such be the state of things at home, as between
the merchant and the country.

Neither is another position (in every moral point of view equally
indefensible) to be taken by British merchants towards their
correspondents abroad, even supposing it could last. It is well known
and admitted, that a mercantile intercourse imposes a tacit contract
between the two parties who carry on a correspondence, a breach of which
can be visited by the law; that in the progress of the intercourse all
acts mutually required within the mercantile usage, and not otherwise
illegal or improper, shall be performed. If a man carries on a
correspondence with another and a course of business, he is not at
liberty, either as a matter of principle or of law, to break it off when
and how he pleases. Are we called upon as merchants in England, either
by the requirements of the law, or by public opinion, to encourage our
foreign correspondents to send their sugars and their coffees, their
tobacco and their cotton, their copper ore, their minerals, and other
produce, to us in England, and when we are quite sure of our profits,
when they begin to dispose of the proceeds of their property, and we
fancy (which must be very soon, after what the late proceedings have
exhibited) that we may render ourselves liable to a prosecution--are we
then to turn round upon our correspondents, and say, “I cannot accept
your bill until you show me that its proceeds are not going to buy
slaves with?” “I cannot honour the credit you have opened in behalf of
A, B, or C, because I see in the ‘Anti-Slavery Reporter,’ that ‘he is a
_notorious_ slave dealer.’” Are we, when our correspondent sends an
order to buy a ship which is on public sale, and which may be employed
in any trade, and goods which you, reader, may happen to manufacture
yourself--are we then to turn upon our correspondent and say, “Show to
us satisfactorily that these things are not intended by you or any one
connected with you, indeed that they cannot be used, in promoting the
slave trade?”

And again, are we to trust to the circumstance of his being in our
power, and to the odium which the simple imputation of slave dealing
will attach to him, to bear us out in our justification, should he bring
an action against us? Are we, upon receiving an order from our
correspondent, to lay it before counsel for their opinion, which we have
seen will advance us very little? Shall we disclose the name of our
correspondent with the insinuation that he _may be_ a slave dealer, or
that we suspect him to be one, or that some one else suspects him, thus
helping, as far as we are able, to put his property in peril, and to
render every communication with him dangerous? Shall we advertise our
counting-houses in England, not, as they have been hitherto considered
to be, the symbol of security and good faith, but as nests of treachery,
deceit, and suspicion? and shall our intercourse with foreign merchants
assume the character of covert _espionage_? A state of things such as
this, inflicting gross injustice, cruel injury, inexpressible
degradation, upon one class of men, and that class of which England has
had hitherto good reason to be proud--such a state of things at home,
and so much scandal and disgrace abroad, is not, cannot be, contemplated
without feelings of the deepest horror.

I denounce this state of things as involving a national crime--as
attended with national disgrace; I denounce it as a stain which should
be wiped off without delay from the character of a nation eminently
jealous of its public as much as of its private morality, as an offence
to the religious feeling which is not wanting among us; I appeal to the
conscience of every man in Great Britain against this state of things.
May I not take upon myself to say, that I make this appeal in behalf of
a class which yields to no other of the community in high principle or
right feeling--a class which is not at all below the standard of
morality, religious convictions, tastes, education, which may be set by
the most distinguished in this country? I do appeal to the Legislature
and to the Government of the land, which do not make laws or maintain
them as a snare or a trap against a particular class of their subjects.
I appeal to the Honourable Members of the Committee of the House of
Commons on the West Coast of Africa, before whom I appeared in 1842; I
appeal to them as senators, as gentlemen, as men of honour and
principle--I do appeal to all, whether the position of merchants in
mercantile intercourse with countries in which the slave trade and
slavery exist, should remain as it has been shown to be now by the late
proceeding; whether the laws should not be made such, that, whilst we
should be answerable for our own acts, and for our participation and
consent in the wrong acts of others, we may not be undone before we are
even heard in our defence; that we may not be required to prove
ourselves innocent before we are proved to be guilty; and, above all,
that the right of prosecution may be confined to such hands, and its use
to such a procedure as will afford the British merchant a guarantee
against private, malicious, secretly conducted attacks, and will make
his personal security something more than a mockery. I make this appeal
with the same confidence in the result, which my conscience felt when I
stood before the British Jury, into whose hands it pleased Providence,
by so unexpected a proceeding, to place, in point of fact, my very
existence--the existence of all that is dear to me on earth--of much
that the world has had opportunities to try and has stamped as
honourable in character--of much, not the less valuable because the
world can never know of it--the Jury upon whose verdict hung the honour
of this country--a country for whose honour and estimation among the
nations of the earth I must feel strongly--and from which a gross and
cruel injustice would be doubly felt, bound to it as I am by those ties,
which it has been attempted barbarously to tear asunder, but which it is
only in the power of God to dissolve.

  P. DE ZULUETA.

_London, 17th January, 1844._




  OPINIONS OF THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES
  _Referred to in_ p. lxii.


“1 & 2. There is not any thing in the Act of Parliament in question
which renders illegal a commercial dealing on the coast of Africa, in
usual lawful merchandise, though such dealing may be with a person known
to gain his livelihood by dealing in slaves, and therefore of course, an
owner or supercargo making a sale in the manner described to any such
person, does not subject himself or the ship to any of the penalties of
the Act.

“3. Independently of the above Act, an English owner, or master, or
supercargo, or other person who engages in such commercial dealing as
above described, is not guilty of any offence against the law, nor
subject to any punishment.

  (signed)

  “_Fred. Pollock._”

  “Temple, 8 June, 1842.

  (_Vide Report, West Coast of Africa, Part I_, p. 344.)

       *       *       *       *       *

“1. Unless the merchant knew, when he sold the goods, that they were
used for carrying on the slave trade, I am clearly of opinion that he is
not guilty of felony. The question of knowledge will be for the Jury, if
the case is tried by a Jury, or by a Judge or Judges without a Jury, and
will depend upon the evidence that is given either of direct knowledge,
or that the circumstances were such that he must have known the
destination and occupation of the vessel and her crew.

“2. It will appear from the statutes 11th and 12th, and 46th of Geo.
III, c. 54, &c., that the merchant might be tried at Sierra Leone, and
if so, I am disposed to think that the constituted authorities at Cape
Coast would be warranted in apprehending him and sending him for trial
to Sierra Leone, as the offence committed is felony.

“3. I hardly know what precautionary measures can be adopted by the
Governor in cases where it is unknown whether the vessels are intended
for the slave trade or not. The same articles that are used for
bartering for slaves are no doubt also used in bartering for palm-oil,
elephant’s teeth, and other African products, and to prohibit all
dealing in such articles of barter would be greatly prejudicial to the
innocent trade carried on with Africa. The Governor can hardly do more
than warn merchants not to deal in such articles with suspected vessels
upon peril of the consequences.

  (signed)

  “_W. Wightman._”

  “Inner Temple, July 8th, 1840.

  (_Vide Report, West Coast of Africa, Part II, Appendix, &c._, p. 25.)

       *       *       *       *       *

“If a person fitted out a vessel to traffic with slave factories and
settlements, and sold goods to those factories, out and out, though they
were such as might be used for the slave trade, as well as the innocent
commerce of the coast; and though, in point of fact, they were used in
slave trading, he was of opinion that this did not amount to slave
trading: whether it was a commendable use of capital or not, was a
different question. If the goods sent out were of such a description
that it could not be doubtful that they were to be used in the slave
trade alone, such as a cargo of fetters or other implements that could
only be employed in such a trade, he had stated that he deemed this much
more doubtful, yet he was not prepared to say that it was an act of
slave trading which would render the exporter of such articles liable to
be tried for felony. But if goods were sent, whether of one kind or the
other, whether of an ambiguous description, or plainly fitted for the
slave trade alone, and the price of the goods was to depend (as the
petitioners stated to be the fact) upon the slave trade, in which such
goods were to be employed, he had stated that his opinion was that this
was an act of slave trading, being in truth a partnership with slave
traders, and the persons exporting such goods would be guilty of a
felony within the meaning of the Abolition law.”

  (_Extract from_ LORD BROUGHAM’S _Speech before the House of Lords,
  Oct. 5, 1841. Vide Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. LIX, fo.
  1116._)




  DOCUMENTS,
  _&c. &c._


  R. R. GIBBONS, Esq., to Messrs. ZULUETA & CO.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

  _Select Committee on West Coast of Africa._

  Gentlemen,

  April 15th, 1842.

  By Lord Stanley’s desire I send you a copy of Dr. Madden’s Report, on
  the Gold Coast, and its dependencies.

  I am to add, that this is sent to you as being personally interested
  therein, but that you will be good enough to consider it as entirely
  confidential.

  I have, &c.

  R. R. GIBBONS.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Report of Dr. Madden forms part of the Appendix to the “Report from
the Select Committee on the West Coast of Africa[3],” and although the
first official communication which was received by the house of Messrs.
Zulueta & Co., it is not inserted, in consequence of its want of
connexion with the chief subject of this publication. It is entitled,
“Report of Her Majesty’s Commissioner of Inquiry on the State of the
British Settlements on the Gold Coast, at Sierra Leone, and the Gambia,
with some Observations on the Foreign Slave Trading Factories along the
Western Coast of Africa, in the Year 1841;” and sets forth its object as
follows:--

  “Pursuant to the instructions of Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for
  the Colonies, the following matters were duly examined into, and the
  result of the best consideration that could be given to these subjects
  will be found in the following order:--

  “1st. The state and condition of our forts and settlements on the
  Western Coast of Africa, their trade, population, resources, and
  government.

  “2d. The facilities afforded in these settlements to the foreign slave
  traders resorting to them, by affording supplies in goods or stores
  that are essential to the trade.

  “3d. The prospects and practicability of emigration from Sierra Leone
  to our West India Colonies.

  “4th. The climate, salubrity, and nature of the locality of our
  settlements on the Western Coast of Africa: and in addition to these
  subjects, I have to add the consideration of two very important ones,
  not specified in my instructions, but which, in their execution,
  became part and parcel of them, and which I conceived I would not have
  done my duty had I left unnoticed, or taken no steps to remove the
  evils connected with them; these subjects are:--

  “1. The existence of slavery in our settlements on the Gold Coast.

  “2. The co-operation of British commerce with slave-trade interests,
  at the factories of notorious slave dealers on the Western Coast of
  Africa.”

  [3] Vide Part II, p. 9, et seq.

In treating of the last subject here mentioned, the following remarks
occur:--

“It is very true the Consolidated Slave Law, the 5th of Geo. IV,
comprehends every case of aiding and abetting the slave trade, that I
have proposed to have still more formally and specifically prohibited;
and there can be no question that any infraction of this law, whether by
insuring slave property, selling goods for slave trading objects,
lending money, or giving any species of assistance for the promotion of
these objects in any court in England, where the case would be tried on
its proper merits, and not decided on by a jury implicated or involved
in the interests of slavery, that the offender would be convicted of the
felony and punished. But few of those employed in judicial situations on
the Western Coast of Africa have been persons belonging to the legal
professions, and those who did belong to it, and were the advisers of
our governors, have not been persons of very profound experience in the
law, and the consequence has been that, with few exceptions, our
authorities on the Western Coast of Africa hold the opinion that was
entertained at Cape Coast as to the legality of aiding and abetting the
slave dealers, of supplying them with the goods and stores essential to
the purchase of the slaves. The Consolidated Slave Trade Act, of 1824,
distinctly states in the very second clause, that it is unlawful ‘in any
manner to engage, or to contract to engage, directly or indirectly
therein (the slave trade), as a partner, agent, or otherwise, or to
ship, tranship, lade, receive, or put on board, &c.... knowing that such
ship, vessel, or boat is actually employed, &c.’....

“In the 7th clause, with the customary verbiage, it is declared, that
‘if any person shall knowingly and wilfully ship, or put on board of any
vessel any money, goods, or effects, to be employed in accomplishing any
of the objects hereinbefore declared unlawful, then and in every other
such case the person so offending, and their procurers, counsellors,
aiders, and abettors, shall forfeit and pay for every such offence
double the value of all the money, goods, or effects so shipped,
transhipped, laden, received, or put on board, or contracted so to be as
aforesaid.’

“And by the 10th clause, the persons thus aiding and abetting the slave
trade, are further declared to be felons, and shall be transported for a
term not exceeding fourteen years, or confined and kept to hard labour
for a term not exceeding five years, nor less than three years, at the
discretion of the Court.

“The right and privilege heretofore exercised of suing in Vice-Admiralty
Courts for the forfeitures or penalties incurred by the contravention of
this law, are set forth in the 12th clause, notwithstanding any criminal
proceedings that may have been instituted against the aiders and
abettors of this trade. That the merchant in the case of the Dos Amigos
had left himself subject to both sorts of proceedings there can be no
doubt. In a case somewhat analogous to this, of recent occurrence, a
British vessel, commanded by a British subject, the Augusta, dispatched
by a London house, was captured by Lieutenant Hill, of Her Majesty’s
ship Saracen, having merchandise on board adapted for the slave trading
factories, and having a direct destination to one of these. The vessel
was condemned at Sierra Leone, but no proceedings have been taken in the
Vice-admiralty Court in England by Lieutenant Hill, to recover the
penalties incurred by this breach of the law. The notoriety of this
vessel at all the factories on the coast of Africa had its weight in the
tribunal where she was ultimately condemned for aiding and abetting the
slave trade. In no respect was the evidence against this vessel stronger
than that against the Cape Coast merchant, yet that vessel was condemned
by the authorities at Sierra Leone, and the merchant is defended by
those at Cape Coast. The Augusta, a notorious slaver, had only been
captured and sent to England a few months before under the name of the
Gollupchik, and under Russian colours, and she was found again on the
coast, under the British flag, the property of London merchants. The
Spanish slave trader, who was captain of the Gollupchik, when captured
by the Saracen, and sent to England was subsequently taken near Whydah
by Commodore Tucker of the Wolverine, while I was passenger on board
that vessel, in another slaver called the Liberal; and from this man I
learned particulars entirely corroborative of the documentary evidence
found on board the Augusta. The recent relinquishment of the slave trade
on the part of Don Theodore Canot at his slave factory at New Sesters,
one of the principal slave dealers on the Kroo Coast, led to the giving
up of his books and papers to Lieutenant Segrim, of Her Majesty’s ship
Termagant, with whom he entered into arrangements for renouncing his
unlawful trade; and, on examining these books on board of Her Majesty’s
ship Wolverine, I found that a London house had long been in the habit
of supplying stores and merchandise to his slave factory from their
vessels on the coast. On the 4th of December, 1839, there is an entry of
the arrival at his factory, for the purposes of trade, of the English
brig Enterprise.

“1st January, 1840. There is an entry of the arrival of an English brig
‘Corcyra,’ belonging to another house in London, for the purposes of
trade, and of having purchased of him 50 guns, 100 cutlasses, 100 large
kettles, and 100 bars of irons.

“13th May, 1840. There is an entry of the re-appearance of the captain
of the ‘Enterprise,’ at his factory, and having purchased from him 83
cruces of rice, or about 2,000lbs. weight, for which he paid 63 dollars,
and 84 dollars for 21 guns.

“1st July, 1840. There is an entry of the arrival of the English
schooner ‘Gil Blas,’ of London, and of having purchased two pieces of
cloth, eight bars of tobacco, and one gallon of rum.

“On the 5th of December, 1840, Don Theodore Canot placed himself under
the protection of the British flag, renounced his traffic, and gave up
104 slaves to Lieutenant Segrim.

“Lieutenant Hill, of Her Majesty’s ship ‘Saracen,’ on the 14th January,
1839, visited the British vessel ‘Medora,’ and was informed by the
master that he had just disposed at the Gallinas of 10,000 dollars’
worth of goods to the factories there.

“Lieutenant Segrim, of the ‘Termagant,’ recently boarded the British
merchant vessel ‘The Guinea Man,’ and the master admitted having just
sold 500_l._ worth of goods to the slave trade factories at the
Gallinas.

“A British trader, a man of colour, who has an establishment at Accra,
has one likewise at Little Popoe, where he is known to dabble in this
trade.

“This man was an agent of a mercantile house in London; and information
reached me of his having embarked for Popoe some time ago, in the
neighbourhood of St. Paul’s, a number of slaves on board a British
vessel then under discharge. On visiting this part of the coast in Her
Majesty’s ship ‘Wolverine,’ on my way to Princes’ Island, we found at
Great Popoe a British subject of colour holding a factory, from which
Captain Tucker had information he had lately shipped a cargo of slaves.
While at anchor off the shore, Captain Tucker addressed a letter to him
on the subject, informing him of the report he had heard, and giving him
to understand that, on any repetition of his illegal proceedings, he
would destroy his factory and carry himself to Sierra Leone. He returned
a submissive, and I must add a very proper answer, not denying the
transaction alluded to, but promising faithfully in future to abstain
from exporting slaves.

“I have noticed these circumstances, though not apparently bearing on
the subject of this part of my Report, namely, the resources, trade, and
government of our settlements on the Gold Coast, and the influence of
the latter on the adjoining districts, in order to show the necessity
there is for a new enactment to prevent the facilities that are now
afforded by our commerce from supplying the slave trade factories with
these commodities which are indispensable to the slave traders. It is
evident that those factories are supplied with goods by British traders,
and especially by London merchants, to a very great extent.” ...

  London, 31st July, 1841.

  (signed)

  R. R. MADDEN.


  COPY OF A LETTER
  FROM
  MESSRS. ZULUETA & CO. TO LORD VISCOUNT SANDON.

  My Lord,

  London, 25 April, 1842.

  A letter has been addressed to us under date of the 15th inst., by Mr.
  R. R. Gibbons, sending to us, at your Lordship’s desire, a copy of Dr.
  Madden’s Report on the Gold Coast of Africa, and its dependencies, and
  stating that this is done in consideration of “our being personally
  interested therein, but that we are to consider it as entirely
  confidential.”

  In common with all other merchants in this city, we may of course be
  said to possess more or less of a professional interest in all matters
  which relate to commerce.

  As having occasionally executed shipping orders for ports in the coast
  of Africa, on foreign account, of lawful merchandise, lawfully, and
  therefore publicly cleared at Her Majesty’s Customs, in lawful
  vessels, and as far as we, as mere shipping agents, could be supposed
  or expected to know, to the best of our knowledge, for no unlawful
  purpose, without any other interest or emolument in the operation
  antecedent or subsequent to the shipment than that of the simple and
  regular commission usually charged in, or legitimately connected with
  the invoice, and possessing no control, direct or indirect, over
  either vessels or goods, from the moment they left the shores of Great
  Britain, we may perhaps be supposed to feel a more direct interest in
  whatsoever throws light on the subject of trade with ports with which,
  in the course of our mercantile career, we may have had general
  business transactions, although they have not been either extensive or
  frequent.

  Still more as shippers, in the form and capacity just described, and
  in no other, of a cargo consisting not only of legal, but even
  unsuspected merchandise on board the English schooner Augusta, Captain
  Jennings, the Report of Dr. Madden, as a document in which the capture
  of that vessel is alluded to, may also be supposed to form an
  interesting piece of information, whatever its merits may be in other
  respects.

  Such is the nature and the extent of the interest which we acknowledge
  to possess in the Report of Dr. Madden, neither more nor less; and we
  submit that, in describing it as personal, a supposition is advanced
  which, considering the nature of that Report, we have reason to deem
  unfavourable to our characters, which the facts will not justify, and
  which we may say, even appearances will not warrant.

  The Report brings together a number of transactions, not one of which
  have we even the remotest knowledge until the perusal of it, with the
  sole exception of the case of the Augusta. Now, as when looking at
  them together as a whole, and in conjunction with the other facts,
  most probably equally unknown to us, which in the course of the
  investigation now carried on before the Committee may be brought
  forward, there is no telling to what extent the association of our
  name with the matters of the Report may be carried, we have thought it
  right to explain to your Lordship what kind of interest we have no
  objection to be supposed to possess in the perusal of Dr. Madden’s
  Report, or in the inquiry now before the Committee. Beyond casual
  shipments in the manner described, and the acceptance of credits
  opened at our establishments by parties abroad, in behalf of parties
  resident in that coast, we have not even one single correspondent, or
  have we even consigned or sold, or in fact transacted any business
  whatsoever, or had any intercourse with individuals resident in those
  parts. We possess no interest in the trade with them, and even the
  agency for buying and shipping, which now and then we have had, is so
  insignificant, that we look with the most perfect indifference, as may
  easily be believed by any one who knows any thing of our business, as
  to any future legislation which may be the result of the present
  Parliamentary inquiry, or, indeed, as to any construction which may be
  put upon that now in existence. It is not, therefore, with the view of
  in any degree influencing the deliberations of the Committee, or of
  offering any remark on the facts or on the opinions contained in Dr.
  Madden’s Report, that we address your Lordship. Let the result of the
  labours of the Committee be what they may, and let the merits or the
  influence of Dr. Madden’s Report be what it may, whatever legislation
  may emanate from these proceedings, as a matter of business, it is of
  no moment to us, and therefore it is not our intention to throw the
  weight of a feather in the balance. Our sole object is to place our
  position in its true light; and the simple fact of our possessing no
  interest whatever, either personal or otherwise, in any branch of
  trade with the coast of Africa, much less with that lamentable branch
  of it which, much before the law was carried to even its present
  extent, our firm has shunned in all its branches and ramifications
  during an existence in business of more than seventy years,
  independent of the consideration of its illegality, without partaking
  in many of the views entertained by others concerning it, but from the
  principle of not wishing to derive profit or advantage from the
  sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable or unavoidable.

  We have, &c.

  (signed)

  _Zulueta & Co._


  HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  _Select Committee on West Coast of Africa._
  R. R. GIBBONS, Esq. to MESSRS. ZULUETA & CO.

  Gentlemen,

  July 13th, 1842.

  I am desired by Lord Sandon, the chairman of this committee, to
  forward to you copies of evidence taken before them, in which your
  house is mentioned; and I am to acquaint you that if you are desirous
  of making any statement thereon, either personally or by letter, the
  committee will be ready to receive the same.

  I have, &c.

  (signed)

  _R. R. Gibbons._


  MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
  TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WEST COAST OF AFRICA.


  _Veneris, 10º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Lord Viscount Courtenay.
  Lord Viscount Ebrington.
  Mr. Evans.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Mr. Hamilton.
  Mr. Metcalf.
  Mr. Milnes.
  Mr. W. Patten.
  Mr. Stuart Wortley.

  LORD VISCOUNT SANDON in the chair.

_Henry William Macaulay_, Esq. called in; and further examined.

5003. _Chairman._] Will you state what has been your connexion and
acquaintance with the coast of Africa?--I went out to Sierra Leone first
in the early part of the year 1830 as a merchant, and at the latter end
of the year 1831 I was appointed one of the judges in the court of Mixed
Commission; I then left business and devoted myself entirely to the
business of the court; and I ceased to act as a judge on the 31st of
December, 1839.

5004. Since what time have you been at home?--I remained on the coast a
short time to recover my health. I was too unwell to move for some
months, and then went to the Island of Ascension, from which I came home
in the latter end of the year 1840.

5005. Will you state what the court of mixed commission consists
of?--The Portuguese court consists of a British commissary judge and a
Portuguese commissary judge, who have to decide upon every Portuguese
case; in case of any difference of opinion between the two principal
judges, the British commissioner of arbitration and the Portuguese
commissioner of arbitration draw lots as to which of the two the case is
to be referred to for final decision. In the same way, in the Spanish
court, the British commissary judge meets the Spanish commissary judge,
and in case of difference of opinion, the case is left to either the
British or Spanish commissioner of arbitration, as the lot may
determine.

5006. Are there any judges for other nations?--The courts at Sierra
Leone are the Portuguese court, the Spanish court, the Brazilian court,
and the Dutch court; but no court during my time has been perfect in the
number of its judges except the Brazilian court.

5007. You mean by perfect, that the British judge has had to sit
alone?--The treaties require that after a certain time, in the absence
of any foreign judge, the British commissioner of arbitration shall act
as the foreign commissary judge.

5008. Who is the British commissioner of arbitration; is he a distinct
person from the British commissary judge?--Yes; the British court is
always perfect.

5009. What does it consist of?--It consists of the British commissary
judge and the British commissioner of arbitration; and the treaties
point out how any vacancy, either by death or absence, is to be
supplied; the governor in the first instance, attends for the absent
judge, whoever he may be, and after him, the chief justice, and then the
colonial secretary. It is left to those three officers; but I presume
that if those three should all be ill, or their places be vacant by
death, the office would then descend to the person next in seniority in
the colonial government there; but we never went lower than the colonial
secretary. The Brazilian court has been the only one perfect, and the
British commissioner of arbitration has always sat in my time for the
Portuguese and Spanish commissary judges. No case at all has occurred in
the Dutch court.

5010. In case a vessel taken under the colours of any other nation were
brought into Sierra Leone, how would that case be decided?--There are
other treaties than those I have mentioned. A French case is sent to the
French authorities under the French treaty, and in the treaties with all
other nations that have treaties on the model of the French treaty, the
vessels are handed over to their own judicial authorities.

5011. Within Sierra Leone?--The treaty points out where they are to be
taken; if a French vessel is taken, it is sent to Goree.

5012. Then no vessels are brought in for adjudication to Sierra Leone
but Dutch and Portuguese, and Spanish and Brazilian vessels?--Not for
adjudication by the mixed commission; but there is the vice-admiralty
court, which under the late act relating to Portugal, for the
suppression of the slave trade, takes cognizance of vessels under that
flag which are captured; and may take cognizance of any vessels under
any flag that are captured in British waters, wherever they are taken,
whether at Sierra Leone, or the Gambia, or any British settlement on the
coast, and that has been rather frequent of late.

5013. The mixed commission court has jurisdiction over all cases which
are brought within the limits of the treaty with Portugal, and the
Vice-Admiralty Court in the Portuguese cases, over which we have assumed
jurisdiction by Act of Parliament, that is to say, all cases of vessels
captured south of the Line?--Yes; it is optional still for the captor to
prosecute a Portuguese vessel, captured under the Act of Parliament,
before the admiralty court, if he chooses, instead of bringing her
before the mixed commission court, but the process is so much more
summary with us, and the expense so much less, that that option is
seldom taken.

5014. Will you proceed to explain what is the process which is pursued
when a slaver is brought into Sierra Leone for adjudication?--Whenever a
vessel appears in the harbour under any of the flags of which we can
take cognizance, the marshal of the court goes on board, and he receives
from the prizemaster who is on board an account of the capture, which he
fills into a printed form, and he sends one of those printed forms to
each of the judges, and one to the governor, immediately; in fact,
generally before the vessel comes to anchor, and then the court is made
aware of the vessel being in the harbour, and is prepared to make
arrangements for the landing of the slaves, if there are any, generally
the morning after its arrival, if it comes in the evening, or if it
comes in early in the morning, the same day. The proctor for the captor
brings the papers of the vessel before the court, and they are always
accompanied by a declaration of the captor. All the forms of the court
are very much the same as those of the Admiralty Court in England. If
there are slaves, the proctor petitions for the admission of the vessel
into court, and generally accompanies that by a petition to land the
slaves; and since I have been there, in every case of inquiry the slaves
were landed and handed over to the superintendent of the African
department pending the investigation, and held in their character of
slaves during the time that the vessel was passing through the court.
The proctor then produces his witnesses, and they are examined upon
printed interrogatories, which have been used ever since the court was
formed. These questions are framed with a view to make out a case, and
they always do prove slave dealing wherever it has existed, if the
witness answers truly; and in an ordinary case, where slaves are on
board, no defence is ever attempted, it is out of the question. Then as
soon as the evidence is given, generally by the captain and one of the
officers of the captured vessel, the proctor prays for publication; and
when the monition which issues in the first instance, calling upon any
persons to bring forward a claim if they have any against the capture,
or to show cause why the vessel should not be condemned, is returned,
trial is prayed for, and it takes place on an early day after arrival of
the vessel; in an undefended case, and where the capture has been made
properly by the man-of-war, the vessel is condemned, the slaves are
emancipated at the same time; a commission of appraisement and sale
issues, which directs the particular officer of the court who has the
duty of conducting the auctions to expose both the vessel and the goods,
and any thing that may be on board, to public auction, after due notice
given. Those things are then sold, and the proceeds are divided equally
between the British Government and the foreign government, and the
proceeds are then paid into the commissariat, which settles with the
Government at home, and they pay the money, or set it off against any
claim they may have against the foreign government; but the foreign
government has a claim to one-half the proceeds of the vessels and
cargoes.

5015. Is there any large proportion of cases in which condemnation does
not follow, and under what circumstances principally has condemnation
not been the consequence?--There have been vessels restored for being
seized, for instance, Portuguese vessels from the southward of the Line,
contrary to treaty. In two cases there were vessels restored with
upwards of 8,000_l._ damages against the captors in each case, making
16,000_l._; and there was again one case of the Pepita, which I
remember, when it was proved that the slaves had been embarked under
circumstances that would not justify condemnation under the treaty; she
was restored with damages. There have been several cases under the
equipment article since the new slave treaty came into force, where
vessels have been restored because the equipment was not deemed
sufficient to warrant condemnation. There have been also vessels taken
on the suspicion that black persons on board were slaves, who have been
proved to be domestics, and not bought for the purpose of the traffic.
There have been a variety of condemnations; but in any case where the
treaty would not warrant condemnation, the vessel has been restored; and
where the treaty required it, restored with damages.

5016. Have there been a considerable number of restorations; can you
state, from statistics, the number?--I have statistics for two years;
from the 1st of January to the 31st of December 1838, one vessel only
was liberated.

5017. What number were condemned?--Forty-one; during the year 1839 there
were two liberated, and 45 condemned; and in addition to those, there
was a very large number of American vessels which were seized, with
American papers on board, and which I refused to receive into court at
all; there were some in 1838, and there was a large number in 1839.

5018. Can you state the number?--I think the number was 13; but the
reports of the whole of those cases are in the Parliamentary Papers.

5019. Were they _bonâ fide_ American?--I believe not American, in any
one case, but sailing under the American flag, and with American papers,
supplied to them by American authority.

5020. Where?--Almost entirely, I think, without one exception, at
Havannah.

5021. Supplied by the American consul?--Yes; but I considered that as
they sailed with those American papers, however wrongfully they might
have been given by the American authority, we had no right to interfere
with them.

5022. Mr. _Forster_.] Have not some vessels belonging to the States been
condemned?--Yes; since my time.

5023. You were not a party to the condemnation?--I was not.

5024. Mr. _W. Patten_.] But in those cases which you mention, you had
not the slightest doubt in the world that they would have been condemned
if they had not American papers on board?--Certainly they would, with
the exception of one case, which seemed to be a sort of experimental
seizure: it was known that almost every vessel on the coast under the
American flag, at that time was a Spanish vessel in disguise; and this
vessel seems to have been seized in the hope that the captain and
officers might be able to prove, by some evidence found on board, that
she was really Spanish; but though we had access to the papers, we found
nothing that would have condemned her if she had been prosecuted in the
court; there was a deficiency of papers on board; the captain, perhaps
had either destroyed them or concealed them, and we could not get at the
proof that would have enabled us to condemn her as being a Spanish
vessel; but none of the cases I speak of were prosecuted; I would not
allow them to be libelled in court.

5025. So that those cases do not appear upon the records of the
court?--No; but I took the opportunity of examining the papers, and
sending home all the particulars to the Foreign-office, and the papers
are copied in the Parliamentary Returns.

5026. Mr. _Forster_.] Will those seizures be matter of complaint on the
part of the owners?--I do not know that any of those seizures have been
matter of complaint; some of the seizures made subsequently have been.

5027. Seizures of vessels belonging to the United States?--Yes; but none
of those that came before me have been made matter of complaint.

5028. Are you aware that there are several cases of condemnation that
have been the subject of remonstrance with the British Government by the
United States?--I believe the whole of them are.

5029. _Chairman._] You have not heard that they complain of vessels
being brought in for condemnation to Sierra Leone which you did not
allow to be libelled in court?--No, except as regards the general right
which was exercised. There has been no complaint with respect to a
particular vessel, so far as I know; but complaints have been made of
the right which was exercised by cruizers on the coast to board any
American vessel and search it.

5030. Mr. _Aldam_.] Has the practice of the court been changed since
your time?--Yes, it was changed the day that I left; there was an
American vessel waiting at Sierra Leone for adjudication the day I left,
and the officer suspecting, that if presented to me, I should refuse her
in the same way as I had done the others, detained her till I left, and
she was condemned by my successor under orders from Lord Palmerston.

5031. Then the orders from Lord Palmerston changed the practice of the
court?--Yes.

5032. Do you know the nature of those orders?--The orders appear in the
printed correspondence.

5033. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Can you state briefly the nature of the
orders?--His Lordship stated that the Queen’s advocate was of opinion
that the court was justified in making use of information obtained by
the search of vessels under the American flag. The court had decided,
that having no right to search vessels sailing as American, and
recognised as American by American authorities, they could not make use
of any information which they obtained by unauthorised and illegal acts,
and Lord Palmerston considered that they had a right.

5034. _Chairman._] You held that the papers protected the vessel?--I
did.

5035. Mr. _Forster_.] Then it is those condemnations which are appealed
against at present by the American government?--I have not seen any
appeal of the American government except against the general right
exercised by the British cruizers.

5036. The complaint is, of seizing vessels as connected with the slave
trade, which, from their papers, ought not to have been subject to that
suspicion?--I am not aware of any appeal in any case of that kind.

5037. Mr. _Aldam_.] Have any vessels with strictly American papers been
condemned?--You can hardly call them strictly American papers where the
papers have been applied for, and given through fraud. The American
authorities at the Havannah who gave them, knew very well that the
vessel had no more claim to be styled an American vessel than a Dutch
vessel.

5038. _Chairman._] But as far as the documents themselves showed, those
vessels were American?--Yes, they had an American register, just in the
same form as any vessel sailing from New York, or Baltimore; indeed it
was a copy of the same document.

5039. What indication was there in other papers taken, to lead you to
know that the property was not _bonâ fide_ American?--It appeared, from
the very strict overhauling these vessels received from the cruizers,
that in many of those cases there were papers on board showing that the
man who appeared as the American captain was only a passenger, and that
the 30 Spanish passengers who took out passengers’ licences at Havannah
were the real crew; and there were also instructions, found on board, to
the pretended captain, what he was to answer to the cruizers when they
boarded him. The whole thing was a complete fraud without any doubt
whatever. There were many of those cases where it was quite plain that
the vessels were only Spaniards in disguise; that they only kept the
American flag until their cargo was ready. In some cases the vessels
that were boarded one day by the cruizers under the American flag, were
boarded two or three days afterwards with the Portuguese or Spanish flag
hoisted, and full of slaves.

5040. And condemned?--Yes.

5041. What was the object of hoisting the Spanish or Portuguese
flag?--If the vessels had been captured by a British cruizer with the
American flag hoisted, he would have carried them into America; and if
he did carry them into America, every man on board would have been hung
as a pirate.

5042. Had he authority to do so?--It _was_ done; the American
authorities did not complain of it.

5043. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Were they hung in that case?--No, there were no
slaves on board.

5044. Mr. _Aldam_.] Every ship of war has a right to capture a
pirate?--Yes.

5045. The law of the United States recognizes slavery as piracy?--Yes,
but it is not piracy by the law of nations, and indeed our own courts
have decided most positively on that point, that the slave trade is not
piracy by the law of nations; that it can only be punished by the
municipal law of the particular country to which the vessel belongs.

5046. Mr. _Forster_.] The class of condemnations to which you have
alluded are different from the cases which have taken place since you
left, under the direction of Lord Palmerston?--No condemnations took
place before the 1st of January, 1840; there were vessels condemned by
me that were captured under the American flag, and with American papers,
but they were taken in British waters, where British ships had a right
to visit and search the vessel, and the captor might make use of any
information he obtained in the search: when apparent American vessels
were boarded on the high seas, we deemed that the captor had not that
authority.

5047. _Chairman._] What do you consider British waters on the coast of
Africa; what would you for instance, on the Gold Coast, consider British
waters?--The waters of a nation are those within gun-shot of the shore;
generally reckoned three miles; it is the same all over the world.

5048. With regard to the Gold Coast, you are aware that our settlements
consist of several forts; do you consider the whole line of coast, from
end to end, along which our forts are planted, to be British water?--No,
for there are foreign forts there mixed with ours; but in every case we
have the sovereignty over three miles of the sea from our own
possession, wherever it may be, and the only ports to which a vessel
could go, have forts attached to them; a vessel lying at Accra, or lying
at Cape Coast, would be within three miles of the fort.

5049. If she was sailing along the coast, should you consider her to be
in British waters?--Where an indefinite authority is exercised along a
line of coast, without any real right, I do not consider those British
waters.

5050. You would consider as British waters only those which were a
certain distance from the fort?--Yes; the difficulty occurred in the
case of the Jack Wilding, one of the richest prizes that was made during
the year 1839; she was seized lying in British Accra roadstead, and she
was under the American flag; she was brought up to Sierra Leone, and
defended, on the ground that, though the vessel was in British waters,
she was within three miles of the Dutch fort, but we considered that
that could not make any difference, that we could not allow slave
trading within three miles of any acknowledged British fort, and we
condemned the vessel.

5051. Have you seen practical evil arise from the mixed commission being
fixed at Sierra Leone?--No, certainly not.

5052. Not as to the health of the slaves in the length of the voyage
from the place of seizure to the place of condemnation?--I believe that
there is a great misapprehension on this subject, which would be
corrected by a mere reference to the statistics of the trade; there
seems to be an impression that a very great majority of the cases of
capture are made to the eastward of Cape Palmas, and in the bights, but
a large number have been taken for many years past, and might always
have been taken, to the westward of Cape Palmas, and in the
neighbourhood of Sierra Leone.

5053. Is there any statement of the length of voyage of each vessel from
the time of its seizure to the time of its condemnation?--I do not think
there is any table drawn out; but in the printed reports the times and
places of capture are stated, which comes to the same thing; because,
where the vessels are captured in the immediate neighbourhood of Sierra
Leone, the voyage is very short, and in going through the reports the
number of days can be calculated. In the detailed reports which are
given of each case, the date of the capture is always mentioned, and the
date of arrival at Sierra Leone. In some cases the vessels are delayed
after capture, and you could not get an exact account; but in most cases
the difference between the date of capture and the date of arrival would
be the length of voyage.

5054. Mr. _Forster_.] Has not the great bulk of the seizures been made
in the bights and to the eastward of Cape Palmas?--Not a very large
majority during the last year, and before that a large portion were made
to the westward of Cape Palmas; and if that part of the coast had had
the number of cruizers that it ought to have had, there would have been
a much larger number of captures made there.

5055. _Chairman._] You think that the slave trade has gone on with
greater intensity to the westward of Cape Palmas?--With great intensity
in the Gallinas, which was unnoticed for some years; and, indeed, that
part of the coast was utterly neglected. The admiral and commanding
officers seemed to fancy that the slave trade could only be carried on
in the bights, but a great deal of slave trade was carried on to the
westward.

5056. Where?--In Gallinas, principally, New Sesters, Sherboro’; those
are the principal ports in that part; there are others smaller.

5057. For all those ports, of course, Sierra Leone you consider to be
the most advantageous position?--Certainly.

5058. Mr. _Forster_.] But in speaking of the amount of slave trade
carried on at those places which you have just named, do you speak of
those in comparison with the bights, and also with the Spanish and
Portuguese settlements to the south of the Line?--I speak of the amount
of captures that have been made there. The south was left very nearly in
the same state in which the north was. The cruizing of the squadron was
almost entirely confined to the bights.

5059. To the south of the Line they could not cruize, could they?--Yes,
they could cruize near the Portuguese settlements, for the court
practically got over the article in the treaty under which captures were
forbidden to the southward of the Line, by establishing, which they did
in 1838, the principle, that the national character of any vessel was to
be taken from the residence of the owner, the place where he carried on
his mercantile business, and also from the course of trade in which the
vessel was engaged; and as there could be no foreign Portuguese slave
trade, for Portugal has no colonies to supply with slaves, we were sure
to make the vessel either Brazilian or Spanish. She was captured under
Portuguese colours, and with Portuguese papers, but the treaty had given
us a right to search her any where, either north or south; it had not
given us the right to detain her south of the Line, if she was _bonâ
fide_ Portuguese; but if captured as a Portuguese vessel under the
Portuguese flag, and with Portuguese papers, she was sent up to Sierra
Leone, and was almost certain to be condemned either as a Brazilian or a
Spaniard.

5060. That decision was come to in 1838?--Yes.

5061. Before that time the impression had prevailed that the slave trade
from the Portuguese settlements was protected?--There was no seizure to
the south of the Line to render a decision necessary; vessels were
seized immediately close to the Line, in several cases, and it was never
thought of; that was before the Portuguese flag was so much used, and
the cause of the Portuguese flag being so much used by slavers, was the
Spanish treaty having given the right to seize, on the ground of
equipment; that did not take place till 1836. I was at home in that
year, and on my return in December 1837, I found that almost every
vessel on the coast was sailing under Portuguese colours, and then we
met this new circumstance by an alteration in the interpretation of the
treaty.

5062. Mr. _Aldam_.] If the owner had been a _bonâ fide_ Portuguese,
would the vessel have been still condemned?--If the owner had been a
Portuguese, resident in Havannah, we should have treated the vessel as a
Spanish vessel; and if at Rio Janeiro, we should have treated it as a
Brazilian vessel.

5063. But in the case of a Portuguese merchant resident in a Portuguese
possession, and carrying on his business there?--We should have looked
at the course of trade in which the vessel was engaged, and the
Portuguese having no colonies would not require slaves.

5064. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you consider the Spanish and Portuguese
settlements to the south of the Line the places at which the slave trade
will be last overcome?--The part of the coast at which the slave trade
is carried on depends entirely on the cruizers; you may knock up the
slave trade on any part of the coast you please, if the cruizing is
properly conducted. The largest slave trade on the coast was the slave
trade at the Gallinas; by the system of blockade that Captain Denman
adopted there, he completely destroyed it.

5065. That blockade must be continued to make it permanent in its
results?--Yes; and he never went away for water or provisions, without
leaving a vessel to supply his place. He could always regulate the time
that he should remain, knowing of course, to a day, how long his water
and provisions would last him.

5066. But to render that remedy effectual and permanent, vessels of war
must continue at the Gallinas?--Yes; but if you blockade the rivers,
where the slave trade has been carried on for a number of years, and
completely shut up the slave trade for a year or two, you destroy the
system of slave trade in that part.

5067. _Chairman._] You think the machinery cannot be re-established in
that part?--It may be re-established, but in the meantime there is no
mart for the slaves; they are brought down and lodged in the barracoons,
and the feeding of the slaves completely ruins the slave owner.

5068. Mr. _Forster_.] What is there to prevent the system being resumed
there unless you continue the blockade of the place?--There is nothing.

5069. Then it is upon the blockade of the settlements that the success
of the cruizers depends, and not upon the destruction of the
barracoons?--Exactly; by blockade, I do not mean shutting out legitimate
trade, but preventing any vessel fitted for the slave trade going in,
and preventing any vessel with slaves coming out.

5070. _Chairman._] Do you believe that if you blockade a port,
materially interfering with the slave trade for a considerable period,
you obstruct it even for some time afterwards?--I think you do; and I
think the people are so accustomed to the goods which they procure from
slave dealers that they will get them if they can by other means.

5071. Then you think, that if you can blockade for a certain time, and
put an end to the power of procuring what the natives desire by the
slave trade, that their taste will have to be gratified by lawful
traffic, and that that will make it less necessary for them afterwards
to have recourse to the slave trade?--Certainly.

5072. Mr. _Forster_.] By such destruction as took place in the case of
Gallinas, do you not interfere with the course of the legitimate trade,
as well as with the course of the slave trade?--I am not speaking of the
destruction of a settlement.

5073. Had not the operations of Captain Denman the effect of destroying
the stores, and in fact the whole settlement?--He destroyed the
barracoons; but no one ever kept in barracoons any thing but slaves.

5074. Was not also a considerable property in merchandize
destroyed?--Yes, so it appears by the Parliamentary papers. At that time
there was no trade whatever carried on at Gallinas except in slaves;
there was no legitimate trade at all, I believe.

5075. Do you mean that there was no legitimate trade carried on at the
Gallinas previous to the destruction of that place by Captain Denman?--I
believe, none whatever; there was certainly none with its nearest large
port, which was Sierra Leone; the only trade carried on between the two
places was of a very questionable character.

5076. Were not Hamburg vessels and other foreign vessels constantly in
the habit of visiting Gallinas for the purpose of legitimate trade
previous to the destruction of the settlement?--I am not aware that they
did.

5077. I thought you told the Committee in a late answer, that there was
no legitimate trade carried on there?--From Sierra Leone; but whether
Hamburg vessels went direct to Gallinas, I do not know; from Sierra
Leone, I do not believe that any legitimate trade was carried on with
the Gallinas.

5078. What opportunities had you at Sierra Leone of knowing the course
of trade to Gallinas?--I was in Sierra Leone, where there were a large
number of small coasting vessels employed, and those who brought back
produce did not go to Gallinas for it.

5079. But had you any opportunity of knowing the nature and extent of
the legitimate trade there by foreign vessels, independently of Sierra
Leone?--No; but I have always understood, (it is only from hearsay I
mention this,) from the men-of-war on the coast, that every vessel they
have found lying in the harbour there, has been engaged in the slave
trade in some way or other, as American vessels bringing over goods from
the Havannah for the supply of factories, or bringing out equipments to
be carried away by slavers when they were full.

5080. You have stated that previously to the destruction of Gallinas by
Captain Denman, no trade had been carried on between the Gallinas and
Sierra Leone, except such as was of a very questionable nature?--I have.

5081. Was that questionable trade to a considerable extent?--No, not
with Sierra Leone; but trading vessels that came along the coast have
called at Sierra Leone, and gone down the coast afterwards, and probably
put into Gallinas amongst other ports; but directly with Sierra Leone
the trade was very little indeed.

5082. Up to what period did this questionable trade between Sierra Leone
and Gallinas continue?--It continued as long as I was connected with the
colony, that is, to the 31st of December, 1839; but we always looked
with suspicion upon any merchant there that was connected with that
place.

5083. Is it within your knowledge that up to that time the slave
dealers, by themselves, or their agents, were in the habit of
frequenting Sierra Leone, and making purchases there for the supply of
Gallinas?--They generally made their purchases, I believe, through some
merchant resident at Sierra Leone; one in particular; they generally had
one merchant at a time, I believe, who was employed by them.

5084. _Chairman._] Making purchases of prize goods?--Yes, and sometimes
of vessels; a vessel that might be put up to auction there he would bid
for, and have it sent down to Gallinas; and I have no doubt goods also.

5085. Was he a white merchant, or a black, who was so employed?--He was
a white merchant, an English merchant.

5086. Who was he?--The name is mentioned in the Parliamentary Papers, as
being connected with the purchase of a slave vessel, Mr. Kidd; and it is
mentioned in connection with that of Mr. Zulueta, of London.

5087. Can you refer to the passage?--It appears at the 38th page of the
class (B.) of the papers on the subject of the slave trade, presented to
Parliament 1839-40. Zulueta, the gentleman in London to whom the vessel
was sent, and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner, is a name
well known on the coast in connexion with the slave trade; any man ought
to have been careful of being connected with such a person as that. I
have seen the same vessels over and over again in the slave trade; you
can detect them when you get accustomed to the form and build of the
vessels.

5088. Mr. _Forster_.] Were not those vessels sold to the best
bidder?--Yes.

5089. Do not you think that the fault was with those who sold them
originally, and not those who bought them?--No; you are not bound to
suppose that a man will make a bad use of that which he purchases.

5090. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Are those vessels generally bought by the same
person?--Mr. Kidd purchased vessels only during the latter part of the
time I was there, for he was not in the colony when I first went there;
he was looked upon as the person employed by the Gallinas slave dealers
to transact their business at Sierra Leone.

5091. _Chairman._] To purchase vessels and goods?--Yes.

5092. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Is Mr. Kidd the person you alluded to just now,
who generally purchased the vessels at auction?--No, they were generally
purchased by various people; he purchased a few of them.

5093. Mr. _Forster_.] Would Mr. Zulueta, if he had entered the
auction-room, have been at liberty to bid for the purchase of that
vessel?--Certainly; by the treaty it is required that the goods seized
shall be exposed to public auction for the benefit of the two
governments.

5094. How do you make it out to be criminal in Mr. Kidd to do that which
it was innocent for the auctioneer on the part of the British Government
to do?--The auctioneer is required to do it by his duty, he is appointed
for that purpose under the Act of Parliament; he sells to any body who
will purchase; of course, the responsibility of the employment of the
purchase rests with the purchaser.

5095. Then it is the fault of the Government, not of the auctioneer?--It
is not the fault of the auctioneer; nor do I consider it any fault of
the British Government; it is no fault to purchase goods, but to use
them unlawfully is wrong; it is the use which he makes of the vessel
after purchasing it that is wrong.

5096. How could it be criminal in Mr. Kidd to sell the vessel to Mr.
Zulueta when you see no fault in the British Government doing the same
thing?--The British Government is obliged to do it under the treaty;
there is no compulsion on Mr. Kidd to sell his vessel to a slave dealer,
he may sell it to any body.

5097. According to that doctrine, the British Government is obliged to
act criminally?--No, certainly not; I do not think it follows. The
treaty requires that goods and vessels shall be exposed at auction; the
responsibility of the employment of those goods or vessels which are
sold, I think, rests with the purchaser; he may employ them lawfully,
and I have purchased a vessel at auction myself, in former days, when I
was engaged in business; but if I had taken that vessel and sold her to
a slave dealer, I should think that I did wrong.

5098. But you admit that the public auctioneer would have sold the same
vessel to the same party whom Mr. Kidd sold her to?--Certainly.

5099. _Chairman._] You meant to say that the auctioneer had no choice
to whom he should sell her, and Mr. Kidd had?--The auctioneer had no
choice; the Act is imperative, and requires him to sell to the highest
bidder, for the benefit of the two governments.

5100. Mr. _Aldam_.] Did Mr. Kidd sell his vessel to a slave dealer or to
a Spanish house, who subsequently sold it to a slave dealer?--It appears
in some of the records that in some cases he sold vessels direct to the
slave dealers.

5101 Are those vessels worth more to a slave dealer than if used for any
other purpose?--Certainly.

5102. How then is it possible to prevent the ships being applied to that
purpose for which they are worth more than for any other?--Spanish ships
are prevented from being used for the trade by being cut up when they
are condemned.

5103. Mr. _Evans_.] But you have no power of doing so with the
Portuguese ships?--No.

5104. Mr. _Aldam_.] Those vessels, from their small size, are not worth
much for other trades?--There are some trades that they are adapted for,
the fruit trade for instance, and they are employed in the smuggling of
opium and such trades as those; they are not capable of carrying large
burdens.

5105. In all cases it will answer the purpose of the merchant to give a
larger price for those ships to be employed in the slave trade than for
any other purpose?--Yes, probably.

5106. Viscount _Ebrington_.] Have you ever considered what the result
would be of the British Government buying those ships in?--It would be
impossible to buy them all in.

5107. All that are not liable to be broken up?--No. During last year,
for instance, the number condemned was so large, that the Government, if
they had bought them, could not have found a use for them.

5108. Mr. _Forster_.] Have you any doubt that those vessels have been
sometimes knocked down by the auctioneer to agents of the slave traders
on the coast?--It may have been so, and I have no doubt it has; I do not
recollect a case at present, but I would have insisted upon it, as head
of the court, that it should have been knocked down to any one who made
the highest bid.

5109. It is your opinion also, that the prize goods have been frequently
sold in the like manner?--Some portion of them, but certainly not the
bulk of them.

5110. Was there any thing to prevent the whole of them being sold to the
slave dealers, or the agent of the slave dealers?--Nothing whatever.

5111. Had you opportunities of observing, up to the time you left Sierra
Leone, whether the agents of the slave dealers on the neighbouring coast
frequently appeared in the market of Sierra Leone as purchasers of goods
or vessels?--Not often; if the goods came into their hands it was
through a third person generally. I have heard of Spaniards going down,
and bidding for the vessels, but it was not an ordinary occurrence.

5112. Then you are of opinion that usually slave dealers at Gallinas did
not visit Sierra Leone for the purpose of making purchases of goods or
vessels?--Not in their own persons, they may have done it through a
third party; but, perhaps, it would shorten the questions to state that
the greater portion of the goods sold at the auctions captured from
vessels in the slave trade were purchased by liberated Africans, by the
hawkers there, and they made the best use of them. That a certain
portion of the goods so purchased at auctions may get into the hands of
slave dealers afterwards, is very possible; but I am convinced, from the
description of goods which are sold, which may be used in lawful trade,
and from the different appearance of the whole colony since goods were
sold so extensively, that the greater portion of them are consumed in
the colony, and are made use of in the lawful trade, by liberated
Africans in the neighbourhood. I consider that the colony has been very
much benefited indeed by those sales; that the condition of the
liberated Africans has been very much improved by them, as has been very
evident from the great wealth that has been stirring among them; and the
liberated Africans have now not only completely bought out the Maroons
and settlers, who were the original settlers of the place, but are
gradually driving out the white merchants; and I think it a very great
advantage, for they are able to live much more cheaply than the white
men can do; they carry on their business at one hundredth part of the
expense, and turn their money over very much more quickly.

5113. Are any precautions taken by the authorities at Sierra Leone to
prevent slave dealers obtaining goods at Sierra Leone, either by public
auction or in any other manner?--Certainly not.

5114. Mr. _W. Patten_.] You have stated that there was an illicit trade
going on between Sierra Leone and Gallinas; are there any other
circumstances than those you have mentioned, that you can adduce in
proof of that?--None; in the trade that has been just referred to, of
Spaniards and Portuguese at Gallinas sending up to purchase goods at
auctions, they have done so, and they have been sent down to them
through a third party, but it is seldom they appear themselves.

5115. You do not, of your own knowledge, know what is the connection
between Mr. Kidd and any individuals at Gallinas?--No.

5116. Nor of any other merchant at Sierra Leone?--No.

5117. Do you believe that they act as commission merchants to purchase
goods?--Yes; I suppose on commission.

5118. Is there any trade carried on by any merchant on his own account
with the Gallinas?--I should think that very likely too; but it is
impossible to know, for after vessels have gone outside the Cape they
may carry their goods any where: you do not know what becomes of them.

5119. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you think it would be desirable to impose any
restriction upon legitimate trade to Gallinas?--I think not; I think no
restriction upon trade should be imposed, even on the intercourse
between the two places.

5120. Mr. _W. Patten_.] How would you distinguish the legitimate from
the illegitimate trade?--You cannot distinguish it; and there I think
the danger lies of attempting to interfere with intercourse.

5121. Mr. _Forster_.] And therefore, in attempting to check or impede
the one, you would do more harm than good in repressing and discouraging
the other?--I think it very probable; I think it would be quite
impossible to draw the line.

5122. But supposing it to be possible, do you think it would be, in
fact, desirable to take any measures which would have the effect of
checking the progress of legitimate trade?--Certainly not.

5123. Were there any Hamburgh vessels condemned at Sierra Leone?--Not in
my time.

5124. Mr. _Hamilton_.] Do you think that the establishing such a
blockade on the coast as you have alluded to just now, would have the
effect of interfering with legitimate trade?--No, not such a blockade as
I alluded to; I think the natives are well aware of the design for which
the cruizers are on the coast, they would consider their presence rather
as a protection, than otherwise, to the legitimate trade.

5125. Mr. _Forster_.] Were not large quantities of tobacco and rum sold
at Sierra Leone from the prize vessels conveyed there leeward for sale
to the Sierra Leone merchants?--Yes; I believe there were several
cargoes of Brazilian tobacco and of spirits sent down the coast: I
believe, principally to Badagry and that neighbourhood.

5126. That tobacco was, of course, especially imported on the coast for
the purpose of the slave trade?--It was taken out of slave vessels;
therefore, of course, it was.

5127. When it arrived at Badagry, it would consequently be very
acceptable to slave dealers there?--Yes; but they had to pay for it.

5128. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Did you find when you were at Sierra Leone that
the price paid for goods at auctions exceeded or was below the price of
goods imported in other ways?--The necessary effect of such large
quantities of goods being thrown on the market, and compelled to be sold
at any rate to the highest bidder, was of course to lower the price; and
I consider that the very cheap rate at which the liberated Africans were
able to procure those goods, which, in former times, they could only
obtain at a high price, was what formed the advantage which they derived
from those sales.

5129. How do you account for it, that the merchants at Sierra Leone do
not themselves purchase those goods?--They have not the money; in fact,
they have no money at all. There are only one or two men that have any
money in the place; they are almost all men who receive their goods from
houses in England; they are generally very much in debt to the persons
who send goods to them; and the only parties who have money in the
colony, with the exception of two gentlemen, are liberated Africans, and
many of the latter have very large sums.

5130. Mr. _Forster_.] Has the trade at Sierra Leone not, in your
opinion, been a successful trade for some years?--It has been a
successful trade for the liberated Africans.

5131. The question applied to British traders?--I cannot say; I have not
been engaged in trade myself during that time; but I should think that
the English traders must have suffered by the goods which were thrown on
the market from slave vessels, whilst they had goods which were
purchased at a much dearer rate to dispose of, and had not the money to
purchase the low-priced goods there. But one case I can mention, where a
white merchant at Sierra Leone had the funds to go into the market and
compete with the liberated Africans; he has made a great deal of money
by it, and the more in consequence of his means being so superior to
those of the Africans; but that was because he had money: the losses of
the others were because they had none.

5132. You have spoken of the advantages to the black population from the
sale of those goods, which have led them to become hawkers and pedlars
in the neighbouring country; it is the fact that the natives of Africa
are very much disposed to that species of employment in preference to
agricultural labour?--It certainly is so at Sierra Leone.

5133. Then the advantages derived from the encouragement thus given to
them to embark in that species of employment in preference to the fixed
pursuits of agriculture may be questionable on that ground?--I think
not; I think if the liberated African can get money and can educate his
family well, and procure all that he wants by trade, it is just as well
as if he procured it by agriculture.

5134. Have you found them practically carrying on any regular system of
agriculture voluntarily?--Not for export: there have been some articles
cultivated, but to no very great extent: ginger, and pepper, and
cassada, but cultivation has not been carried to any great extent for
export at Sierra Leone.

5135. How do you account for cultivation and improvement having made so
little progress in Sierra Leone after all the efforts of the party in
this country, and all the money which has been expended upon it?--I
doubt the proposition contained in the question; I think that they have
made progress.

5136. Planting and cultivation is carried on there to a great
extent?--No, it is not; but the people have other means of procuring
what they require.

5137. Have any means been taken, or if taken, have they been successful,
for promoting any regular system of agriculture or planting in the
neighbourhood of Sierra Leone?--No, I think not, and I am very sorry for
it; I think more might have been done in the way of premiums upon
produce, and giving prizes for successful cultivation.

5138. In fact, has any thing been done in that way?--Nothing whatever, I
believe, of late years. There was an agricultural society that existed
many years before I went to the colony, which offered premiums, but the
members of it died, and the scheme fell to the ground.

5139. The attempts of that society, in fact, were not successful?--No;
it was before my time; I cannot speak positively to the efforts that
were made; it is a great many years ago now.

5140. Can you distinguish the amount of captures to the south and north
of the Line?--Yes; in 1838, 15 out of 30 vessels, either were captured,
or took on board their slaves to the westward of Cape Palmas, or
one-third of the vessels which were detained with full cargoes of
slaves on board, or four out of seven, if we only look to the vessels
detained in the West Indies. The whole, or very nearly, of the slave
trade carried on in the north, or rather west of Cape Palmas, is for the
supply of the island of Cuba, and generally on account of the Havannah
merchants. In the following year, “of the 61 vessels which passed
through the courts during the year 1839, three were captured in the West
Indies, the remainder on this coast, eight to the southward of the Line,
but none below the latitude of 4 deg. 58 min. south, and of 50 vessels
captured north of the Line, 30 were met with to the eastward and 20 to
the westward of Cape Palmas.”

5141. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Does not the return distinguish from what part
of the coast those vessels came?--Yes; it goes into all the particulars
of the places from which they came, and the places to which they went,
and to which they took their cargoes; 18 of the whole number had slaves
on board, 11 having shipped their slaves in parts to the eastward of
Cape Palmas, and seven to the westward of the same point, and the river
where they shipped them is mentioned.

5142. Mr. _Forster_.] Supposing that the time should arrive when the
greatest number of prize vessels should be brought from the southward,
would you in that case consider Sierra Leone to be the place best
adapted for the mixed commission?--If that arose from the slave trade
being permanently at an end in the north, I should say, that the
commission should certainly follow the course of the slave trade.

5143. Mr. _W. Patten_.] From the position you held, had you any
information, officially or otherwise, of knowing the state of the slave
trade to the south of the Line?--No, except what I got from papers found
on board detained vessels, and from conversation with naval officers.

5144. From information so obtained, were you led to believe that the
slave trade on the coast of Africa, taking both the east and west coast,
had increased or decreased during the period you were there?--It had
decreased in the bights, so as to be almost entirely destroyed at one
time.

5145. The question refers to the coast on the south of the Line?--When
it was suppressed to a great extent in the bights, it was driven both
north and south of the bights; the old slave trade rivers in the bights
were the principal places frequented by slave vessels, but the whole
efforts of the cruizers were directed to that point, and the trade was
almost entirely suppressed in those rivers, the Bonny and many others.

5146. You had no information which could enable you to judge whether the
slave trade on the whole had increased or decreased during your
residence at Sierra Leone?--I should say, that it decreased during the
last two years I was there, from the immense number of captures that
were made.

5147. It has been stated by a witness on the Committee, Captain
Bosanquet, that in his belief, the slave trade south of the line, has
increased materially during the last 10 years?--I think Captain
Bosanquet refers to the eastern coast.

5148. Captain Bosanquet stated that he was, at two periods, on the
coast, and that at the last period he found the slave trade going on
with much more violence than at the first?--The effect of the
suppression of the slave trade in the bights was to drive the slave
trade both north and south, and it increased in the north and south, but
I should say that the whole extent of the slave trade had decidedly
decreased during the last two years.

5149. Do you think that it is a very material decrease?--I do.

5150. Do you know any particular places on the coast to which slavers
have resorted, more especially since it has been so much checked on the
west coast north of the Line?--It increased to the south; there have
been many more Brazilian captures made in the rivers immediately south
of the Line, of late years, than there were before; but the great
diminution in the bights has not been made up by the increased slave
trade either north or south.

5151. Mr. _Stuart Wortley_.] Will you explain what period you refer to
when you use the expression, “of late years”?--In the years 1835 and
1836, it began to diminish, and in 1837 there was hardly any slave trade
at all in the bights.

5152. Then, I understand you to say that there has been an increase of
captures south of the Line since the years 1835 and 1836?--Yes, there
has been.

5153. Could the capture of vessels under Portuguese colours have taken
place till 1836?--It could have taken place if the same rule had been
applied then as was applied in 1838.

5154. But in fact were there any captures made?--No, the rule was not
applied till 1838.

5155. Then when you speak of the increase of captures since 1835, you
mean that the practice of making captures south of the Line has been
introduced since that period?--Yes; and I would observe with respect to
that, that the Act of Parliament for the suppression of the Portuguese
slave trade really did very little good. I am alluding to the Act which
was passed in order to catch vessels south of the Line, because we
already dealt with them in the way I have mentioned, and the only trade
the Act could possibly affect, was the trade carried on between the
Portuguese islands off the coast and the main-land.

5156. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you mean Prince’s Island?--Prince’s Island
and St. Thomas.

5157. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Seeing that the sale of those goods at auctions
conduces in some degree to the continuance of the slave trade on that
coast, can you point out any other means by which those goods can be
disposed of without contributing to the encouragement of that trade?--I
do not see how it is possible to form regulations which shall follow the
goods through all the hands into which they pass.

5158. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Could they be sold elsewhere?--Yes, there is
trade on the coast; but I think it would be very injurious to interfere
with trade.

5159. Mr. _Patten_.] Do you think that if the captors of the slave
vessel were allowed to take the vessels and cargoes, they having been
condemned, and sell them in any other country, they might not make
greater gains than they do by selling them on the spot?--It is possible
that they might make greater gains, but it would be impossible for the
court to allow goods that have been once submitted to their jurisdiction
regularly to pass into other hands for disposal. When the goods are
condemned, they are placed under the authority of the marshal, to be
dealt with according to the decision of the court; it cannot allow that
decree to be carried into effect by any other than its own officers.

5160. According to the present law, it cannot; but do not you think that
arrangements might be made by which the parties making the capture might
derive greater benefit from the capture, by being enabled after the
condemnation to dispose of the goods in another country?--I think the
captors would not benefit by such a regulation; it would take them away
from their cruizing stations, where they have an opportunity of making
other captures.

5161. Have you not heard complaints made by the captors of the very
little benefit they obtain from it?--Yes; but I think without good
grounds.

5162. Can you state what is the highest amount that you have heard of
paid to a cruizer for the capture of a slaver?--I do not know any thing
of the reward given in England; it does not come before us in any way
whatever; that is an affair between the captor and the Government. But
it is not the captor, strictly speaking, that is injured in this case;
for the captor, as far as the court is concerned, has no interest
whatever; the goods are not condemned as a prize to the captor, but as a
prize to the British and foreign Governments, and the British Government
may pay or withhold its moiety, if it pleases. It generally gives it to
the captor, but it is in its power to pay any smaller sum. The captor
has no claim, except upon the bounty of Government, with respect to the
goods sold at auctions.

5163. But does it not come to this, that the remuneration paid to the
captor depends upon the value of the cargo which he captures?--Where a
captor has seized a cargo, it does; but cases vary very much; for
instance, many vessels are seized quite empty, without any cargo; many
vessels come over without any cargo, I should say the great proportion.
Where a vessel is full of slaves, the interest of the captor is not
affected, because the bulk of his remuneration depends upon the
head-money he gets for the slaves.

5164. Can you account for this circumstance, that in a return made to
Parliament, in the list of vessels that have been sold, it appears that
the proceeds or effects of one vessel have amounted to 1,108_l._, and
the charges on the sale have amounted to 585_l._ out of the
1,108_l._?--It seems very enormous, but I must know the circumstances of
the case.

5165. This is the passage, “On the following cases of slave trade
vessels sent in for adjudication to the commission courts of Sierra
Leone by Captain Tucker of Her Majesty’s ship Wolverine, the charges
here detailed were made: The San Antonia Victirioso, a Brazilian vessel,
the proceeds and effects of that sale were 1,108_l._, and the charges on
the sale were 585_l._”?--I cannot account for it; it did not happen in
my time; I should know the name of the vessel if it had.

5166. _Chairman._] Can you, from your knowledge of the usual course of
proceeding, explain the circumstances under which such a charge could
have arisen?--No; I know what the expenses are likely to be, and I might
account for a portion of it in that way.

5167. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Will you state the expenses in detail?--The
expenses on Brazilian vessels were enormous, owing to the duty that was
levied at Sierra Leone by the customs, on spirits and tobacco. The
spirits and tobacco that are sent in Brazilian slave vessels are of a
very inferior quality indeed, and the duty levied is very high; in many
cases exceeding the value of the goods; so much so, that I took it upon
myself a short time before I gave up my situation, to abandon the whole
of several cargoes of spirits and tobacco to the custom-house, because
the goods would not sell at the auction for the amount of the duty. I
thought that the captors had great reason to complain; but subsequently
to that, an Act was passed by the Governor in Council there, which was
brought in by myself, to meet this exigency, and since that time I do
not think that the captors have any reason to complain about the duty
levied on those goods.

5168. _Chairman._] What was the nature of the Act you allude to?--It put
on an _ad valorem_ duty instead of a fixed duty; the value of the
articles alluded to was so small, that when you put a fixed duty upon
them, a duty that was framed to meet tobacco and spirits from England,
which were of a very different quality, they were hardly worth any thing
beyond the duty; and I should suppose that was the principal cause of
the heavy charges now referred to; but I know nothing of the case.

5169. Mr. _W. Patten_.] To take another case: the Palmira, a Spanish
vessel was captured, the effects produced 1,824_l._, and 582_l._ were
the charges?--That is not in my time.

5170. _Chairman._] Do you explain that by the same circumstance?--No;
not knowing any thing of the circumstances of the case, I cannot explain
it; the vessel may have been detained for several months at the desire
of the captor; but I am quite sure that, with the exception of one or
two items, and heavy items, of which the captors, I think, _had_ a right
to complain, and over which the court had no control, the expenses were
not unreasonably heavy.

5171. What other items had they reason to complain of besides the one
you have mentioned, of the heavy duty upon the article?--With regard to
translating documents. I pressed this evil very strongly upon the
Government at home, and they have remedied that since. It was found that
very great benefit arose to the court from translating all documents
almost that were found on board detained slavers, because, in
consequence of those translations, we were able to condemn many vessels
which would have escaped if it had not been for the translation of
papers found on board former vessels, which gave a full history of the
transactions in which those vessels subsequently taken were engaged. The
translations were made at a heavy expense, and were included in the
captor’s expenses, and it could not be avoided; it fell very heavily,
indeed, upon the captors; and I recommended that the translator should
be adopted by the court, and paid in the same way as other officers of
the court, and that his remuneration should be charged in the contingent
expenses, which are borne equally by the British Government and the
foreign Government, so as to relieve the captors altogether. The court
felt a delicacy when they would have wished to have a translation of
particular papers, in having it done, because the expense fell so very
heavily upon the captors.

5172. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Doctor Madden recommends that “the captors
should be allowed to furnish their own interpretation of the documents
that require to be translated, subject to the approval and revision of
the British Commissioners?”--That is impossible, you can never allow a
man to interpret in his own cause. If you left it to the captor to
decide upon what papers he would have translated, he would have none
translated, if the condemnation of his vessel was secure without it; but
now there is no inducement to captors to withhold papers, because the
whole expense of the translation is at present borne by the Government.

5173. _Chairman._] In consequence of suggestions made to the Government
here?--Yes; in consequence of suggestions made in 1839.

5174. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Doctor Madden also says, “in many cases more
than half the prize-money that the captors had reason to expect is
swallowed up in the charges made by the various officers at Sierra Leone
employed in taking care, and ultimately disposing of the effects of the
captured vessel.” Do you know what are the charges that would come under
the other charge?--Yes.

5175. Can you distinguish those from the charges you have mentioned?--In
the case of an empty Spanish vessel, it is not at all likely that the
captor will receive much from the sale of the vessel or effects, because
the vessel is cut up into a number of different parts, and those are
sold for fire-wood in a country where fire-wood is tolerably plentiful;
and, therefore, the expenses that are incurred previously to cutting up,
will absorb any thing that can be derived from the old vessel cut up and
sold as fire-wood. As far as the goods are concerned, the only charge,
besides the duty, is the commission of the commissioner of appraisement
and sale, which the captor would have to pay whoever sold the vessel,
without having the security which he possesses now of having a good man,
or the richest merchant in the place as the person answerable for the
money, because in appointing the commissioner of appraisement and sale,
the Court takes bond to a very large amount, that he shall account
properly for the proceeds of the goods sold; he charges the ordinary
commission, 5 per cent., and 2½ per cent. for expenses; and I believe
that there is no other charge except the pay of the Kroomen, employed as
labourers, and the marshal.

5176. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you think Dr. Madden’s complaint upon the
subject correct?--“The intervention of the whole present establishment
of marshals, collectors, surveyors, interpreters, harbour-masters,
agents, storekeepers, canoe-hirers, and victuallers of captured ships’
crews might be dispensed with.” I do not know what he means by
“marshals;” we have only one marshal for the court. There is only one
collector of customs, and with him we have nothing to do; he is the
officer of the Crown, who collects the same duties from these vessels
as he would do from any other vessels; we have no control over him; he
is independent of the court; the surveyor is not employed by the court,
but subsequently to the condemnation of the vessel, he is employed by
the captor to survey, in order to enable him to make a claim according
to the tonnage, through his agent in England; that is a question with
which we have nothing to do. The interpreter is paid by the court; he
gets 5_s._ for each examination, or something of that kind; he is a poor
man; they could not get it cheaper done, and there is no hardship in
that. The harbour-master charges exactly the same for a prize-vessel as
he does for an English vessel; there is a regular fee, under an Act of
the Governor and Council; we do not collect it. I do not know who are
meant by “agents,” or “storekeepers,” or “canoe-hirers;” I do not know
whom he refers to there.

5177. Mr. _W. Patten_.] You do not know of any charges connected with
those departments that you have read over?--I know nothing about
“agents” and “storekeepers.” There may be a charge where goods are kept,
but I do not recollect a cargo ever having been kept, for it is landed
and sold immediately; the auctioneer is obliged to sell it under the
regulations within a certain time. There are canoes employed to land the
cargo by the marshal and by “victuallers of captured ships’ crews.” I do
not know whom he means.

5178. Is there any expense thrown upon captured vessels in case of
slaves being brought on shore, for the maintenance of the slaves after
they are put on shore?--I mentioned in the early part of my evidence
that on their being landed they were handed over to the liberated
African department, to be kept as slaves until adjudication. They are
fed by the liberated African department at the ordinary rate at which
the other liberated Africans in the yard are fed; and when the vessel is
condemned, the liberated African department brings to the marshal his
account for feeding them, at the same rate which is charged for other
liberated Africans; I think it is 1½_d._ per head per day, or something
of that kind; and there is a further charge, I think, of 4_d._ or 6_d._
per day in the hospital; those are expenses over which the court has no
control.

5179. Is any of that charge made upon the share which goes to the
captors?--Yes; it comes out of the proceeds of the vessel; they pay
half, as it were; it goes in diminution of the moiety which goes to the
British Government.

5180. Mr. _Evans_.] The captor has no claim upon that?--The captor has
no claim upon it, except from the bounty of Government.

5181. _Chairman._] But the Government does generally hand over its
moiety to the captor?--Yes.

5182. Then by whatever amount that moiety is diminished, the captor’s
share is diminished?--Yes.

5183. Mr. _W. Patten_.] If any means could be discovered of doing away
with those great expenses on the sale of captured vessels, do not you
think that it would give great stimulus to cruizers on the coast?--I do
not think they require a stimulus; but I do not think it is possible to
diminish the charges materially in the shape of duties, which is the
heavy item. In translating the papers, they have been already relieved,
and also in a great measure from the duties; and I really do not think
that there is any change that can materially diminish the expenses, so
as to have the services properly performed.

5184. _Chairman._] Those are services which must be performed by
somebody, which can hardly be performed at less expense than they are
now performed, and if the expenses are to be defrayed, they must be
defrayed by the Government or by the captors?--Yes: certainly.

5185. And the Government gets the moiety of the proceeds, but out of its
bounty habitually makes over that portion to the captor?--Yes.

5186. You do not think it unfair that the bounty should be diminished by
those expenses, not being extravagant expenses, in your opinion?--The
bounty granted by Act of Parliament is not diminished. Cases do happen
sometimes, as the case of the Passos, where the expenses exceed the
proceeds, and in those cases the Government pays the difference, leaving
the bounty perfectly free to the captor. None of the expenses go in
diminution of the bounty given by Act of Parliament.

5187. But this is a sort of premium given beyond the bounty?--I suppose
it was given to enable them to pay the expenses, but they get something
beyond the expenses, and the bounty comes to them entire, not suffering
any diminution from the general expenses, and the proceeds go in payment
of the expenses.

5188. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Do they get the bounty in all cases?--Yes, in
all cases captured under the treaties.

5189. If the vessel has no slaves on board, do they receive the
bounty?--Then they get the bounty on the tonnage of the captured vessel.

5190. Mr. _Stuart Wortley_.] You have been speaking of cases in which
there are slavers captured on board the prizes; in cases where there are
no slavers captured on board the prizes, is there any charge made on the
proceeds of the vessel on account of the crew?--The crew of a slaver
brought into Sierra Leone never consists of more than three, therefore
the expense cannot be very great; the adjudication generally takes place
on the eighth day after arrival, and there is a regular sum which is
given day by day in money to each man; as far as I recollect it, the
captain and mate get 3_s._ a day, and the other man 2_s._

5191. Whatever the amount of that charge is, it is made against the
proceeds of the vessel?--Yes.

5192. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you recollect sending a despatch home in
December 1838, giving your opinion upon the state of the slave
trade?--There is a despatch here upon the subject.

5193. Does that despatch refer to the subject of this country retiring
from the contest which it has so long carried on?--Yes, I think it does,
but I can find the passage.

5194. Can you state what the opinion was?--The opinion expressed was,
that unless more effectual means were taken for the suppression of the
traffic, that perhaps more harm than good was done by the exertions that
we had made previously; but since that time a very great alteration has
taken place; I expressed my opinion with regard to an increase of the
force on the coast, and the occupation of British territory that
belonged to us, where we were supplanted by the slave traders, at Bulama
especially, and also as to the punishment of the crews engaged in the
slave trade.

5195. Have any of those measures which you recommended been carried into
effect?--The Portuguese have been driven from Bulama, and a much more
effectual method of cruizing has been followed; very superior vessels
have been employed.

5196. Have you now any doubt of the propriety of continuing our
policy?--Certainly not: with regard to cruizing under the present
system, I would propose increasing the force still, and employing a
certain number of steam-vessels; indeed, there are several measures that
I might propose. The occupation of Bulama was referred to; I think that
would be an important measure; it was urged very strongly in that
despatch to which I have been referred, and the commander of the Brisk,
Captain Kellett, then for the first time visited the place, and drove
the Portuguese slave traders from it, and carried away the slaves who
were kept in the barracoons there. Another proposition was, sending home
foreign crews, and perhaps I may be allowed to read the passage
containing it:--“The only other suggestion which we shall at present
offer is, the adoption of means to secure the punishment of persons
implicated in slave trade adventures. As things are now managed, the
confiscation of a slave vessel affects only the owner or the
underwriters; and the parties who navigate the condemned vessel are
constantly seen to embark again, on a second illegal voyage, a few days
after the termination of the first. The complete personal impunity which
attends the agents by whom illegal slave trade is carried on, combined
with the high wages by which their services are secured, renders the
slave trade, notwithstanding all its inconveniences, the most desirable
employment for the Spanish and Portuguese sailor. On this subject we beg
leave to refer your Lordship to Class A., 1824-1825, pages 142 and 143;
and to Class A., 1836, pages 217 and 218. The plan which we now propose
for adoption, with regard to slave vessels captured on this coast, and
condemned at Sierra Leone, is applicable, with some modifications, to
similar seizures in other parts of the world; but its effect may be
tried here in the first instance. Both the Portuguese and Spanish
treaties require that the captain, and a part, at least, of the crew, of
a captured slave ship should be left on board; and this clause, whilst
it sanctions the present almost invariable practice of sending up only
the master, and one or two of the seamen, of a detained vessel, as
witnesses before the mixed courts, and landing the remainder of the
crew, as soon as possible, at the nearest or most convenient port,
equally permits the detention of the whole of the crew, if it should be
thought necessary, and we now beg leave to recommend the latter course,
with a view to ulterior proceedings against all the guilty parties. The
hulk already fixed at Sierra Leone may be used as a temporary receptacle
for such prisoners; and one small steamer, or vessel of war, might be
constantly employed in conveying the prisoners from this place to
England, to obtain the orders of Her Majesty’s Government as to their
delivery, at Lisbon (if Portuguese), or at Cadiz or some other port (if
Spanish). Portugal and Spain are both bound by treaty, as well as by
their own law, to punish their respective subjects, ‘who may participate
in an illicit traffic in slaves,’ and ‘to assimilate, as much as
possible, their legislation in this respect to that of Great Britain;’
and those powers will thus enjoy the opportunity of fulfilling their
obligations. The punishment of the guilty persons might be strongly
urged by the British ambassadors; but whether punished or not, we are
persuaded that a more severe blow would be given by this proceeding to
foreign slave trade than it has ever yet received. No less than 687
Spanish and Portuguese sailors were engaged in navigating the 30 vessels
which came before us last year. All these men have long since returned
to their former occupation; but had they been withdrawn, as we propose,
from their old haunts and pursuits, carried to Europe far from their
slave trading connexions, fined, imprisoned, and otherwise punished, and
left to find their way back as best they could to Cuba and Brazil, the
alarm which would have been thereby caused amongst the many thousands of
seamen engaged in the same manner, would have done more to check and
injure the illegal traffic than any means that have been adopted for the
last twenty years.”

5197. Mr. _Forster_.] In the paper you have just read, the necessity of
increased measures for the punishment of the crews of slave vessels is
alluded to; you are not aware, probably, that it is in evidence before
this Committee, that those crews, being landed on the coast at the
nearest point to that at which the capture took place, not above one in
ten of them escape death from destitution and want, in which case you
would probably think the punishment sufficient?--I was not aware of the
fact; but still I would have _that one_ sent home.

5198. _Chairman._] You would rather have the regular punishment of the
sailors?--A total withdrawal of the men from the place where their slave
trading occupation leads them, even if they are not punished in Portugal
and Spain, would have a good effect; they would be withdrawn so
completely from the line of their ordinary business, that the expense of
their finding their way to the Havannah or the Brazils would deter them
from engaging in such voyages, except at extravagantly high wages.

5199. Mr. _Aldam_.] Why could not they work their way back?--But they
still would be losing the enormous wages that they would obtain on board
a slave ship.

5200. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Do you happen to know the wages given on board
the slave ships?--They vary a little; but the wages of a common sailor I
have known to be 5_l._ a month. I should say a common seaman on board
one of those vessels would obtain, taking the value which the slaves
fetch, 7_l._ or 8_l._ a month on a successful voyage.

5201. Of course, those sailors undertake those voyages, and obtain that
enormous remuneration on account of the danger they run to life and
limb, from coming into the hands of our cruizers?--Yes; English sailors
would, until lately, have been hung if we caught them on board a slave
vessel, and, therefore, we see no English sailors in that trade; but you
would have men of all nations volunteer into it, if it were not for the
danger they ran.

5202. There is nothing in the trade itself, except the danger that they
run from our cruizers, which would lead to such enormous wages?--Nothing
whatever; they may be exposed to very great inconveniences, and if you
increase the inconveniences in the way I proposed, the wages would
double, probably; the rate of wages depends upon the danger and
inconvenience.

5203. Do you think that all the parties usually engaged in the slave
trade are perfectly aware that they run the risk of being put on shore
in case of capture, and of having to undergo great peril of their lives
before they can return to their homes?--It is known in all the slaving
ports; it has been the universal practice ever since the cruizers were
on the station to land the crews; indeed it cannot be otherwise with the
small vessels that we have on the coast. To venture to take fifty or
sixty scoundrels like the crews of those vessels, on board such a ship,
would be madness.

5204. Have you had your attention called to the very great hardship
which some of those crews have sustained when put on shore?--It has not
come before me in any way whatever; I have no knowledge of it at all; I
attended this Committee some time ago, and I heard of one case, where it
was mentioned that they were starved, but that is the only case I have
heard of.

5205. Can you suggest any alteration by which they could be put on shore
and subjected to very great personal inconvenience, without the dreadful
loss of life that we have heard of?--I think they were as badly off when
they were landed at Prince’s, which is a Portuguese settlement, as they
are at any other place.

5206. Would it increase the expenses very materially, or be a very
material inconvenience, to fix upon certain points of the coast at which
the crews could be landed before the vessels were sent to Sierra Leone
for judgment?--I do not think it could be done; it would take the
cruizer out of his ground, and would inconvenience him greatly; the
object is to keep the vessel efficient for the cruize, and keep him on
the ground; an empty vessel might run out, in order to be taken, while
the full slaver got away.

5207. If the regulation were adopted, that a cruizer taking a slaver in
certain districts, which should be detained, should be obliged to land
the crew at particular places; would that be practicable?--I do not
think it is possible.

5208. Mr. _Forster_.] Independently of the feeling of humanity towards
the crews themselves, do you not think that the example of such
treatment must have a very bad effect in the eyes of the natives of the
coast of Africa, as showing them an example of inhumanity on the part of
those who profess to be acting solely in that way from motives of
humanity?--I have never known a cruizer act inhumanly; I heard of one
case the other day, where they were starved, but it was stated in that
case that it was owing to the refusal of the Portuguese factories to
support them.

5209. Mr. _Stuart Wortley_.] In the paper you have read, it was stated
that there were 687 sailors engaged in navigating 30 slave vessels; a
short time since you stated that with respect to ships condemned at
Sierra Leone, there were seldom more than three or four connected with
the navigation of a vessel; will you reconcile those two
statements?--They only leave those three or four on board; they land all
but those who are required as witnesses at Sierra Leone.

5210. There are no individuals belonging to the slave crew retained on
board?--None, but those who are required as witnesses.

5211. Then those individuals of whom you spoke, as being charges against
the vessel, were individuals retained as witnesses?--Yes.

5212. _Chairman._] Do you think that the price paid to the Spanish or
Portuguese Governments, as the case might be, would suffice for the
maintenance of the crews of those vessels?--Yes, it would be only
rationing them for the voyage across.

5213. And paying for their passage?--Now we pay continually out of the
foreign moiety for the passage; at least the commissariat does.

5214. That is for the captain and mate; but here you are supposing
several hundred instead of 20 or 30?--The rationing of the commissariat
commences the moment we cease to have any thing to do with the vessel;
the day the vessel is condemned, there is given to the commissary a list
of the men who will come upon him for rations, and as long as they
remain in the colony they will come upon him daily; when a number of
vessels have been captured, and at one time we had 37 vessels lying in
the harbour at the same time, they would cause a great drain upon the
provisions, which are sent out only to meet ordinary contingencies; in
that case the commissary went to the expense of hiring vessels to send
those men away, and charged those expenses, in the same way as he would
have done the rations, against the share of the foreign government.

5215. If you brought the crew to Sierra Leone you would increase the
expense of maintenance very considerably?--Yes.

5216. You still consider that the moiety given to the foreign government
would cover such expenses?--Yes, if vessels continued to be taken as
they have been in the last few years, they would do so certainly. The
only case in which I should conceive that the expense would exceed the
moiety, is where very few vessels are condemned, and where you would
have to run across with a very few passengers.

5217. This could be done by the existing treaty, without the necessity
for any fresh negotiation?--Yes.

5218. Captain _Fitzroy_.] What becomes of the remainder of that moiety
which goes to the foreign government, the part which is not used in
paying for the maintenance of those men?--I believe there are always
accounts going on between the governments at home, and it is used in
England in some way that I am not aware of; the Treasury disposes of it
either by paying it over to the agent of the foreign government here, or
in some other way.

5219. Is the foreign moiety paid to our Government?--The whole of it is
paid to the commissary at Sierra Leone; he has accounts with the
Treasury; there are regular accounts which are made up as between the
British Government and the foreign government, showing the exact sum
that is due by the English Government to the foreign Government for
their moiety.

5220. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Looking to the general nature of the vessels
that are sold at Sierra Leone, do you think that they would bring by
auction as large a price if sold in the West Indies, as they would sold
at Sierra Leone?--Yes, I think they would.

5221. Do you think they would bring a larger price?--There have been
vessels sold at the West Indies, but there was not any material
difference in price; it would depend a good deal upon the island to
which they went; in some islands there might be no great demand.

5222. _Chairman._] There is a good deal of small traffic, is there not,
along the coasts of the West India islands?--Yes; I should think the
chances are, that the prices vessels would fetch in the West Indies
would be higher than at Sierra Leone.

5223. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Suppose the station was established at the West
Indies, would there not be the security that they would be sold without
being made use of again for the slave trade?--There might be. I have
strongly recommended that vessels should be sent to the West Indies,
when they have cargoes on board; that the slaves should be landed in the
West Indies, and the vessels, of course, might be sold there when sent
over.

5224. _Chairman._] You would bring them to Sierra Leone for
adjudication?--Yes; there could not be a mixed commission established
under the present system in the West Indies; because the treaty requires
that there shall be one mixed commission on the coast of Africa, and
another in the West Indies, and we have one there already at Havannah.

5225. You would think it a very material advantage, looking to the slave
trade, if those sales could take place at the West Indies instead of on
the coast of Africa?--No; the advantage that I was alluding to, is an
advantage for the supply of labour in the West Indies, but not with
regard to the supply of vessels, because the vessel might soon run
across the Atlantic, and get into the hands of the slavers, as at
present.

5226. If a person wished to obtain those vessels bought in the West
Indies, for the encouragement of the slave trade, he would buy them at a
great disadvantage as compared with the price which he now pays at
Sierra Leone?--Yes; but notwithstanding the higher price in the West
Indies, it is not likely to be such a price that the owner would not be
able to get much more from the slave dealers than anybody else.

5227. If the sales of the prize vessels and the prize goods were made in
the West Indies rather than at Sierra Leone, would they be less
serviceable in the encouraging the slave trade?--Those particular goods
would.

5228. Would the absence of that mode of supply be in any way an
obstruction to the slave trader?--Certainly not.

5229. Are they got at those prize sales at a cheaper rate than they are
directly from the merchants?--The price goods obtained at public
auctions is much lower than you would buy them for in one of the shops.

5230. Then by so far as the prize sales in Sierra Leone do furnish a
cheaper article to the slaver than the regular sale would do, so far
they are an assistance to his trade?--The cheapness of goods sold at
Sierra Leone is useful to all trades as well as to that.

5231. But if those sales did not take place at Sierra Leone, they would
not be supplied so cheaply as they are?--It is a very small portion of
assistance they receive; but so far as it goes it is an assistance.

5232. A vessel sold at Sierra Leone, is more easily convertible to the
purposes of the slave trade, than if it were sold in the West
Indies?--More easily, but not much more so, because the vessel might be
run across at once.

5233. Is there not more demand for vessels in the West Indies than at
Sierra Leone?--Certainly, and therefore the price would be higher.

5234. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Is there not also an advantage in having men
disposable, ready to man those ships when purchased?--Yes.

5235. Mr. _Forster_.] Are not the cases very few in which they would man
the vessels at once again?--I have known cases of that kind.

5236. But are not the cases comparatively rare?--Yes.

5237. _Chairman._] Who generally are purchasers of prize vessels?--The
greater portion are purchased on speculation; the number sold now is not
at all, in proportion to the number taken, what it was before the
Spanish treaty, under which most of the vessels are condemned, require
that the vessels should be cut up, but some are bought on speculation,
and come into the fruit trade, and others go into the Mediterranean
trade; others are bought by slavers.

5238. Mr. _Evans_.] Do you know any thing of the slave ship Almirante,
for which vessel the sum of 600_l._ was offered by an officer of
Government, to be used as a tender, which offer was not accepted, and
the vessel was sold at 1,500_l._, and immediately went down to the Bonny
and took away 600 slaves from that port?--The Almirante was captured
before my time at Sierra Leone, but I think it is very likely, because
such things were taking place continually.

5239. Mr. _W. Patten_.] When you were at Sierra Leone, you have stated
in your evidence already, that the liberated Africans were carrying on
the trade with much greater advantage than the white merchants, in
consequence of the price at which they obtained goods at public
auctions?--Not entirely in consequence of that, but that has been one
great means to assist them. For many years past, before those prize
goods were sold at Sierra Leone, the liberated Africans had gradually
been working themselves into notoriety; most of them are very much
addicted to trading, and the persons whom they have supplanted are a
lazy, indolent, worthless set, who cannot compete with them at all, and
having completely driven out of the market the Maroons and settlers,
they are now gradually driving out the white merchants.

5240. There is then this additional disadvantage in those auctions at
Sierra Leone, that they are destroying the trade of the white merchants
of the place, by the other merchants being able to purchase goods at a
price which is not remunerating to the British merchant?--I consider it
a great advantage.

5241. Is it not a great disadvantage in one respect, that it is
discouraging the trade between England and the coast of Africa at that
particular point?--No, I think quite the reverse; the supply of goods
will be the same whoever are the receivers, and the extent of our export
to Sierra Leone will not be diminished by altering the colour of the
merchants there.

5242. But if it should be desirable to establish a general trade with
that part of the coast in a legitimate way, does not the sale of goods
at those public auctions, at materially reduced prices, offer a great
impediment to English merchants conducting trade upon that part of the
coast?--I think its first effect might be that; but its ultimate effect,
I think, would be far different. I think the great point is to encourage
the use of such articles, and to increase the desire for them; and the
British goods will always, in competition, beat out the foreign goods
from the market.

5243. Has it not pretty much the same effect there that a very large
sale, under a bankruptcy in England, has upon the trade in this
country?--I think not, to the same degree there; because what you
require there, in order to create a demand for goods of good quality is,
to allow the people to have the use of something superior to what they
would have without those sales.

5244. _Chairman._] But the goods sold at those prize sales are articles
of an inferior kind, are they not?--The goods that are sold there are
very much the same as those that are used by the natives in their own
trade, and probably many of them are British manufacture.

5245. You think that it is an advantage to the trade ultimately, that
those forced sales, at unnaturally low prices, should be made within the
colony, producing a taste which will be gratified by a more regular
trade?--Yes.

5246. Though they may interfere with the regular trade in the
colony?--That is only for a time.

5247. Mr. _Aldam_.] Are the goods English goods?--The principal part of
them are.

5248. _Chairman._] Those forced sales have had a very injurious effect
upon the regular trade of the place, have they not?--Yes, upon the
shops; at the same time they have raised into wealth, and brought
forward still more prominently than before, the liberated African
hawkers.

5249. Have they created a class of native traders who have extended
commerce inland further than British trade by itself, in its natural
course, would have done?--Yes, certainly; the trade between Sierra Leone
and the Sherboro’, and the rivers in the neighbourhood of Sierra Leone,
has been very much more brisk in the large canoes that are employed by
the liberated African traders, since goods have come in so cheaply.

5250. Therefore you think, incidentally to the regular trade, advantage
has been given by these forced sales, which have created tastes which
would not have existed under other circumstances?--Yes.

5251. Mr. _Forster_.] The brisk trade which you have spoken of between
Sherboro’ and Sierra Leone would be with those goods; a trade chiefly
with the slave dealers in that quarter?--All are slave dealers, if they
can be, beyond British jurisdiction; but what the Sierra Leone traders
receive in exchange for goods are rice, and other articles of produce,
which are consumed in the colony; for though rice is the principal food
of all who can afford to pay for it, there is no rice raised in the
colony; and therefore a trade of some kind is required to be carried on,
in order to procure the means of subsistence.

5252. _Chairman._] The colony has not the means of supporting
itself?--No.

5253. Mr. _Forster_.] Though those goods may be sold to slave dealers in
those districts, you think that it is a legitimate and desirable trade
for the English merchant?--Yes.

5254. Mr. _Evans_.] Have you not stated that the black merchants at
Sierra Leone have more capital than the English?--There are hardly any
English merchants; there are agents of English houses. The black
merchants have twice as much capital as the resident English agents, but
there is one merchant, Mr. William Cole, who is carrying on business on
his own account, and he went into the market, he did not hold back and
oppose the thing, as was done by the other English traders, but he
entered into competition with the black traders, and made a good deal of
money by it.

5255. In Sierra Leone merchants who had capital to employ would have
considerable advantage over the agents or merchants who had not the
money to lay down?--Yes.

5256. Mr. _Forster_.] Was not the want of money you have alluded to on
the part of the English merchants, mainly owing to having their stores
filled with English merchandize, which was rendered completely
unsaleable by the quantity of prize goods thrown into the market in the
way you have mentioned?--I think not, because Mr. Cole was in just the
same circumstances; he had the largest store in the town; but he had
more money than the others; he had money in his pocket instead of being
in debt in England, and instead of sending home money as others were
obliged to do to pay their accounts in England, he reserved his money to
purchase cheap goods in the colony.

5257. Had he a large stock?--Yes, he had; but he took advantage of the
circumstances that occurred, and made his profit by them.

5258. Would it answer the purpose of the trader at Sierra Leone to keep
a large quantity of goods and money on his hands?--If Mr. Cole had known
of those prize goods coming in such large quantities he would not have
purchased goods from England, but he happened to have those goods in
store as the other merchants had, and he happened to have money also,
and he took advantage of the prize goods coming in, but there were very
few merchants in that position.


_Martis, 14º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Mr. Denison.
  Mr. W. Evans.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Mr. Hamilton.
  Mr. Milnes.
  Mr. W. Patten.

  LORD VISCOUNT SANDON, IN THE CHAIR.

  _Henry William Macaulay_, Esq. called in, and further examined.

5261. _Chairman._] Do you wish to make some remarks upon Dr. Madden’s
Report, page 14?--I do. He states that liberated Africans at the prize
sales at Sierra Leone “buy up the coppers, guns, and ship’s stores of
vessels for the British agents of the slave traders of the Sherboro’ and
Gallinas residing at Freetown, and thus they acquire a taste for this
illegal traffic.” Now he might have known, if he had made any inquiry at
Sierra Leone, that coppers are never sold at public auction, or any kind
of equipment for the slave trade. The subject is referred to by Colonel
Doherty in his reply to Dr. Madden’s Report. He gives a positive
contradiction to that statement, and I can confirm the contradiction.

5262. To what are the sales confined?--To the vessels and the goods
found on board, and to the tackle, apparel, and furniture; that is the
term used in the condemnation; but coppers, irons, and any other
articles that may be used again in the slave trade are always brought up
to the commission-office or warehouses. It is the interest of the Mixed
Commissions to gain every single copper they can; for, when broken up,
the coppers are sold, and supply funds from which the repairs of the
boat used in the service of the Mixed Commission are paid; that is, the
boat used to carry about the officers of the court in the harbour.

5263. Do you mean that the accommodation which the officers derive is
dependent upon that?--No; but they are constantly afloat. During the
time that a vessel is there the marshal is required to visit her three
times a day.

5264. But is the accommodation dependent upon its being derived from
this source?--No; whenever that copper fund is insufficient, the repairs
of the boat are paid out of the funds of which the foreign governments
pay a portion; but the money derived from the sale of the coppers is
appropriated to that purpose, and there is a regular account kept of the
sale of those coppers that are broken up. There never was an instance of
a copper being sold at public auction, or any equipment.

5265. Have you any reason to believe that this practice does lead to the
encouragement of the slave trade?--I have none whatever.

5266. Have you reason to believe that any of the parties, either
British or native, living at Freetown, are in any way sharers in the
proceeds of slave transactions?--They may sell goods to the slave
traders.

5267. Are they sharers in the proceeds of slave goods?--I believe not; I
cannot say for certain, because we have a shifting population of
Spaniards and Portuguese passing through the colony; but I should say no
resident whatever shares in such proceeds. It is a thing which one
cannot know, because of course such a transaction would be concealed if
it existed.

5268. Are you not aware of any British agents of the slave traders; are
you aware of the existence of agents of the Sherboro’ and of Gallinas
residing in Freetown?--Yes, of persons purchasing vessels on account of
slave traders, and I have no doubt purchasing goods also.

5269. What is the interest in the transaction which such persons
have?--A commission, I presume.

5270. Mr. _Forster_.] In your former evidence, you have mentioned a
merchant, of the name of Kidd, as acting as agent for the purchase of
prize vessels on behalf of the slave traders at the Gallinas; in your
opinion, was Mr. Kidd singular in that respect?--I do not recollect any
other person employed in that way during my time.

5271. Is it within your knowledge that merchants, who were members of
the Council of Government at Sierra Leone, have been engaged in similar
transactions?--Never, to my knowledge; but I would also mention, as Mr.
Kidd’s name has been spoken of, that, since the last meeting of the
Committee, I have met with his name accidentally, in connexion with
another transaction of the same kind, in the printed Parliamentary
Papers, and therefore I may refer to it. It is the case of a vessel sold
to a slave trader, a vessel called the Ligeira, which was captured a
second time, and brought into Sierra Leone a very short time after she
left the port; it appeared that in the meantime Mr. Kidd had carried her
from the colony and sold her to a slave trader, and she was captured
almost immediately afterwards. The case is reported at page 101 of Class
(A.) of the Slave Trade Papers, for 1839-40.

5272. _Chairman._] Would it not be desirable, if possible, that all the
vessels taken in the slave trade should be broken up?--Certainly, it
would be the best thing that could possibly be done; and in those cases
where it appeared to the court, during the latter part of the time that
I administered the mixed courts there, that a vessel could have been
condemned either as a Portuguese or a Spaniard, in all these cases we
condemned her as a Spaniard, in order that she might be cut up after her
condemnation; for the slave traders were seriously injured by being
deprived of the means of getting off the coast and getting slaves again.

5273. Mr. _W. Patten._] In the case of the breaking up of a vessel, do
the captors get any prize money?--Yes, they get a bounty on the tonnage
of that vessel; she is measured by the surveyors before being broken up,
in order to ascertain her tonnage by the new mode of measurement, and
upon that measurement the captors are paid the bounty in England.

5274. It is immaterial to the captors whether the vessel is broken up
or sold again, so far as their private interests are concerned?--Except
that the vessel sells whole for much more than she does when she is
broken up for fire-wood.

5275. Is the vessel valued only as fire-wood when broken up?--They get
only a moiety of the proceeds of the broken parts, in the other case
they get a moiety of a vessel fit for sea, with all the rigging perfect.

5276. You do not coincide with Dr. Madden, who recommends that a vessel
when captured should be put into the possession of the capturing officer
to be disposed of?--It would be quite impossible; the foreigners would
very justly complain of us if we left the vessel in charge of the
officer when once brought before the court. It appears by a paper, which
I have seen this morning only, that already they complain of irons and
other things, to condemn the vessel, being put on board after the
arrival of the vessel at Sierra Leone. Now, if during the time the
vessel was passing through the court, and during the time when the
marshal now has charge of her, in order to prevent any thing of that
kind happening, you left the vessel to the officer, who is interested in
putting three or four shackles on board, which is quite sufficient to
condemn the vessel, I think they would have just cause to complain.

5277. What Dr. Madden recommends is, that when the vessel has been
condemned it should be put at the disposal of the commanding officer on
the post, for the exclusive use of the service of the navy?--A small
number of the vessels condemned might perhaps be beneficially made use
of, and the new Act authorises the purchase of vessels when the
commanding officer may think it right to purchase them; but having had
that option, he of course only purchased such vessels as were required;
we had 60 odd vessels in 1839 before the court; what would the navy have
done with all those vessels?

5278. Mr. _Forster_.] Had many of those vessels cargoes on board?--Yes.

5279. _Chairman._] Should you think it would be advisable to sell the
vessels under bond that they should not be employed in the slave trade
for a certain period?--The law is now almost as stringent as any bond
could be.

5280. In what way?--Dr. Madden seems to suppose that vessels may be
fitted out in Sierra Leone, and may lie in British waters equipped for
the slave trade; but any one at Sierra Leone would have told him that no
vessel could possibly lie there equipped for the slave trade; the
authorities are so particular, that even in many cases vessels were
seized and brought before the court if they were supposed to have a few
gallons too much water in them. There is an exceeding jealousy on the
subject, as indeed appears by some of the papers which have been
presented.

5281. Mr. _Forster_.] Before what court is a vessel, taken in British
waters, equipped for the slave trade, brought; the Court of Admiralty or
the Court of Mixed Commission?--If she is prosecuted under the Act of
Parliament, she is prosecuted of course in the Vice-Admiralty Court.

5282. Is there not a rule on that subject, and are not all vessels
taken in British waters on suspicion of being engaged in the slave trade
prosecuted in the Admiralty Court?--No; it remains with the captor, if
there is a treaty which will reach the vessel, to prosecute her under
that treaty before the Mixed Commission Court, if she is a Spaniard or a
Portuguese, or before the Admiralty Court, for a breach of the municipal
law, because she violates both the treaty and the municipal law, and
therefore he has the choice of the one court or the other.

5283. In your last evidence you spoke of a vessel captured of the name
of Jack Wilding, at Accra, upon that ground; in which court was she
prosecuted?--Before the Mixed Commission Court, but the captor had the
option of prosecuting her before the Admiralty Court; the expenses are
so much less in our court, and the proceedings so much more rapid, that
he preferred bringing her before ours.

5284. Is not the evidence taken before the Mixed Commission Court
transmitted to England?--Yes; and it is published by the Foreign Office.

5285. But the evidence in trials before the Vice-Admiralty Court is
never made public?--It is not, and a very great disadvantage it is, for
this reason: our ability to condemn many of the vessels that were
condemned in 1839 depended very much upon evidence found on board
vessels brought before the court; this evidence conclusively proved the
employment in the slave trade of other vessels not then before us, which
were afterwards captured. Now, all evidence of that kind, which might be
made use of subsequently in the condemnation of other vessels, is
completely shut up from the public or from general knowledge, by the
proceedings before the Vice-Admiralty Court being never made public. In
the Mixed Commission Court papers can be invoked by the proctor which
have been filed in a particular case against another vessel that is
subsequently prosecuted.

5286. _Chairman._] Is there no advantage in the secrecy of such
papers?--None whatever.

5287. The proceedings before the Mixed Commission Court are public in
themselves, and are published afterwards?--The examinations are not
public, but strictly private in the first instance, but they are read in
open court at the trial of the vessel, and they are sent home to the
Foreign Office; an abstract of the evidence of every witness is given.

5288. The evidence taken before the Vice-Admiralty Court is not
published in any way?--No.

5289. Is it communicated to the Mixed Commission?--No.

5290. Mr. _Aldam_.] Are the proceedings of the Vice-Admiralty Court
there carried on in the same form as the proceedings of the Admiralty
Court here?--Yes, very much the same.

5291. With any greater degree of secrecy?--No, but here the public
papers publish them; we have no newspapers there to publish accounts of
the proceedings.

5292. _Chairman._] Would there be an advantage if the proceedings of the
Vice-Admiralty Court were always communicated to the Mixed
Commission?--Yes; and I recommended at the time when vessels began to
go so frequently to the Vice-Admiralty Court, in 1839, that we should be
informed of the papers filed in that court.

5293. Would there be any difficulty or objection to that?--There is no
establishment of clerks connected with the Vice-Admiralty Court to
supply copies at all, and it is not the custom of the judge of the
Vice-Admiralty Court to report his proceedings home.

5294. Mr. _Evans_.] Do you think that the Mixed Commission Court has
sufficient power for the objects for which it is instituted?--I think
that they have. They have been rather shy of exercising it sometimes,
but I believe that they do possess much more power than they ever
exercised.

5295. You have no improvement in the court to suggest?--No. There seemed
to be a deficiency of authority in the marshal a short time ago; but
that was supplied by a local Act, which gave him all the power which the
marshal of the Vice-Admiralty Court possesses.

5296. _Chairman._] It is stated by Dr. Madden, in page 14, that the new
interests which he supposes to be created in the minds of the British
residents, especially in the minds of the liberated negroes, “have a
very unfavourable influence upon them when employed in public
situations, or called upon to act as petty juries in our courts.” He
states, “if the case is one which involves the interest of a slave
dealer, no matter what his nation, the disposition of a jury thus
composed is invariably to give a verdict in favour of the slave trader,
unless the chief justice should take extraordinary pains to make them do
their duty honestly and impartially.” Do you know instances in which
this has operated?--No; I believe it never operated in any case.

5297. What are the cases in which slave dealers come before juries in
Sierra Leone?--Slave dealers have come before them, and been convicted
and executed; I never knew an instance of a man who ought to have been
convicted escaping.

5298. He mentions here an instance of a vessel, the Gollupchik, being
captured and being sold, and becoming the property of certain London
merchants, and being again sent out with a cargo of goods for the slave
trade factories of Gallinas, under British colours, and commanded by a
British subject. “The vessel,” he says, “was condemned by the Mixed
Court of Justice at Sierra Leone, and the English captain was committed
for trial at the ensuing assizes. The grand jury found a true bill
against this man on the clearest evidence, but the petty jury, all of
whom were persons of colour, returned an unanimous verdict of acquittal,
which was received by the coloured persons in the court, and by some
others of similar sentiments, with decided tokens of approbation.” Are
you acquainted with that case?--Not at all; without knowing the case it
would be impossible to say whether the jury were right or wrong; I have
known cases where they have discharged persons accused of slave dealing,
and where they were right. In the case referred to by Mr. Hartung of the
Echo, the jury thought that the prisoner was not liable to conviction;
but I never knew in my time any man who ought to have been convicted of
slave dealing escape.

5299. Generally speaking, did you find the coloured juries do their duty
in all cases?--Certainly; they do their duty very well.

5300. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Is it from any particular class that juries are
selected?--The grand juries are selected from the most respectable
inhabitants of Freetown, and the petty juries from shopkeepers and the
reputable class of traders.

5301. Viscount _Courtenay_.] Who selects them?--The sheriff.

5302. _Chairman._]--Has the office of chief justice been frequently
vacant?--It has been vacant several times since I was in the colony, and
an acting chief justice has been appointed.

5303. Who has acted in the interval?--During one interval, Mr. Melville,
who was Queen’s advocate at the time, and Mr. Carr, who was also Queen’s
advocate, and who is now chief justice, officiated on another occasion.

5304. Were they gentlemen who had a legal education?--Both of those
persons had; but there were two other instances in which the office was
held by men who had no legal education; once by a merchant, and a second
time by the collector of customs.

5305. Was that under the necessity of the case?--Yes.

5306. Mr. _Forster_.] How long did the collector of customs hold that
office?--A very long time; he held it from the death of Chief Justice
Rankin until the appointment of Mr. Carr as chief justice, which was
probably a year and a half after.

5307. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Do you know what year it was in?--From August
1839 till, I think, the end of 1840, or the beginning of 1841.

5308. Mr. _Forster_.] It is a part of the duty of the chief justice to
deliver the gaol at the Gambia, is it not?--Yes.

5309. Are you aware whether the acting chief justice visited the Gambia
for that purpose during the 18 months in question?--Certainly; while I
was there Mr. Hook visited it.

5310. Do you know how frequently, in each year, it is the duty of the
chief justice to deliver the gaol of the Gambia?--There is no time
appointed; but I consider it a great disadvantage both to the Gambia and
Sierra Leone, having only one chief justice for the two places.

5311. You are not aware whether the Gambia has not been left for a
period of 12 months without a gaol delivery?--No; I think it is possible
that it might be the case between the early part of 1838 and 1839, or
between the beginning of 1839 and the beginning of 1840. There is very
great difficulty in getting any person in a colony like that to fill the
situation of chief justice, I mean from among the residents in the
colony.

5312. Are you aware of the cause of the office having been vacant for
the period of 18 months?--No, not at all; I suppose that the Colonial
Government could not find a proper person to send out. One barrister who
was appointed was drowned before he reached Sierra Leone.

5313. You are not aware that the applications have generally been
extremely numerous for that office whenever it has become vacant?--No.

5314. Mr. _Aldam_.] What is the system of criminal law in force in the
colonies?--The law of England.

5315. Is it modified at all?--Very little; if it is modified, it is
modified by local Acts passed by the Governor and Council.

5316. Mr. _Evans_.] Do you think it a good thing to appoint men of
colour to such high offices as those of chief justice or Governor, in
any colony where many English gentlemen reside?--Certainly, if they are
fit for the situations; but at Sierra Leone there is no feeling whatever
except amongst one or two individuals, on the subject of colour; indeed
I believe that the most popular man at the present time, and almost
during the whole time when I was there, was a man of colour, and who was
afterwards Lieutenant-governor; that was Dr. Ferguson, a man, I believe,
universally beloved there.

5317. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you think that the natives have the same
confidence and respect for a person of that description, as for a white
officer?--I think so; at Sierra Leone, certainly.

5318. Mr. _Aldam_.] Practically, do you find a great number of men of
colour who are fit to fill high situations in the colony?--There are not
so many men of colour as white men fit to fill the high situations; but
some of the highest situations have been filled in my time by men of
colour, and well filled.

5319. _Mr. W. Patten_.] Have you any other observation which you wish to
make upon Dr. Madden’s Report?--At page 28, on “The result of the
efforts at present in use for the suppression of the slave trade,” Dr.
Madden mentions “The disappointment the captors experience at seeing all
their arduous efforts for hindering the slave trade factories from
receiving their supplies from the foreign vessels engaged in this trade
completely nullified by the proceedings of our own merchants and
commanders of merchant-vessels, who supply them with the identical goods
and stores which they capture the foreign vessels for conveying to the
coast.” Now I wish particularly, with reference to that statement, to
say, that foreign vessels are never captured for having _goods_ of any
description on board of them. There appears to have been some error
entertained as to the grounds on which the vessel called the Dos Amigos,
which has been mentioned before, was condemned. That vessel was
condemned at Sierra Leone, and in the report which the Commissioners
made to Government, they stated that the Dos Amigos had been allowed to
lie in Cape Coast Roads fully equipped for the slave trade. It seems to
have been supposed that our complaint was, that she was carrying _goods_
for the supply of the slave trade; but no vessel, either British or
foreign, has ever been condemned at Sierra Leone on account of the
description of goods that she was carrying.

5320. What is the object which you have in calling the attention of the
Committee to that statement; is it to deny that statement?--There is a
good deal of evidence in the papers before the Committee on the case of
the Dos Amigos. The impression seems to have been, that the complaint of
the mixed commission court at Sierra Leone against the Governor of Cape
Coast Castle, was, that he allowed a vessel to trade at Cape Coast,
which was afterwards captured there as a slave trader. Now the ground of
complaint was quite distinct, namely, that he allowed a vessel with
_equipments_ on board for the slave trade to be in a British harbour
with impunity; it had nothing to do with the goods whatever.

5321. _Chairman._] You do not believe that it would be lawful to seize
and condemn a foreign vessel for conveying to a slave trader goods and
stores that are not included in the equipment article?--I do not.

5322. Therefore the expression is incorrect that our commanders of
British cruizers must “experience disappointment at seeing all their
arduous efforts for hindering the slave trade factories from receiving
their supplies from the foreign vessels engaged in this trade completely
nullified by the proceedings of our own merchants and commanders of
merchant vessels who supply them with the identical goods and stores,
which they capture the foreign vessels for conveying to the coast”?--It
is impossible that they can feel disappointment about what never
happened.

5323. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Is it your opinion that the law can be altered
upon this subject for the better?--I think not; any alteration would, I
think, be for the worse. In the next paragraph Dr. Madden states, that
he considers it would be desirable that the men-of-war vessels on the
coast should only be employed two years. I do not think that any naval
officer would agree with him in that respect; it is not till they have
been two years on the coast that they become acquainted with the arts of
the slave dealers, and thoroughly efficient in the suppression of the
slave trade.

5324. In short, it requires considerable experience to ascertain the
best means of capturing the slavers?--Certainly; but on all questions
relating to service on the coast I would recommend that a naval officer
should be examined.

5325. _Chairman._] Dr. Madden suggests, “that instead of head-money, or
the bounty of 5_l._ paid for the capture of each slave, the pay of men
and officers should be doubled, and the promotion of the former advanced
in proportion to the time of service required for it on any other
station in a double ratio.” Are you of opinion that any inconvenience
arises from the present system of head-money?--I do not think any
inconvenience has been found to arise; it was supposed at one time, and
stated rather positively in the House of Lords, that such an effect had
been produced, but a refutation of the statement was given the same
year, for instead of full vessels being taken, there was not one out of
20 that was taken with slaves on board.

5326. You think that the remuneration to the officers is put upon the
best and fairest footing now?--I would not say that, because I think the
officers are not remunerated sufficiently for empty vessels at present;
the sum received for the capture of an empty vessel is so very small,
and the sum received for the capture of a full vessel so much larger,
that there is no comparison whatever between the two cases; and there is
more good done by the capture of an empty vessel, and the service is
just as arduous.

5327. Have you ever thought of any other system that could be
adopted?--I have suggested an alteration of the bounties on this scale.
It appeared that about three times as many vessels were captured under
the equipment treaties, as were formerly taken, when only vessels full
of slaves were allowed to be captured; and I thought that the
remuneration for an empty vessel should be so calculated, that it should
amount to about one-third of what the officer would receive if he took a
full vessel with the average number of slaves on board. There would be
no difficulty in making the calculation, and it would be only fair to
the officers to give them that advantage.

5328. No such alteration has been made?--No.

5329. Mr. _W. Patten_.] You would not diminish the head-money to
officers when they captured a vessel full of slaves?--No; it has been
diminished very greatly the last 12 years, from 10_l._ to 5_l._ a head.

5330. What would be the effect of putting all vessels on the same
footing, whether having slaves on board or being empty?--There would be
no difficulty.

5331. _Chairman._] Would it not be fairer to make the remuneration
independent of the casual circumstance of whether the vessel was full or
empty?--Yes; it would be taking away the advantage which the officers
now enjoy with full vessels, but I think it would be a fair thing.

5332. Mr. _Forster_.] Are officers entitled to the head-money on slaves
taken on shore?--No; the difficulty in that case is, that when taken on
shore they are British subjects, if they are taken in British territory,
and the British law will not acknowledge that they could be slaves. The
difficulty was found some time ago, when a naval officer went to Bulama
and captured several hundred slaves who were detained there by the
Portuguese; he proceeded in the Admiralty Court, but the judge said,
These men are not slaves, they are taken on British territory. The
British law will not allow that any person can be a slave on British
soil; so that the captor was deprived of his head-money.

5333. A considerable number was taken at the Gallinas by Captain
Denman?--Yes.

5334. Will Captain Denman be entitled to head-money upon those persons
so captured?--He has never received any thing for them, but I hope he
may; if there is any fund from which remuneration on the ordinary scale
can be granted, it would be desirable that such cases should be dealt
with in the same manner as they would be if brought under the terms of
the Act.

5335. Mr. _Evans_.] If the remuneration was on the tonnage of the
vessel, supposing it was on the same scale as it is now, would that be a
just way of taking it?--Yes; a remuneration on the tonnage, whether full
or empty, would be fair, but the scale should be very much raised; at
present it is miserably low.

5336. I am supposing that it was raised to the average of the present
remuneration for capturing full and empty vessels?--That would be an
improvement.

5337. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Is there not more difficulty in capturing a
vessel with slaves on board than in capturing an empty vessel?--There is
much less difficulty in capturing a vessel with slaves on board.

5338. Are not more exertions used when a vessel has slaves on
board?--They run away in both cases; but the vessel is impeded greatly
whilst she has her cargo of slaves on board, and there is more chance of
capture, and the chase is less likely to be long, than with an empty
vessel.

5339. _Chairman._] The security of condemnation is greater?--Yes.

5340. You stated that there was a difficulty in remunerating the
officers when slaves were taken on shore, on the ground of their being
considered as British subjects; does that apply to Gallinas?--No; the
question did not apply there, but to Bulama, because we claimed the
sovereignty of that island. There is no remuneration, under any Act of
Parliament, for slaves released under those circumstances which occurred
at the Gallinas.

5341. Might there not be some question altogether, whether the release
of slaves on shore was within the proper functions of a cruizer?--There
might, under some circumstances; but in the case referred to it was a
voluntary act on the part of the chief of the country releasing those
slaves; they were detained there by persons whom the chief considered as
his enemies, by whom he was kept in control, and he was relieved from
their control by the Wanderer. There was a positive application made by
the chief of the country.

5342. Then it was not, properly speaking, a duty imposed upon the
commander engaged upon that station?--No, it would be only a duty under
peculiar circumstances.

5343. Therefore such a practice would naturally not be contemplated by
any Act of Parliament?--No.

5344. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you consider the chiefs of the Gallinas opposed
to the slave trade?--No.

5345. How did they happen to apply for relief against the slave
dealers?--An illegal act had been committed by those chiefs on the
subjects of Sierra Leone, and when redress was demanded the excuse
offered by the chiefs was, that they were held in subjection by the
resident Spaniards there, and that they could not afford the relief
which was required by British subjects, or even prevent British subjects
being carried into slavery, in consequence of the control which was
exercised over them by the Spanish and Portuguese slave traders.

5346. Do you yourself believe that excuse to be true?--I believe that it
was stated; I have no means of judging of its truth.

5347. _Chairman._] It was a justification for the interference of
Captain Denman?--Exactly. By the papers presented to Parliament it
appeared that some women and children at Sierra Leone, as far as I
recollect the case, were taken down to the Gallinas, and were known to
be there, and Captain Denman was instructed by the Governor of Sierra
Leone to go in and demand their liberation, and also to remonstrate with
the chiefs for the offence which had been committed; and also to inquire
how it was that British men-of-war boats going into the river were
refused all supplies, were not allowed to water, and were even prevented
having intercourse with American and other vessels lying in the river.
The principal chief then complained of the treatment which he received
from the Spaniards and Portuguese, and he requested to be released from
their control, and Captain Denman complied with his request.

5348. Mr. _Aldam_.] Were there any British subjects found among the
slaves captured at the Gallinas?--None that I am aware of, except those
particular ones that Captain Denman demanded, and whom he recovered.

5349. _Chairman._] Do you believe that there are any instances of
kidnapping out of the territory of Sierra Leone?--Very few.

At page 34 of Dr. Madden’s Report, there is this passage: “The charges
made for the disposal of these effects,” that is, goods sold by public
auction, “the captors state, and I believe with truth, are extremely
heavy; and in many cases more than half the prize money that the captors
had reason to expect, is swallowed up in the charges made by the various
officers at Sierra Leone, employed in taking care, and ultimately
disposing of, the effects of the captured vessel. On the following cases
of slave-trade vessels sent in for adjudication to the Commission Courts
at Sierra Leone, by Captain Tucker, of Her Majesty’s ship Wolverine, the
charges here detailed were made.” Then follows the schedule; five out of
the nine vessels mentioned in that schedule were sold, while I was in
the court, and with respect to those five I obtained the heads of the
charges yesterday from the Foreign Office. The Vigilante is the first;
the charges were 99_l._ 1_s._ 4_d._, and in that case the sum paid to
the collector of customs for duty was 18_l._ In the Pampeiro, the
charges were 63_l._, the duty was 12_l._ In the Passos, the charges were
22_l._ 8_s._, and the proceeds very small; but in that case the vessel
was destroyed at Prince’s Island, and there were also slaves on board,
and the whole of those charges, for the vessel was only in port a few
days, consisted of the feeding of the slaves, and the duty on the goods
which were found on board, and the marshal’s expenses. The reason of the
small amount of proceeds was, that there was no vessel, and only a few
goods that were brought up in the man-of-war; only a few pieces of
cloth, and such things. In the case of the Firmeza, the charges were
1,014_l._ 7_s._ 5_d._, but of that sum the duty paid to the customs was
775_l._, and the translations were 18_l._; so that about 800_l._ was
paid by the marshal on those accounts out of 1,014_l._

5350. Mr. _W. Patten_.] The translations do not then appear to be of
that onerous nature to the captor, which Dr. Madden, in the previous
part of his statement, says that they are?--They are very heavy in some
cases: I have known them as high as 60_l._ and 70_l._ In the Emprendador
the expenses are 351_l._ 19_s._ 1_d._; of that sum 172_l._ was paid in
duty, and 33_l._ in translations, making 205_l._ out of 351_l._ Then the
other expenses are the five per cent. to the auctioneer, the marshal’s
charges for taking charge of the vessel, and boats and labourers landing
cargo, and also a premium of about six or six and-one-eighth per cent.
difference between the English money and the currency.

5351. Viscount _Courtenay_.] Are those fees fixed by a scale settled by
the court?--The fees were fixed by a regular scale, that has been drawn
up on the model of the schedule of fees paid in the Vice-Admiralty
Courts, which was approved of by Dr. Lushington and two other gentlemen
connected with the Admiralty Court in England, and which schedule was
sent out to all the Vice-Admiralty Courts of our colonies, as the rule
by which they were to be guided. In many cases our charges were less;
but in no case, I believe, were they more than directed in that
schedule.

5352. _Chairman._] Since those heavy charges which are alluded to by Dr.
Madden have been incurred, the duties, which are one principal source of
expense, have been modified according to your recommendation?--They
have.

5353. What would have been the result of the reduction in that case of
the Firmeza, where the duties appear to have been 775_l._?--The
reduction would have been very great indeed. Without knowing on what
articles the duty was imposed, I cannot say; but the duty was changed
from a fixed to an _ad valorem_ duty; and in the case of the tobacco and
spirits of that vessel, the reduction would have been very great;
probably it would have struck off 500_l._ at least of the 775_l._

5354. That evil, therefore, is met to a considerable degree?--The evil
is met as much as can be expected; indeed, I do not think that there is
any thing whatever now that the captors have to complain of.

5355. It cannot be expected that the goods should be sold for the
benefit of the captor, free of duty, in a colony where other articles
imported pay duty?--No, certainly not.

5356. Viscount _Courtenay_.] Is it in the power of the proctors to make
additional charges upon those parties?--The arrangement between the
proctor and the captor is left to themselves; the court attempted once
to interfere with the charges of the proctors, but they were instructed
that it was a matter which they had no control over.

5357. Is that settled by a certain rule of etiquette?--It is settled by
practice; there is a certain charge that is made for every vessel now,
whether she is troublesome or not; but it is a matter over which the
court can have no control whatever.

5358. Are the proctors Europeans?--There have seldom been more than
three or four at one time practising.

5359. _Chairman._] Are they men of education?--Yes; the Queen’s advocate
is generally one, and the one who gets the most practice; and there are
others who are practising attornies in the other courts, who act as
proctors in the Mixed Commission Court.

5360. Are they universally Europeans, educated in England?--I believe
every one has been educated in England, and is an European; there is one
of them that was born in the West Indies, I believe, but educated in
England.

5361. Mr. _Forster_.] Have the officers of the Mixed Commission the
patronage of any of the appointments on the spot?--Of all.

5362. _Chairman._] Do they appoint the proctor?--The proctor petitions
to be admitted; and latterly, for the last year or two that I was there,
I made them undergo an examination, for I found that one or two were
applying to be admitted as proctors of the court in order to escape
serving on juries, and I therefore made them submit to an examination on
the treaties, and on the decisions of the Mixed Courts, and it checked
the practice.

5363. At what time were those charges made which are specified in Dr.
Madden’s Report?--The five cases out of the nine that I have referred to
occurred in 1839, the others subsequently to my leaving the colony.

5364. When were those modifications made which would affect the
statement which Dr. Madden has made?--They came into effect after the
five cases occurred on which there are those high charges; they came
into effect in December, 1839.

5365. Previously to Dr. Madden’s visit to Sierra Leone?--Yes, some time
previously.

5366. Have you any further observations to make upon Dr. Madden’s
Report?--In page 35 is a passage to which I was referred at the last
examination: “The intervention of the whole present establishment of
marshals, collectors, surveyors, interpreters, harbour-masters, agents,
storekeepers, canoe-hirers, and victuallers of captured ships’ crews,
might be dispensed with without inconvenience to the public, and with
some advantage to the individuals who are interested in the disposal of
the effects.” A great many of those persons do not exist in connexion
with our court at all.

5367. Can you state what is the real establishment connected with the
adjudication of slave vessels?--There is one marshal; he is paid by
fees, on the principle of the schedule that was drawn up in England for
the regulation of the Vice-Admiralty Courts in the colonies, and which
are very low, I think almost too low; the collector we have nothing to
do with; he is the Queen’s officer: as regards the surveyors, we have
two surveyors in cases of vessels which are prosecuted for equipment to
examine the equipment of the vessel, and to report, and they get a fee
for that examination; in cases of vessels taken full of slaves no
surveyors are required; it is only in cases of vessels seized for
equipment.

5368. That is an officer absolutely necessary for the ascertainment of
the facts?--Yes, because we could not allow a man to give evidence in
his own case upon such a point as that.

5369. What is the fee?--I think the fee is two guineas a day during his
employment; and in order to obtain the services of a respectable man who
will go through the disagreeable duty which is imposed upon him in
examining a vessel equipped for the slave trade, overhauling her in
every part, and whose testimony can be positively relied upon, I do not
think that a smaller fee ought to be paid.

5370. Does the survey occupy more than one day?--If it occupies more
than a day, he gets another two guineas, but I do not recollect any case
of that kind.

5371. What is the interpreter?--There is one interpreter, who interprets
between the witness and the registrar when the witness speaks in a
foreign language, and I believe he gets 5_s._ on an examination; he is a
poor man; it is very trifling.

5372. Is the harbour-master an officer of the court?--No. Agents we have
none. There is no storekeeper; the marshal lands the goods, and under
some peculiar circumstances, where they have to be held over for sale,
they may be stored, but I think such a thing has hardly occurred in my
time.

5373. Canoe-hirers, who are those?--There are canoes employed to land
the cargo.

5374. That is a duty which must be discharged and paid for at the
ordinary rate in the colony?--Yes.

5375. “Victuallers of captured ships’ crews,” who are those?--We have no
such men; the marshal victuals the ship’s crew at the regular rate laid
down, 3_s._ for the officers and 2_s._ for the men; there are generally
only three persons in each case thus provided for.

5376. Is that any thing beyond the absolute expense necessary for the
object?--You cannot in a colony where food is so dear lodge and feed an
European in a respectable line of life for less than 3_s._ a day.

5377. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Would you recommend the uniting of any of those
offices together?--The only three officers we have are the marshal, the
surveyor, and the commissioner of appraisement and sale, who is not
mentioned here, and their offices cannot be united.

5378. _Chairman._] Dr. Madden recommended that “the effects of the
captured vessel, prior to adjudication should remain in them under the
charge of the captors”?--They always do remain in the vessel; Dr. Madden
mentions this as a change that ought to take place, but nobody ever
thought of landing a vessel’s goods before condemnation, because if the
vessel is restored she goes out with all the goods in her. He then says,
“On condemnation they should be delivered over by the captors to the
collector of the customs, and this part of his service be included in
the remuneration of his general duties.” The court could have no control
over the collector of the customs, and how he would perform the duty
more cheaply than the marshal I do not know; those goods must be landed
under the control of the court, and kept under the control of the court
till they are sold.

5379. What are the charges on the sale which are alluded to?--The
custom-house duties and the auction duty, and those already mentioned.

5380. The custom-house duties are the duties which you alluded to as
having been subsequently reduced?--Yes.

5381. Which did press upon the goods in proportion to their
quality?--Yes; Dr. Madden says in the last sentence, “I beg to be
understood as not meaning to attribute, in the slightest degree, to
these gentlemen the disadvantages of the system that is adopted for the
disposal of the effects of the condemned vessel. This system has grown
up to its present amount of abuse, I believe, without their sanction,
and I should think, from what I have seen of these gentlemen, it exists
without their approval.” It does not; if there had been any abuse I
should have been responsible for it, of course, during the time that I
was there; but I believe no abuse whatever existed which the court could
control. In the case of translations, we had no translator till we
applied to the Government, and indeed the necessity did not arise till
lately, because when you could only capture vessels full of slaves, you
did not require any translations; I believe there is no abuse whatever,
and it certainly is not without the sanction of the court, if it exists.

5382. Viscount _Courtenay_.] Is there any storehouse belonging to the
Vice-Admiralty Court, where goods, supposing them to be of a suspicious
character, if landed, are kept?--There is a storehouse connected with
the mixed commissions, where the coppers and shackles, and the iron
fittings for the open hatchways, are lodged.

5383. Under whose charge is that?--It is in the residence of the
registrar; the registrar is required to be a resident officer, on
account not only of the books and papers which he has constantly under
his charge, but on account of the equipments of condemned vessels, which
are also kept by him.

5384. It would be, therefore, very irregular that any of those
equipments should be kept in any place but under the custody of the
registrar?--Certainly.

5385. Supposing this to have been stated, that a number of leg-irons and
other things, which had been landed from a slave vessel condemned in the
Vice-Admiralty Court, had been deposited in a public shed on the wharf,
and that they had been neglected by the officer of the Vice-Admiralty
Court, whose duty it was to have put them in a place of safety; if that
was so, should you say that that was irregular and unusual?--It cannot
happen in our court; if such a thing were to happen, the marshal would
be immediately dismissed; but the thing never happens, because there is
a regular system of duty; but the Vice-Admiralty Court has no office, it
has no storekeeper, and no means of carrying on its duty efficiently.

5386. What would have been the regular course in such a case as that
mentioned in this paper?--I do not know what course the Vice-Admiralty
Court would pursue, but with us, equipment articles are landed and
carried up to the registrar. There were several rooms, when I left,
completely filled with these things, and occasionally, when the
Government requires coppers for the use of the Liberated African
Department, we hand them over to them, and they are supplied to vessels
carrying over recruits to the West Indies; but in no case do the coppers
from the condemned vessels go to anybody that we do not know will make a
good use of them.

5387. Is the same person that is marshal of the Mixed Commission Court
marshal of the Vice-Admiralty Court?--No; it is a rule that is laid down
very strictly, not to allow any sort of connexion between the two
courts, as it would only produce irregularity and confusion.

5388. _Chairman._] Have you any other observation to make upon Dr.
Madden’s Report?--In the last sentence of his Report he says, that
parties should not be allowed to become purchasers of slave ships, or
the equipments of condemned slavers, unless they “enter into a bond that
such ships or equipments shall not be employed in slave trade objects,
on pain of incurring the penalty of fine to the amount of double the
value of the property thus employed.” Now the Act of Parliament
positively requires, that if any equipments are on board a vessel, a
bond shall be given, and that no vessel shall be cleared out by the
custom-house unless a bond is given.

5389. Is there any thing in the present state of the law which makes it
illegal to sell a vessel bought at Sierra Leone immediately into the
hands of a person who shall employ her in the slave trade?--Nothing
whatever.

5390. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Is there not an Act of Parliament which does
prevent any body knowingly dealing with a slave dealer?--Yes, there is;
but the difficulty would be to prove the guilty knowledge of the fact,
that the man to whom the vessel is sold intended to employ that vessel
in the slave trade.

5391. Mr. _Forster_.] What Act of Parliament do you allude to when you
say that there is an Act which forbids persons selling a vessel or goods
to slave dealers?--The 5 Geo. 4, c. 113.

5392. Mr. _W. Patten_.] In that Act of Parliament, does the word
“knowingly” apply to knowledge of the fact that the parties are slave
dealers, or of the fact that the goods so sold are to be employed in the
slave trade?--To the latter. The second clause of that Act declares that
it shall not be lawful to ship, tranship, and so on, or to contract for
the shipping or transhipping to be employed in accomplishing any of the
objects or the contracts in relation to the objects, which objects and
contracts have hereinbefore been declared unlawful; but by the 7th and
10th clauses penalties are imposed only upon a party upon its being
shown that he “knowingly and wilfully” shipped and laded goods to be
employed in the slave trade.

5393. It does not apply to his knowledge of the fact of the man being a
dealer in slaves?--I am not aware that it does; a great deal may come
under the general term of “aiding and abetting” the slave trade; but in
all the penal clauses of that Act the words “knowingly and wilfully” are
introduced.

5394. How do you account for the governor of a British colony commencing
his proclamation with these words: “Whereas by the laws of Great
Britain, and more particularly by the provisions of the Act of
Parliament passed in the fifth year of the reign of his late Majesty
George the Fourth, all British subjects are prohibited in the most
express and positive terms, and under the most severe penalties, from
aiding, abetting, or trading with, directly or indirectly, all or any
vessels or vessel engaged, or about to be engaged, in the slave trade,
or fitted with that view and purpose”?--The prohibitory clauses of the
Act are very strong indeed; they would seem to comprehend every kind of
dealing with slave traders; but it is the penal clauses which would
prevent convictions.

5395. _Chairman._] If you could convict the party selling the vessel to
the slave dealer with a guilty knowledge of the purpose to which the
vessel was to be appropriated, you have in the Act of Parliament all
that can be required?--Yes.

5396. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Does the same observation apply to goods?--To
every part of the Act. I believe in every instance where prohibitions
are given in the Act the penal clauses referring to the prohibition
contain the words “knowingly and wilfully.”

5397. _Chairman._] Therefore those acts are all of them unlawful, but
the difficulty is in proving the guilt?--Yes. You may possibly prove the
guilty knowledge by letters found on board the vessel.

5398. If you could ascertain that any merchant at Sierra Leone sold
vessels or goods to a party, knowing that such vessel was to be employed
in the slave trade, he might be convicted under the Act of
Parliament?--Yes; he would be prosecuted and convicted under the 5th of
Geo. 4.

5399. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Should you imply that this was guilty knowledge,
that the vessel should be sold to a notorious slave dealer on any part
of the coast, who was perfectly known to have no legitimate traffic of
his own?--That is a legal question which would be decided in the common
law courts, whether a guilty knowledge might be implied from particular
circumstances, though it could not be proved directly.

5400. Mr. _Forster_.] You have given an opinion upon the construction of
the words “knowingly and wilfully” used in the Act of Parliament; upon
what authority have you given that opinion?--The Act cannot be
misunderstood; I think no person can read it without seeing the meaning
of it, whether lawyer or not.

5401. To sell goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco, for example, would that,
in your opinion, bring a party within the meaning of the Act?--No, not
unless you could prove that he sold them knowing that they were to be
applied to an unlawful purpose.

5402. _Chairman._] The difficulty, then, is not in understanding the
purpose and object of the Act, but in proving the offence?--Yes; the
difficulty is in proving the guilty knowledge, and that is the only
difficulty.

5403. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Was not the principal design of that Act to
prevent persons from aiding in fitting up vessels for the direct and
notorious purpose of engaging in the slave trade, and for no other
purpose?--Yes, it was one object.

5404. Therefore, would not any person selling shackles, or any thing
else that was notoriously employed in procuring slaves, or in exchange
for slaves, be brought under the Act?--If you could prove that at the
time he made them he contemplated that they would be employed in the
slave trade, he would be brought within the purpose of the Act.

5405. If he sold shackles to vessels engaged in the slave trade?--I
should think he would be brought within it then, because the guilty
knowledge would be properly inferred in that case; but shackles may be
made in England, and kept on board merchant vessels to be employed on
the crew.

5406. Mr. _Forster_.] You do not think, then, that the intention of that
Act was to prevent British subjects and British capital from being
engaged in partnership, or having an interest in the slave trade itself,
and nothing beyond that?--Yes, I think the intention of the Act was to
prevent such engagements.

5407. Do you think that it goes beyond that?--I think that is all we
require, that they should have no connexion with the traffic.

5408. How would you bring the party within that Act who sold goods,
having no interest or partnership in the transaction to which they were
subsequently applied?--In that case I think the Act would not reach him.

5409. What becomes, then, of the guilty knowledge of which you have
spoken so much?--No guilty knowledge can be proved against the party in
the case you suppose.

5410. _Chairman._] But it may exist?--Yes, it may exist; but unless you
can prove it, the penalties of the Act would not reach him.

5411. Do you conceive that the act of selling a vessel or goods that may
be hereafter employed, or that shall be, to the knowledge of the person
selling them, employed in the slave trade, falls within the meaning of
the Act, unless that person is to have a share in the profits of the
transaction?--Yes, I believe it does include that; I think that it
forbids aiding and assisting in every way, even as servants, or employed
in boats.

5412. Mr. _Forster_.] Then you think that a British subject selling
goods to Pedro Blanco, or any other slave dealer, with the impression on
his mind, or, in fact, the conviction on his mind, that those goods
would be employed in the slave trade, would come within the meaning of
that Act?--Yes certainly; but the difficulty would be in the proof of
the guilty knowledge. Such an act as that is certainly intended to come
within the Act; not that I would recommend that those words, “knowingly
and wilfully,” should be taken out entirely; I think it might be a
dangerous thing to do so; but I am speaking of what, in my opinion, the
meaning of the Act is, namely, that it is absolutely necessary in every
case to prove the guilty knowledge, in order to bring the party accused
within the penalties of the Act.

5413. In what way would you prove the mental impression upon the man’s
mind?--There is the difficulty.

5414. Do you think that any British Act of Parliament would impose
penalties for the mental impression upon a man’s mind?--I have stated
that I am not prepared to say whether or not the words “knowingly and
wilfully” might be advantageously omitted from the Act, but a guilty
knowledge may be inferred from particular circumstances.

5415. Then you consider that that Act of Parliament is an Act against
constructive slave trading?--No.

5416. _Chairman._] You consider it to be an Act against aiding and
abetting the slave trade in as many ways as the Act of Parliament can
reach it?--Yes; there is no Act that I ever read that is so general and
comprehensive in its terms; but unfortunately it is limited, as it must
be limited, in its application.

5417. Mr. _Forster_.] Can you quote the authority of any British lawyer
for the opinions you have expressed with respect to the construction of
that Act?--Yes, I have heard opinions expressed on the subject from the
Bench at Sierra Leone repeatedly, and by educated lawyers.

5418. In the case of a British merchant selling goods to a person who
was known to have no other means of gaining his livelihood, except by
the slave trade, the party selling the goods would in your opinion be
liable to the penalties of that Act?--It is the same thing in that case;
you must prove guilty knowledge, direct or implied.

5419. In selling goods to a man who has no other means of gaining his
livelihood than by applying those goods for the purposes of the slave
trade, there can be no doubt of the guilty knowledge?--I should think
not; but if I were a juror I should have to satisfy my own conscience
that there was a guilty knowledge. I am no lawyer; this is only the
opinion of a private person.

5420. Can you conceive a stronger proof of guilty knowledge than such a
transaction as that would furnish?--I think I should decide that there
was a guilty knowledge, taking the case supposed, that the seller knew
there was no other way in which the purchaser would employ the goods
sold to him than in the slave trade; if I were a juror I think I should
find him guilty in that case under the Act of Parliament; I should
consider the guilty knowledge to be proved.

5421. _Chairman._] You appear to be in favour of the proposal for taking
bond from the person selling the vessel, that such vessel shall not be
employed within a certain period in the slave trade?--That they should
take bond that the vessel should not be immediately sold to a slave
dealer; but the difficulty would be in following the vessel through
successive transfers.

5422. Can you suggest any means of so framing that bond as to escape the
difficulty which pervades the enforcing the provisions of the existing
Act of Parliament, on account of the necessity of establishing guilty
knowledge?--I think I could to a certain extent. The case once came
before me at Sierra Leone; I was consulted by one of the officers of the
Mixed Commission Court on the subject of the sale of a vessel of his; he
knew perfectly well that if he had sold that vessel to a slave dealer,
we should immediately dismiss him from his situation, and he came to
consult me respecting the person who had offered to buy the vessel. He
had inquired about him, and there was some sort of suspicion, and I told
him that I could not allow him, as an officer of the court, to sell this
vessel to that person, unless he took bond to a sufficient amount that
the vessel should not be sold again to a slave dealer, so that if the
vessel, whilst in the possession of the person to whom he sold her,
should be captured, the bond should be considered as violated, and he
should be liable to the penalty. But I do not think you can carry the
restriction beyond the first purchaser: but if the vessel, whilst in the
hands of the first purchaser, should be seized for slave dealing, the
penalty of the bond might be enforced.

5423. But would you not find it difficult to make that effective, from
the facility that exists for the transfer of the vessel to other
parties?--Yes; I do not think the restriction could be carried beyond
the first purchaser.

5424. Would reaching the first purchaser be any great additional
difficulty in the way of employing the prize vessels in the slave
trade?--It would in Sierra Leone be a difficulty to some small extent;
because, where only one or two persons are engaged in purchasing vessels
to be afterwards sold to slave dealers, it is not likely that there
would be any intermediate person between the seller and the Spanish or
Portuguese purchaser at Gallinas, or any slave station in the
neighbourhood.

5425. Would it not be very easy to establish a system of third persons
acting as a medium between the slave dealer and the purchaser, who
should protect the purchaser at the prize sale from the penalties of
such a bond?--It might be done; but the difficulty would in that case
be, to get two men to endure the odium of such employment; the
difficulty would be doubled.

5426. Could not a vessel be sold to a subordinate party at Sherboro’ or
Gallinas, not the slave dealer, but the agent of the slave dealer, who
might be compelled immediately to hand over the vessel to the slave
dealer?--It might be done.

5427. Mr. _Forster_.] Would you propose, by bond or otherwise, to make
it illegal that the purchaser of a prize vessel at Sierra Leone should
sell that vessel, on her arrival in London, to the Spanish merchants
Messrs. Zulueta & Co.?--No; I would not certainly render it illegal.

5428. Then that being your opinion, in what way can you imagine any
restriction to be devised for the purpose of regulating the sales of the
vessels after they may be purchased at Sierra Leone?--I have mentioned
that the restriction could only last, in my opinion, whilst the vessel
remained in the hands of the second purchaser; that is, the person who
purchases her from the highest bidder at the auction; I do not think you
could follow her beyond that.

5429. Then you would prevent the actual purchaser at Sierra Leone from
selling the vessel to Messrs. Zulueta & Co. in London?--No, I would not.

5430. Then where is the value of the restriction you would impose?--The
value is this, and it is not of great value, that if that vessel, whilst
sailing under the name of Zulueta & Co. is captured and condemned as
being engaged in the slave trade, you will come upon the person who sold
that vessel to Zulueta & Co. for the amount of the bond.

5431. You think it would be just to make the first purchaser of the
vessel responsible for the subsequent employment of that vessel, after
he had sold her to Messrs. Zulueta & Co.?--Yes, as long as it remained
in the hands of Zulueta & Co.; and I would mention further, that an
advantage which I did not perceive before would result from it, that the
man who sells the vessel in the case supposed to Zulueta, would not be
very happy under such a sale, unless he got a security from Zulueta for
the amount of the bond, and in such a case, whenever doubtful characters
came forward as purchasers, the amount of the bond would be an addition
to the price paid for the vessel.

5432. When a prize vessel is brought into the public market in London,
why should this vessel be subject to regulations different from any
other vessel in the London market?--Because the vessel being purchased
at Sierra Leone, at one of our sales, would be likely to be a vessel
fitted for the slave trade, and for nothing else.

5433. But is it not well known that there are many vessels in the London
market equally well adapted for that purpose as many of those
vessels?--I think not.

5434. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you not think that if a bond were given
under penalty of forfeiture, if in the course of a certain time, say
one, two, or three years, that vessel were detected as being engaged in
the slave trade, the party giving the bond would take very good care to
keep her out of that mischief?--Yes, I think he would.

5435. Would he not take very good care that the vessel should not get
into hands through which that risk could be brought upon himself?--He
would be interested in doing so.

5436. _Chairman._] Other parties would secure themselves upon each
successive transfer by successive bonds to the amount of their own
liability?--The amount of the bond might be more than the value of the
vessel considerably.

5437. Mr. _Forster_.] Then the result of that would be that there must
be a series of bonds running through all the subsequent sales of the
vessel?--Yes.

5438. Mr. _W. Patten_.] You have stated that in your opinion the
breaking up of all the vessels would be far preferable?--Yes, the
breaking up of all the vessels would be one of the best things that
could possibly be done.

5439. _Chairman._] What proportion of the vessels that have been taken
within your knowledge have been so broken up?--It is only since the
Spanish treaty came into operation in 1836 that they have been broken up
at all; since that time more than two-thirds of the vessels condemned
have been broken up.

5440. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Would it be possible to fix the bond upon the
vessel itself?--No; I do not think it would.

5441. _Chairman._] You have seen a good deal of the effects of British
trade upon the coast of Africa, especially as connected with Sierra
Leone?--I cannot say that I have seen very much, but I have seen
something.

5442. You have seen that British manufactures are, to some extent at
least, employed as instruments of barter for slaves?--Yes.

5443. Indirectly through Brazil and Cuba, and from England, goods are
sold to persons who would use them in barter for slaves?--Yes.

5444. Therefore, to a certain extent, British trade gives facilities for
the slave trade?--Yes.

5445. Do you conceive that it would be possible, with advantage to the
cause of putting down the slave trade, to have any further restrictions
upon British trade on the coast of Africa: do you believe that it would
be advisable to prohibit absolutely dealing in lawful articles with
slavers or with slave factories?--I consider it to be undesirable to
impose any restrictions.

5446. Will you state your reasons?--I think that no restrictions
whatever could be drawn up applying to any description of goods that
might not materially interfere with the legitimate trade.

5447. And you believe that it would be a serious injury to the people of
Africa, and to the cause of civilization in Africa, if lawful trade were
interfered with and impeded?--I do; I would not have any restrictions
whatever upon the commercial intercourse of our vessels, to which only
of course our law would apply, with any port on the coast, whatever her
character was with regard to slave trading.

5448. You conceive that although some additional facility to the slave
trade may arise from the lawful traffic, on the balance much more good
accrues?--I think so. I think there are positive advantages in gaining
an entrance for our vessels to those ports where the slave trade is
carried on: that information of the character of the people and of their
mode of trade is obtained, and facilities offered to the squadron
cruizing on the coast and visiting those rivers; and also that at any
time, if, from the checks given to the slave trade by more stringent
cruizing in that part, the natives should be desirous of turning their
attention to lawful commerce, there are the means of doing it at once
ready to their hands. It might happen anywhere that legitimate trade,
from strict cruizing, would become a desirable one for the natives; but
they would not have the means of carrying it on if British vessels were
forbidden to enter those ports.

5449. Is it desirable that the natives should see a lawful trade offered
to them by the parties and nations who are now connected with the
unlawful traffic themselves?--I think it is.

5450. If you prohibited the access of English vessels and English trade
to the suspected ports, should you be able under any existing treaties,
or should you be likely to be able under any future treaties, to
prohibit the access to those ports of foreign vessels engaged in the
supply off lawful articles?--I do not think it could be done.

5451. Unless you could so prohibit the access of foreign vessels, you
could not in any way prevent the supply of those articles which are
requisite to be used in barter for slaves?--No.

5452. Then, on the whole, you would gain nothing in the way of
interruption to the slave trade, and you would lose many advantages for
the obstruction of the slave trade which you now possess by the free
access of English vessels even to the suspected ports?--That is my
opinion.

5453. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] May not the carrying on of legitimate
commerce, even with slave-dealing natives, be used as a means of
inducing them by negotiation to give up dealing in slaves?--It may be
so, certainly.

5454. _Mr. Forster_.] How did this merchant at Sierra Leone come to be
regarded with suspicion and mistrust who traded to the Gallinas, if, in
your opinion, such trade is beneficial for the civilization of Africa,
and the suppression of the slave trade?--I have not stated that exactly;
I would not impose any restrictions by law on the entrance of any
vessel, whether for lawful or unlawful purposes; but such freedom does
not release the merchant who sells his goods, knowing that they will be
employed for the slave trade, from the responsibility of doing so.

5455. You would prevent merchants and vessels frequenting such places as
the Gallinas, if it was to be inferred that they could not go there and
dispose of their goods without being subject to the charge of being
aiders and abettors in the slave trade?--I think that it is very
desirable that some regulations should be drawn up for the guidance of
the men-of-war on the coast, with regard to vessels engaged in traffic;
there appears to be a sort of impression now, that it is their duty to
interfere with all vessels trading with slave-trading ports, and it is
quite a misunderstanding on their part.

5456. Mr. _Aldam_.] If there is an establishment formed, where both the
lawful and the unlawful traffic is carried on in goods, do you think it
is desirable to prevent English vessels from trading to that
establishment?--I think it is undesirable.

5457. _Chairman._] It is suggested in Dr. Madden’s Report, that there
should be some further acts of treaty, with a view of developing the
resources of the colony?--I quite agree with Dr. Madden in that. In the
year 1836 I was before a Committee of the House of Commons, when my
evidence went particularly to that point. I thought that the policy of
the British Government in rejecting territory, when they had legally and
properly acquired it, and confining themselves entirely to the peninsula
of Sierra Leone, was very injurious.

5458. The peninsula of Sierra Leone does not afford adequate employment
and resources?--I think the employment and resources are sufficient for
the population at present, but the land is not so fertile as the land
that we then possessed, and which the Government at home required the
Government there to give up, and restore to the natives; also the
destruction of our sovereignty and property in that country will not
allow us to take cognizance of slave-dealing transactions occurring in
that territory.

5459. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you think it desirable to extend the limits of
the colony at Sierra Leone?--I do.

5460. Do you think that there would be any difficulty in effecting that
extension?--None whatever.

5461. Do you think that it would impose upon the British Government any
great expense or responsibility to carry that out?--I do not think it
would.

5462. _Chairman._] Would it be desirable for the trade of the colony, if
possible, to extend the limits of it, so as to give to a larger portion
of the produce of the soil the advantage of British growth in the
English markets?--I do not think advantage would be derived in that way;
because no produce that is now brought down to Sierra Leone, and passes
through Sierra Leone to England, is considered as foreign produce,
either teak wood, palm-oil, rice, or any thing else.

5463. Does teak, for instance, take its character from the port of
Sierra Leone?--Yes.

5464. Is it landed there?--Teak that is embarked in the river Sierra
Leone is put on board the vessel in British waters.

5465. Where?--At Banee Island Roads.

5466. What distance from Freetown is that?--About fifteen miles.

5467. Is it floated down so far, and then put on board at that
place?--Yes.

5468. Have you considered the question of emigration from the coast of
Africa to the West Indies?--I have.

5469. Will you state generally what opinion you have formed on it?--I
have formed a very favourable opinion of it. On the 15th of February
1841, at the desire of Lord John Russell, I expressed my views fully
upon this subject, in a communication which I then made to the Colonial
Office; I stated the classes from whom emigration might be expected,
and though this was before any scheme of emigration was carried into
effect, nothing has occurred since which has at all altered my opinion;
and indeed just what I then expected has happened. It was supposed that
there was a considerable desire on the part of the inhabitants to
emigrate; such a desire I stated did not exist; that a few liberated
Africans had been anxious to go to the country from which they had been
taken as slaves, to join their friends, and that many Maroons had been
anxious to go back to the West Indies, from which they had been taken,
and where they had friends; but that beyond that, there was no general
desire for emigration; that if such desire was requisite, it would be
necessary to create it. That there was no difficulty at any time thrown
in the way of persons anxious to leave the colony by the Governor and
Council there; that on the contrary, just before I left, an application
had been made by a party of liberated Africans to the Governor asking
him to send them back to Badagry, on the coast, and the Governor and
Council replied, that they might go if they pleased; but that the
Government would not be at any expense in sending them. A few did go and
returned, and since that time emigration has been going on to a
considerable extent to Badagry, and at present there are a large number
of liberated Africans there, who are finding their way across to the
Niger; and in a letter I received a few days ago from a gentleman at
Sierra Leone, he mentions that liberated Africans are still going to
Badagry, and that it is likely to become an important place. There were
a few Maroons, before emigration was encouraged by any agents from the
West Indies, who purchased a vessel at Sierra Leone and went over to
Jamaica, and their arrival was mentioned by Sir Charles Metcalfe, in one
of the despatches which was received before my letter was written. I
recommended that two persons should be selected from each of the
principal tribes of liberated Africans, and sent over to the West Indies
to report upon the prospects that were held out to emigrants by the
colonies there, and that their wives and families should be supported
during their absence, and also themselves paid a certain monthly
allowance until their return; and I have no doubt that if that plan had
been followed, a very large emigration from Sierra Leone would have
taken place, and I regret much that it was not done.

5470. Are there at Sierra Leone chiefs who exercise a considerable
influence over the liberated Africans?--Every tribe of liberated
Africans has some chief man who represents its interests on all
occasions, and who, in case of any difference with the Governor or other
persons, stands forward to represent it.

5471. Do they generally fall into location according to the tribes from
which they come?--No, they are mixed in the villages; the Governor pays
no attention to that; he locates successive importations of negroes
according to the wants of the place, and the land which is to be given
away, without reference to nation.

5472. But subsequently those belonging to the same tribe
co-operate?--They keep very much to their own nation.

5473. So that there are in the colony of Sierra Leone persons who
exercise an influence over different portions of the population,
according to the tribe that they come from?--Yes; I recommended that two
persons should be chosen from each of the principal tribes, and sent
over. And it appears from evidence that I heard given here the other
day, that it was the non-return of such persons from Trinidad which
prevented any further importation into that colony. I may perhaps be
allowed to read a part of the letter which I wrote to the Colonial
Office: “Evils of a serious nature may be anticipated if the collection
and embarkation of African emigrants be left in the hands of private
speculators, or even of the salaried agents of the different West India
colonies, some of whom, at least, would be more anxious to signalize
their zeal and success by the number of passengers whom they might ship,
than cautious and scrupulous as to the means by which they are procured.
Persons like the Maroons and liberated Africans mentioned above, who
purchase or hire their own vessel, and pay their own passage, may of
course go where they please, without question or obstruction, and they
are little likely to go wrong. But with regard to negroes from the
western coast of Africa, for whom a free passage will be found to the
West Indies, in order that they may help to supply the deficiency of
labourers so seriously felt there at present, I beg respectfully to
recommend that the shipment of all such emigrants be positively
restricted to the British settlements on the coast; that it there take
place only with the sanction of Government, under the direct control and
superintendence of the British emigration agent, and in exact conformity
with the regulations issued for the guidance of that officer, and that
it be confined to negroes who have been resident not less than 12 months
in a British colony. Beyond the limits of British jurisdiction there is
no part of this coast, except Liberia and the Kroo country, where the
West India agents could obtain emigrant labourers from any other class
than either the domestic slaves or the slaves prepared for sale to the
slave traders; and when it is considered that, from causes which I need
not now stop to explain, the price of a slave at the Gallinas, the
largest slave mart in Africa, and close to Sierra Leone, has latterly
been only 10 dollars a head, the necessity of confining the shipment of
emigrants to British territory will be sufficiently evident. I cannot
understand the reasons set forth by the Commissioners of Emigration as
the ground on which they recommend that the emigrants should have been
resident upwards of a twelvemonth in the colonies previous to their
embarkation.” The precaution is nevertheless highly important; it will
prevent the possibility of slaves from the territories which surround
our small colonies being brought into our settlements, by their masters,
merely for the purpose of being offered as emigrants to the West India
agents. A chief, or the representative of a chief, from the Bullom
shore, or from the Timany country, may very well supply the West Indian
agent at Sierra Leone with 40 or 50 emigrants, on receiving a bonus of
10 dollars for each. This would probably be looked upon as a bounty,
well bestowed for the advantage of procuring so many labourers and as a
small addition to the expenses attending their collection and transport;
but the supposed bounty would actually be the price and purchase-money
of so many slaves; the slaves would be presented to the Government
superintendent as free emigrants, and the payment of their
purchase-money would be an affair known only to the parties concerned in
it. With regard to liberated Africans (as long as they continue to be
located at Sierra Leone) and Kroomen, there would appear to be less
necessity for requiring that they should have been resident for a year
previous to embarkation; but I would still apply the same strict rule to
all, making however a year’s service on board a British man-of-war (in
the case of the Kroomen) equal to a year’s residence in a British
colony. Such strictness in this case can hardly be regarded as needless
scrupulosity. In dealing with this delicate question, I presume it will
be desired not only to satisfy ourselves that we have taken every
precaution for the prevention of abuse, and for the protection of the
negro emigrants, but to preserve our proceedings from the possibility of
exception, or even suspicion on the part of other powers; and cautiously
to avoid every practice, however innocent in itself, which may be
dexterously accepted as a sanction of abuses which we have been forward
to censure and oppose. I may here refer to the long correspondence which
took place between the Foreign Department and the Netherlands Government
on the subject of the African recruits enlisted at Elmina for service in
the Dutch East India possessions; and to the recent capture, by a
British man-of-war, of a French vessel employed, under the sanction of
her Government, in collecting negroes on the coast to form black troops
in the French colonies on the coast of Africa and in the West Indies. In
the first case it was evident that the bounty which was paid by the
Dutch Government for each recruit, to the person who produced him, was
actually the purchase-money of a slave, and our senior naval officer in
the Bights very properly gave notice to the Governor of Elmina, that any
vessel with such recruits on board, if fallen in with by our cruizers,
would be captured and sent to Sierra Leone for condemnation; and if
brought there I should certainly have condemned her; and in the second
case, the collection of recruits for the French Government, owing to its
being entrusted to private speculators and contractors, immediately
degenerated into open and undeniable slave dealing. “In the papers which
I have received, little reference is made to any other emigrants than
agricultural labourers, which is of course the class chiefly, if not
exclusively wanted; I allude to this circumstance, because there are
some classes at Sierra Leone which would supply no agricultural
labourers, but only mechanics, schoolmasters, traders, boatmen, &c. The
population of Sierra Leone, which in round numbers I take to be about
60,000, consists of about 1,200 Nova Scotia settlers, 1,200 Maroons,
50,000 liberated Africans, 7,600 Kroomen and strangers: 60,000. The Nova
Scotians, or settlers, as we generally term them, would yield no field
labourers, nor do I think that you would obtain any from the Maroons,
though a large number of the latter would be very glad to be re-conveyed
to their friends and relations at Jamaica, free of expense; a fair
supply of mechanics, &c., might however be obtained from both classes.
Of the liberated Africans, none of the more prosperous would, in my
opinion, be inclined to emigrate, and at any rate they would not add to
the number of the field labourers in the colonies. The people to whom I
refer are hawkers, traders, and mechanics, and are generally drawn
together and settled in Freetown and its neighbourhood, where they live
in comfort and even luxury. It is to the remaining portion of this
valuable body that we must principally look for emigrants, if we are to
obtain them at all at Sierra Leone; and, if prudence and caution be
used, I see no reason to doubt that a large number of them (quite as
many as it will be proper for the colonies where they are now located to
lose) may eventually be induced to remove to the West Indies. I would
beg to propose that the four or five principal tribes of liberated
Africans should be called upon, by means of influential persons of those
tribes resident in Freetown, to select each two men in whom they have
confidence; and those eight or ten delegates should be furnished with a
passage to the West Indies and back, free of expense, in order that they
may examine and ascertain for themselves the prospect which emigration
offers. They should be used well on the voyage, should receive 2_l._ a
month during their short absence, and their wives and families should be
supported (a very trifling expense) during the same period. Let this
plan be adopted and properly carried out, and I have no doubt whatever
that it will be completely successful. The Kroomen, amongst whom I
include the Fishmen, are so peculiar a race that they must always be
considered by themselves. Their national peculiarities are very
remarkable, and distinguish them almost as much from every other African
tribe as they do from the Europeans. But it will be only necessary to
notice those which affect them as emigrants. In the midst of a slaving
district, they are never enslaved, and they navigate and work on board
the Spanish and Portuguese slavers with perfect confidence and safety.
Every man-of-war on the station ships has a certain number of these
people according to her rating, and there are never less than 400 of
them embarked on board the different vessels of the squadron at any one
time. All the timber vessels, and indeed almost all other vessels on the
coast engage Kroomen to do the heavy work, which Europeans cannot
attempt with safety in that climate. They are to be met with wherever
work is to be had or wages are to be obtained; they labour with
astonishing energy, cheerfulness, and perseverance; and they are
distinguished by frugality and parsimony. At Sierra Leone we have a
shifting Kroo population of several hundreds, who are employed by the
merchant vessels, and at the factories up the rivers, and by the
merchants and other residents in Freetown; and the superior value of
their labour as compared with that of liberated Africans is proved by
the fact, that whilst the wages of a Krooman are from 9_d._ to 1_s._ per
day, those of a liberated African are only 4_d._ a day, and yet the
former is preferred. As agricultural labourers the Kroomen have never
yet been tried either at Sierra Leone or anywhere else that I am aware
of, but there is no doubt that, with their industry and intelligence,
they would easily and rapidly acquire the necessary practical skill.
From this description it may be supposed that the Kroo country is likely
to supply our most valuable emigrants for the West Indies; but two
objections may be made by the Colonial Governments to receiving Kroomen
at all: one is, that they will not permanently settle anywhere but in
their own country; and the other is, that they never carry their
countrywomen away from home with them. Sierra Leone is the great mart
for Kroo labour, and has been much frequented by that people during the
last 30 years, and yet a Kroo woman has never been seen amongst us. The
Krooman who leaves his own country in search of employment, will always
return home at the end of three or four years, with the goods, the
produce of his labour, which he has collected during his absence; part
of the property thus acquired he presents to the king or head man of the
town or district to which he belongs, and with the remainder he builds a
house, procures a wife, clears a farm, and supports himself for about a
year or 18 months. His holiday being over, he leaves his house, farm,
and property to be attended to by his wife and his relations, and
absents himself from home for another term of three or four years, at
the expiration of which time he again returns with the fruits of his
exertion to make a new present to his chief, to obtain another wife, and
to add to the dimensions of his farm. This process is repeated several
times, until the wanderer has acquired what is by him considered
competent wealth, when he settles in his own country for the remainder
of his life. The Kroomen are too valuable a class of labourers to be
lightly thrown out of the scheme of emigration. If means of transport
are provided, their numbers in the West Indies may eventually be kept up
to several thousands. In that case the requirement respecting women must
be dispensed with in their favour, and they must be assured that at
least one opportunity will be afforded to them during every year of
returning to their own country; nor would the people object to pay a
limited sum (say eight to ten dollars) for their passage, finding
themselves in provisions, as they do with us. Should it be deemed
advisable to secure the services of these people, I would beg to propose
that the same plan should be pursued with respect to them as I have
recommended in the case of the liberated Africans, and that two head
Kroomen and two head Fishmen should be selected to accompany the other
African delegates from Sierra Leone, enjoying all the advantages of free
passage and monthly pay conceded to their fellow-passengers. The
Kroomen, however, unlike their companions, would leave behind them in
the colony no wives and families to be supported during their absence.
In Liberia there are several thousands of black American emigrants, some
of whom are very poorly off, and might be disposed to remove to the West
Indies; but it would be matter for consideration, whether it would be
advisable, for the sake of the small supply which could be thus
obtained, to depart from the rule of confining the shipment of negro
emigrants to the British settlements on the coast, more especially as
the distance between Sierra Leone and Liberia is so short, that many of
the disappointed colonists from the latter have lately established
themselves at Freetown. But the number of emigrants which can be
obtained from all these sources, indeed the number of free labourers on
the western coast of Africa compared with the great demand for labour in
Trinidad or Demerara is so insignificant, that I would earnestly
recommend a plan for the location and settlement in the West Indies of
all slaves hereafter embarked by decrees of the various courts of mixed
commission and mixed courts of justice, established under treaties
between Great Britain and foreign powers for the suppression of the
slave trade. This, however, is a subject not embraced in the papers
which have been submitted for my perusal.” Then follow the rules for the
emigration agent.

  [Adjourned till To-morrow, at One o’clock.


_Mercurii, 15º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Mr. Denison.
  Mr. Evans.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Sir R. H. Inglis.
  Mr. W. Patten.
  Mr. G. Wood.
  Mr. Wortley.

  LORD VISCOUNT SANDON, in the chair.

  _Henry William Macaulay_, Esq., called in; and further examined.

5474. _Chairman._] Do you wish to correct any portion of your previous
evidence?--I do. In reply to question 5176, in reference to Dr. Madden’s
statement about the surveyors, I said, “The surveyor is not employed by
the court, but subsequently to the condemnation of the vessel he is
employed by the captor to survey, in order to enable him to make a
claim, according to the tonnage, through his agent in England.” There
are two classes of surveyors; the one referred to in this reply: the
other, which I ought to have mentioned also, are the surveyors employed
by the court to see to the equipment of the vessel, and this survey
takes place before condemnation. I referred to the latter surveyors
yesterday in my evidence; but I mentioned only the surveyor employed by
the captor to measure the vessel for the tonnage in my former
examination, and it would appear as though I had on the first occasion
understated the officers of the court. We have two surveyors employed by
the court in equipment cases, not in the case of vessels laden with
slaves. There is another correction I wish to make: in the answer to
question 5087, I stated that “It appears that it is a regular thing,
sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta: if they come to England
to him, he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again to the Havannah,
and come again into the trade.” My answer was intended to describe only
the course of that particular transaction, and not to apply to any other
case.

5475. I observe in answer to 5087, to which you refer, you state that
Zulueta “is a name well known on the coast in connexion with the slave
trade, and any man ought to have been careful of being connected with
such a person as that.” Will you state distinctly what charge it is you
intended to make against Mr. Zulueta in those expressions?--Zulueta was
known at Sierra Leone as the correspondent of the largest slave dealer
on the coast, Pedro Blanco; all the bills which Pedro Blanco drew upon
England were drawn upon Zulueta, and passed current in the colony of
Sierra Leone with Pedro Blanco’s name on them, and Zulueta’s as the
drawee. Zulueta was also subsequently found to be engaged in connexion
with a slave vessel called the Gollupchik.

5476. Will you state who Pedro Blanco is?--He is a merchant who has now
retired to the Havannah, but who was engaged for a long series of years
in the Gallinas, as the principal person carrying on the slave trade
there; his name occurs, for years together, in the case of very nearly
every slave vessel captured off the Gallinas.

5477. Have you reason to know whether he was solely engaged in the slave
trade?--His sole occupation was the slave trade.

5478. You think, therefore, that Zulueta’s known connexion with Pedro
Blanco should have deterred any person who was unwilling to have aided
or abetted the slave trade from having any transaction with
him?--Certainly.

5479. Mr. _Forster_.] Are you aware that the house of Zulueta & Company
is one of the first Spanish houses in this country, and perhaps in
Spain?--I am aware that it is a very large house.

5480. You are consequently aware that it has commercial correspondence
and transactions with most of the principal houses at Havannah and in
the south of Spain?--I think it is very likely; I am not aware of it;
but I know it to be a large mercantile house.

5481. That being the case, do you not think that bills might be drawn by
Pedro Blanco on Messrs. Zulueta & Company without any direct
correspondence between that house and Pedro Blanco himself, but accepted
by order and on account of houses residing in Spain or in the
Havannah?--It is quite impossible that Mr. Zulueta should have been
ignorant of the only trade in which Pedro Blanco was engaged.

5482. But might not those bills be drawn without Messrs. Zulueta &
Company having any direct account with Mr. Pedro Blanco?--Yes, it is
possible.

5483. Then supposing a slave vessel were purchased at Sierra Leone and
sent to this market for public sale, do you see any thing extraordinary
in the party to whom the sale of that vessel is intrusted in London
selling her to one of the first Spanish houses in this country?--If it
was an Englishman who sold the vessel to the party to whom Mr. Zulueta
sold her, I should think it very extraordinary indeed, because it was
perfectly well known that Pedro Martinez, to whom she was sold, was a
slave dealer.

5484. Then you think a London merchant who is intrusted with the sale of
a vessel on the part of his correspondent in Africa, and whose duty it
is to take that vessel to the best market, would be justified in
refusing an offer for the vessel from Messrs. Zulueta & Company?--I
think it would be his duty to do so, because the chances would be ten to
one that she very soon afterwards would be employed in the slave trade.

5485. Then what justification, in your opinion, would that agent in
London be able to make to his correspondent for refusing to sell the
vessel to the highest bidder?--If the correspondent was an honest man,
I think he would be perfectly well satisfied with the representation of
his agent that the acceptance of such an offer would necessarily involve
the introduction of the vessel immediately afterwards into the slave
trade.

5486. But supposing the agent to act in that manner, would that prevent
Messrs. Zulueta & Company buying the same vessel in a circuitous manner
in this market?--No, it might not.

5487. _Chairman._] Have you any thing further to say with regard to the
connexion of Zulueta with the slave trade?--I would refer to his
connexion with the Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case,
it appeared that the vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from London.

5488. But you would not object to a British vessel trading lawfully with
a slave trade factory?--No.

5489. What is there then in this transaction which gives it a guilty
character?--Mr. Zulueta’s former connexion with the Gallinas slave
traders shows, that his course of trade with the Gallinas was one liable
to exception.

5490. But what is there to prove that he dealt with the slave traders in
other than lawful goods?--They would be _lawful_ goods, certainly.

5491. Do you consider it to be unlawful or improper to deal in lawful
goods with a man who is engaged in the slave trade?--I do not consider
it unlawful, but I do consider it improper; I say not unlawful, because
you cannot prove guilty knowledge, but highly improper to sell goods to
persons who, the seller must be aware, will employ them in the slave
trade afterwards.

5492. Do you hold it to be against the purport of the Act to deal in
lawful goods with persons engaged in the slave trade?--It is not against
the purport of the Act for a merchant to deal with any one, unless he is
aware that that person is engaged in the slave trade, and that the goods
that he sells will be employed for slave trade purposes.

5493. Then that which is against the purport of the Act in your opinion,
is to deal in goods, which goods will be used for unlawful
purposes?--Yes.

5494. The mere trading in lawful goods, in itself you would not consider
unlawful, or against the purport of the Act?--No.

5495. What evidence have we that Zulueta knew that in dealing with Pedro
Blanco the goods he sold would be used for the barter of slaves?--Any
body engaged in the Spanish trade would be aware that Pedro Blanco was
the largest slave trader in the world.

5496. How would Messrs. Zulueta be paid for those lawful goods by Pedro
Blanco?--I am not aware that he ever sold any goods to Pedro Blanco; the
Gollupchik did not arrive off the Gallinas till after Pedro Blanco had
left; he left I think in the latter part of 1838.

5497. It was a slave trade factory at the Gallinas with which Zulueta
was dealing?--It was with the Gallinas.

5498. In the case of dealing with a person who had no other business
than that of the slave trade, how would the payment be made?--In gold;
in doubloons generally.

5499. There would be no payment in produce?--No; and that is the way in
which all trade of that description is paid; there have been vessels
going down from Sierra Leone and trading with the Gallinas and other
slave ports, and the returns which they bring for their goods are
doubloons.

5500. And you would infer from the circumstance of bringing doubloons,
and not the produce of the country, that there was at least strong
suspicion that it was an unlawful traffic?--A strong suspicion; I would
not say more than that.

5501. Mr. _Forster_.] Suppose Messrs. Zulueta & Co. to receive an order
from their correspondent at Havannah to supply a cargo of British
merchandise to Pedro Blanco at the Gallinas, and these goods are shipped
and are regularly cleared at the custom-house in England, do you
consider that an illegal shipment?--The illegality depends upon the
guilty knowledge. I consider it an improper transaction, because he must
know the character of the person to whom he sends the goods.

5502. Do you think that Messrs. Zulueta & Co. would have been justified
as merchants in refusing to obey the instructions of their foreign
correspondent in a case of that kind?--I think that a man who viewed the
slave trade in a proper light would have considered it improper to be so
engaged.

5503. How could Messrs. Zulueta consider that illegal which was publicly
allowed to be done by the custom-house authorities in this country?--The
criminality depends upon the guilty knowledge, as to which the
custom-house cannot decide.

5504. Then it is upon those grounds that you designate Messrs. Zulueta &
Co. as connected with the slave trade?--Upon the grounds that I have
stated altogether.

5505. _Chairman._] Do you consider a merchant trading with King Peppel,
a notorious slave trader in the Bonny, and receiving the produce of the
country in exchange, to be acting against the purport of the Act of
Parliament?--No, certainly not; because there there is a legitimate
trade carried on alongside of the slave trade.

5506. Then you do not look merely at the person dealt with, but at the
object for which the traffic is carried on?--Just so: I would designate
as improper any trade carried on by a person who knew that the goods he
sold would be employed in the slave trade.

5507. Mr. _Forster_.] If you consider it lawful for a British merchant
to sell goods to so notorious a slave dealer as King Peppel, on what
ground do you consider it illegal for Messrs. Zulueta & Company to ship
a cargo of goods to Pedro Blanco or to Gallinas?--In the one case the
trader receives his return in produce, and in the other case he sells
goods which he knows will be employed in the slave trade, and for which
he receives a return in money.

5508. How do you know that he is paid in money?--I do not know that
Zulueta ever shipped goods to Pedro Blanco.

5509. Would you consider it legal if he did?--I think I have answered
that question before, that the illegality depends upon the guilty
knowledge of the party concerned, and that is a question for a jury to
decide, if he is put upon his trial.

5510. Then that depends upon your construction of the Act of the 5th of
George the Fourth?--Yes; no one can read the Act without understanding
its purport.

5511. And you think the same principle applies in the case of slave
vessels?--Yes.

5512. Mr. _Wortley_.] You stated just now that you were not aware that
Messrs. Zulueta ever shipped any goods to Pedro Blanco; did you not
previously state that that was one of your reasons for believing Messrs.
Zulueta to be connected with the slave trade?--No; the ground I stated
was the bills which Pedro Blanco drew upon them, which bills were
current all along the coast, and I have seen some of them at Sierra
Leone; they were drawn by Pedro Blanco on Zulueta; the transactions
which gave rise to those bills I do not know.

5513. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you consider the shipment of goods referred to
in the case of the Gollupchik an illegal shipment?--It was after my
time; but I presume that it was illegal, because the vessel appears to
have been condemned.

5514. _Chairman._] The legality or illegality will depend upon
circumstances, which are not before you?--Yes; all that I know of it is
from this report. There is a gentleman here to-day who seized the
vessel, Captain Hill; he will explain all the circumstances.

5515. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you consider that any vessel laden in this
country, and legally cleared at the custom-house for a slave factory on
the coast of Africa, is seizable as being engaged in an illegal
transaction?--She is seizable, but if the captor seizes her wrongfully,
the person seized would have a claim for damages. She is certainly
seizable by any man-of-war, but her condemnation would depend upon the
fact whether or not the captor made out a case.

5516. _Chairman._] The mere fact of conveying goods to a slave factory
would not be ground of condemnation, would it?--Certainly not.

5517. Mr. _Forster_.] Upon what ground can a vessel conveying a cargo of
legal merchandise to the Gallinas be condemned?--On the ground of guilty
knowledge, if it can be proved.

5518. Mr. _W. Patten_.] And that guilty knowledge would have to be left
to the jury?--Yes.

5519. _Chairman._] You have been asked upon the case of the Almirante,
in question 5238; can you in any way state what the transaction was, and
are you able to give any explanation of it?--All I remember respecting
that transaction is, that a merchant at Sierra Leone, of the name of
Benjamin Campbell, on my arrival in Sierra Leone, in 1830, spoke to me
about a sum of 500_l._, not 600_l._, that was due by him to Mr. Kenneth
Macaulay, who was at that time dead--he died in 1829--for a vessel that
Mr. Campbell had purchased from him. I did not know of that vessel
having gone into the slave trade till it was mentioned just now.

5520. The sale was made by Mr. Kenneth Macauley to Mr. Campbell?--Yes.

5521. Mr. _Forster_.] Was not Mr. Campbell an agent of the house of
Macaulay & Babington?--No, not at that time; he had been one of the
clerks in the house, but many years previously; he had long ceased to
have any connexion with the house, I suppose about five years. He was in
business for himself at the time, and in rather a large way of business.

5522. Mr. _W. Patten_.] At Sierra Leone?--Yes.

5523. _Chairman._] You have spoken in your despatch, which you read at
the last meeting of the Committee, of an extended scheme for promoting
emigration from the coast of Africa to the West Indies; will you explain
that more fully?--I would propose that the negroes should be sent to the
West Indies after emancipation, in the same way as they have been of
late years sent to the different colonies there from Havannah. Dr.
Madden, who has made this Report, was the person appointed by
Government, and specially sent out for the purpose of superintending the
emigration of the emancipated negroes from Havannah to the different
West India islands, and he would be able to give to the Committee all
the details of the regulations which were adopted and sanctioned by the
Government. I am not aware of the rules that were laid down for his
guidance; but it appears in the slave trade papers of former years,
during the time that the Duke of Wellington was Foreign Secretary, that
he required a certain proportion to be observed between males and
females, and also that negroes should be examined by a medical man, and
no unhealthy ones sent; there were other regulations also by which he
was bound; all the negroes that he could get he sent to Trinidad in the
first instance, and I believe he sent some afterwards to Honduras and
other places.

5524. Should you propose that they should remain a certain time in the
colony before they were removed to the West Indies?--No, certainly not;
I would have the removal take place immediately after emancipation.
There is an emigration agent established at Sierra Leone, so that the
whole machinery is ready at hand at once.

5525. How would you propose that the expense of transport across the
Atlantic should be defrayed?--There would be no difficulty whatever
about the expense, because the colonies to which they are sent would
gladly pay any expenses of removal. The difficulty that the Government
would experience would be, in distributing the negroes among the
different colonies; but any West India colony would gladly pay the
expense of removal of any number to their own shores.

5526. What is usually the expense incurred on account of each liberated
African under the existing system at Sierra Leone?--The commissariat
issues notice of tenders; when recruits are sent across from Sierra
Leone to the West Indies, which they are continually to supply the West
India regiments, it is open to any persons who have vessels unemployed
to tender for their removal; and if the Government undertook to remove
the negroes, I suppose it would be done in the same way.

5527. What is the expense now incurred for the maintenance of a
liberated African at Sierra Leone?--He is maintained for six months; the
allowance has been varied from 1_d._ to 2_d._ a day; but I believe now
it is 1½_d._

5528. Are you aware of the expense of transporting them across the
Atlantic?--I am not aware what has been charged; but whatever the
expense was, the colony receiving the negroes would be very happy to pay
it.

5529. You conceive that it would be a material advantage to the
liberated Africans to be placed in a West India colony, rather than
maintained for six months by Government, and afterwards thrown upon
their own resources in Sierra Leone?--It would be an advantage in every
way; an advantage first to the British Government in saving the expense
of their maintenance; it would next be an advantage to the negroes, who
are removed to a West India colony; and it would be a very great
advantage to the colony of Sierra Leone, because, though it may be well
able to support its present population, yet I think that further
importations at any rate, unless the colony is extended, should be
stopped. The advancement of the people who are now located there, is
also considerably retarded, by having fresh importations of savages
thrown amongst them from time to time, as they are, when slave ships are
condemned.

5530. Is it possible to have a society of the extent of Sierra Leone
otherwise than materially disturbed in all its moral and social
relations by 4,000 or 5,000 uncultivated negroes from various quarters
being thrown upon them at certain periods?--I think it is greatly
injured by it.

5531. Is there any amount of capital in Sierra Leone ready to take up
and give adequate employment to that influx of population?--No, not
immediate employment; the people would themselves find employment to a
certain extent, and I will not say how many more could be introduced
safely so as to find employment; but all who are there can find
employment, and can provide themselves with all the necessaries and
conveniences of life if they choose.

5532. Are there the means, except in trade, of providing for more than
the mere necessaries of life?--Agriculture is open to them to follow, if
they have sufficient inducement.

5533. Is there sufficient opportunity afforded, from the state of
agriculture in the colony, for raising more than is necessary for the
sustenance and common maintenance of the labourer?--No, not at present;
agriculture is not followed at all there for export; there are a few
articles that are not worth mentioning that are raised, but there is no
such system of agriculture for export followed that they could embark in
agriculture at once.

5534. Then you conceive that both the social and moral condition of the
negroes there would be improved, as they are now constituted, if they
were placed in the West Indies instead of in Sierra Leone?--I think so;
both for those who are left at Sierra Leone, and for those who are
removed, it would be better.

5535. Do you think that it would be desirable to give the negro the
option whether he would go to the West Indies or not?--Certainly not; it
is never done now, and the Act of Parliament does not even contemplate
such an option being given; the negro is taken to Sierra Leone, and
located there, without his opinion or wishes being consulted, and in the
same way he might be transported to the West Indies.

5536. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Is it obligatory in some of the treaties to take
them to Sierra Leone?--The new Spanish treaty requires that they shall
be established in a territory of the country to which the cruizer that
has made the capture belongs.

5537. _Chairman._] But must not the adjudication be on the coast of
Africa?--Not necessarily; Spanish vessels may be condemned at Havannah;
and in some cases when Portuguese vessels have been captured in the West
Indies, the slaves have been sent to Jamaica, and various other islands
in the West Indies; and when the vessel is sent over to Sierra Leone,
she comes over to us without the slaves; the slaves having been landed
in the first instance, so as to save them a second voyage across the
Atlantic; but with regard to vessels seized in the West Indies, which
are liable to condemnation under the Spanish treaty, the Havannah court
would condemn them, and the slaves would then be sent as Dr. Madden has
sent them, to one of our West India colonies.

5538. Do you conceive that foreign powers would entertain, or be
justified in entertaining, any objection to such a distribution?--No,
they would not entertain it, and I do not think that they would be
justified in entertaining it; on the contrary, it was the case in former
days that the vessels that were condemned by the court at Havannah had
their slaves located in the island of Cuba; but the planters cried out
against it very loudly; and it was at their suggestion and their request
that we sent away the negroes to our own West India colonies.

5539. By the treaties it is arranged that the captured negroes should be
planted within the colonies of the capturing party?--It is stipulated in
the seventh Article of the Portuguese treaty and the old Spanish treaty:
“As to the slaves, they shall receive from the mixed commission a
certificate of emancipation, and shall be delivered over to the
government on whose territory the commission which shall have so judged
them shall be established to be employed as servants or free labourers.”
The Act never contemplates any option whatever being exercised by the
persons seized, because it allows of their being drafted into the army
or navy, without any reference to their own will.

5540. Would the possible objection of foreign nations be stronger if we
engaged in a system of colonial emigration from the coast of Africa,
from other points than Sierra Leone?--I mentioned yesterday that we
could not go beyond the limits of British jurisdiction in procuring
emigrants, without appearing to give a sanction to those practices for
which we have been complaining against other nations of late years, both
the French and Dutch.

5541. In placing the emancipated slaves in islands where they would be
engaged in cultivating sugar, you would be in fact compelling the slave
trader to put down the slave trade itself in a great degree?--Yes; I
think that a great advantage, causing our efforts for the suppression of
the slave trade to operate in encouraging the cultivation of sugar in
our own colonies.

5542. In as far as it went, it would cheapen the very produce, the
dearness of which now constitutes the great inducement for carrying on
the slave trade?--Yes; the best way of putting down the slave trade is
our cultivating that produce in such a manner that it can compete with
slave-grown produce; and every thing that we do in adding to the
difficulty of carrying slaves across the Atlantic, adds to the price of
labour and the price of sugar in the slave-growing colonies.

5543. Every thing that we do with a view to encourage the lawful
produce, and to induce the negroes of Africa to get what they require in
a lawful way, diminishes the temptation to carry on the slave trade, and
co-operates with the cruizers in putting it down?--Certainly. There is a
passage with respect to enlisting negroes who are condemned by the
courts, without any reference to their own will; it occurs in the 22d
clause of the Act of 5 Geo. 4, c. 112: “It shall be lawful for His
Majesty, his heirs, and successors, and such officers, civil or
military, as shall, by any general or special order of the King in
Council, be from time to time appointed to receive, protect, and provide
for such persons as shall be so condemned, either to enter and enlist
the same, or any of them, into His Majesty’s land or sea service, as
soldiers, seamen, or marines, or to bind the same or any of them,
whether of full age or not, as apprentices, for any term not exceeding
seven years, to such person or persons, in such place or places, and
upon such terms and conditions, and subject to such regulations as to
His Majesty shall seem meet, and as shall by any general or special
Order of His Majesty in Council be in that behalf directed and
appointed; and any indenture of apprenticeship duly made and executed by
any person or persons to be for that purpose appointed by any such Order
in Council, for any term not exceeding seven years, shall be of the same
force and effect as if the party thereby bound as an apprentice had
himself or herself when of full age, upon good consideration, duly
executed the same.” It leaves no option whatever with the party bound.

5544. You think vessels could always be taken up to meet the arrival of
emancipated negroes?--The chartering of vessels would, I think, offer no
difficulty at Sierra Leone. There are, I believe, now, but there
certainly would be, in case such a plan was adopted, agents from the
different colonies which are anxious to obtain negroes, who would be
always ready to secure vessels for their transport across the Atlantic.

5545. Would not this be of advantage in opening a communication from the
West India islands with the coast of Africa, and encouraging the
intercourse between the two countries, and the free interchange of
products, to the advancement of the civilization of Sierra Leone, and
through it, of Africa?--In almost all cases where vessels have gone
across to the West Indies with recruits from Sierra Leone, the vessels
have gone on from the West Indies to England, taking a cargo from the
West Indies to England.

5546. Then it would only have the effect of increasing the advantageous
resort of vessels to Sierra Leone generally?--That would be one effect.

5547. Would it not have an effect on Sierra Leone, by giving an
advantageous freight to vessels frequenting it?--Yes, it would have that
effect.

5548. If it were considered desirable, would there be any difficulty in
giving to the negroes, after emancipation at Sierra Leone, the option of
remaining in the country or of going over to the West Indies?--I think
it would be undesirable to introduce a new practice where no option is
now given, and where the persons are not qualified immediately after
emancipation, to form any opinion whatever.

5549. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you think that it would be good policy to give
retired allowances to all public officers who have served a certain
number of years on the coast of Africa?--I think it would.

5550. The officers of the Mixed Commission Court, I believe, are the
only officers who enjoy that advantage?--I think the colonial chaplain
does, but by favour, not by right; there are no officers who serve under
colonial governments who are entitled to pensions; it is a rule of the
service, which is stated positively in their printed regulations.

5551. But considering the danger to health in that climate, you are of
opinion that it would be for the benefit of the service, and also
consistent with justice, that some allowance, in the shape of pension or
otherwise, should be made to officers serving there?--I think so. There
is one other point that I would beg to refer to, and that is rather
personal. It was stated by a witness in evidence on the 24th of May,
that there was a party in the colony of Sierra Leone who had great
influence in the Colonial Office; that this party was an individual;
that the suspicion of the witness, Colonel Findlay, did not apply to
more than one individual, and that that individual was myself; and that
he found, during the time that he was governor of the colony, that the
contents of despatches sent from the Colonial-office to Sierra Leone
were known in the colony by that party before they came to his hands,
and that he was consequently, and owing to that, impeded in carrying on
his government. Now I would only mention, with regard to this statement,
that I never received one single line all the time I was in the colony,
which was 11 years, from any person connected with the Colonial-office,
either directly or indirectly, on any subject whatever; and that I never
wrote one line to any person in the Colonial-office during that period,
except one letter of introduction, which I gave to an officer of the
31st regiment, who wanted to travel in Africa; I gave to this gentleman
a sort of certificate that he was a man of mild and conciliatory
manners; that was the only letter that I wrote to the Colonial-office,
and I never received one line upon any subject from any party in the
Colonial-office, not even in reply to the letter of introduction just
referred to.

5552. Mr. _Forster_.] You had no correspondence with the Colonial-office
during your residence in Africa, directly or indirectly?--None whatever,
or with any person connected with the Colonial-office.

5553. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Colonel Finlay, in his evidence, referred to a
party existing in the colony; are you aware of two distinct parties
existing in the colony?--I am aware of one party that existed in the
colony during the time that he was there, and that is a long time ago,
a party that opposed his government, because they thought he was a bad
Governor. I was one of that party certainly, while I was a merchant. As
soon as I became a government officer I abstained from any public
demonstration of feeling or opinion, but as a merchant, and before I
entered upon my public duties in the Mixed Commission Court, I certainly
took the means that every man is allowed to take to show that I did not
approve of his proceedings.

5554. But was that party a political party, or was the party connected
solely with the circumstances of the colony itself?--It was merely with
relation to the colony; they did not care at all about Whigs and Tories
out there; they had their colonial politics to attend to.

5555. Mr. _G. Wood_.] Did the discontent originate in political or
commercial views?--It originated in consequence of measures which were
considered oppressive upon individuals; it was upon local matters
altogether.

5556. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you consider that it originated in commercial
questions?--Certainly not.

5557. Were you a government officer at the time that the transaction
took place which led to Colonel Finlay’s recal?--I think I was; I think
the imprisonment of Mr. M‘Cormack occurred in 1832; I entered upon my
office in 1832; I think it was after I became a government officer.
After I became a judge I took no public part in opposition to any
government, however bad it might have been.

5558. You took no part in that transaction which led to Colonel Finlay’s
recal?--I took no public part; I may have given advice to my friends.

5559. Did not a trial arise out of those transactions, in which you were
a witness?--No; no trial at all occurred, and therefore I could not have
been a witness in any.

5560. _Chairman._] Have you read the remarks of Colonel Doherty on the
Report of Dr. Madden?--I have.

5560*. Do you concur in the views which he has taken of the points
alluded to?--In almost every particular.

5561. Is there any material point upon which you differ from him?--I
think only two: one, with respect to the Kroomen, whose residence in the
colony Colonel Doherty thought was injurious, and interfered with the
resident liberated Africans; I do not agree with him in that respect; I
think that they should not be interdicted at all from coming to Sierra
Leone, nor should their numbers be limited.

5562. You believe them to be advantageous to the colony?--Yes.

5563. And, by their example, to the liberated Africans themselves?--Yes,
I think even to them, as setting an example of industry, which they
would do well to imitate.

5564. Do you concur in opinion with Colonel Doherty as to the character
of the Kroomen; he speaks of the Kroomen as men never to be trusted,
never converted to Christianity, and likely, wherever they may be, to
exhibit a bad example in that particular; do you concur in that?--I
agree in opinion with Colonel Doherty, that they would not be converted
to Christianity. I do not think them dishonest when they are well
treated. I never heard of an instance of any liberated African being
converted to the Pagan opinions of the Kroomen; I believe such a thing
was never heard of.

5565. You believe that they are more difficult of conversion than other
Africans?--It is quite impossible, if I may say so of any body; there
never was an instance known of a Krooman being converted.

5566. To what do you attribute that peculiarity?--To their constant
return, as I mentioned yesterday, to their own country. They never think
of settling any where but in their own country. There is no instance of
a Krooman settling any where but in the Kroo country.

5567. Do they not settle at Fernando Po?--No; no more than they settle
in Sierra Leone.

5568. Mr. _G. Wood_.] Do they all retire to their own country in their
old age?--Yes. I have known a great many of them; indeed, I was very
partial to them, and had a good many in my employ. Governor Doherty
rather discouraged their employment, which I thought unwise, but that
was one slight point on which I disagreed with him.

5569. _Chairman._] Have you never heard of their being converted at Cape
Palmas by American missionaries?--No.

5570. Mr. _G. Wood_.] Are you aware of any persevering and continuous
efforts having ever been employed?--No, I cannot say that I am; but they
are thrown into our colony very much under the same circumstances that
the liberated Africans are, who become Christians, almost universally.

5571. _Chairman._] The liberated Africans are more settled?--Yes.

5572. And are therefore more exposed to the influence of those around
them?--Yes; but the Krooman also resides at Sierra Leone, and is never
away more than once in three or four years, but the periodical return to
his own country, and to his old habits, is I think a great cause why it
is so difficult to christianise him.

5573. Mr. _Wortley_.] Is there any mode of accounting for those
remarkable peculiarities in the Kroomen?--No; I think they are kept
distinct by the habit of the country, never allowing the women to leave
the country, and thus inducing the men constantly to return.

5574. Is there any distinction of race to be observed between them and
other tribes?--Yes, a most striking difference.

5575. Is there any reason to suppose their origin to have been different
from the origin of the rest of the inhabitants of Africa?--One would
suppose so from their being totally different in colour and habits.

5576. Mr. _G. Wood_.] Has their language been analysed with a view to
see whether that affords any indication of their being from a different
stock?--No. An opinion seems to have been expressed by Governor Doherty
against allowing Mahomedans to exercise their religion. I differ from
him there also; but I think, with those two exceptions, as far as I
recollect it, I agree with the remainder of the Report.

5577. Viscount _Courtenay_.] Bearing in mind the remarks which are made
in that Report upon the subject of schools, do you concur with him
generally in those remarks, or do you wish to add any thing?--I quite
concur with him, particularly with regard to the pay of the teachers; I
think the pay certainly is on too low a scale at present to secure the
services of good teachers.

5578. What is your opinion as to the practice which seems to exist of
separating the children of liberated Africans from the Creole
children?--I think any separation of that kind is undesirable.

5579. Is it apparently justified by any difference of natural talent
between them as a class?--No; but there is a very great difference
between the colony-born children and those who have been introduced into
the colony at a later age; those who have been born and bred in the
colony are very superior.

5580. Is the result of this separation that liberated African children
make much less progress in education generally than the other
children?--Yes; I should think that is the effect.

5581. Are they taught English?--Yes, they all speak English.

5582. Mr. _G. Wood_.] Does it give birth to any permanent feelings of
enmity between the two classes of children?--No.

5583. Mr. _W. Patten_.] I observe in one of the recent slave treaties,
which sets out the duties incumbent upon the master to whom negroes are
apprenticed, the first duty is, that the apprentice shall be maintained
in proportion to the employment done, and shall be supplied with such
clothes as are usual according to the custom of the colony; during your
residence in Sierra Leone was that attended to by the authorities
there?--I think that the whole system of apprenticeship there was bad;
it was required by the indentures, but the indentures were very
imperfectly fulfilled.

5584. There are six different classes to be attended to upon this point;
first, with regard to food; secondly, with regard to instruction in the
Christian religion; and according to that second article they must be
baptized before the expiration of the second year of apprenticeship; was
that at all looked to?--No, I do not think it was. In many cases you
could not carry it out, because the person who was apprenticed came
there not as a child, but grown up, and the clergyman would then take
upon himself to decide whether he was a fit subject for baptism or not.

5585. But the authorities in the colony did not see in any way that that
was done?--No.

5586. The next is, “that the apprentice should be vaccinated as soon as
possible after being delivered into the charge of the master, and that
in sickness he shall have proper medical advice and be treated with due
care and attention, and that in case of death, he shall be decently
buried at the master’s expense?”--There is no obligation of that kind
with regard to negroes in Sierra Leone; this is a treaty that does not
refer to Sierra Leone.

5587. This is in the treaty that was signed in 1839?--It did not come
into operation at the time I was in Sierra Leone; there is a treaty
somewhat similar; the last treaty with Spain, which requires that
attention shall be paid to emancipated negroes.

5588. You stated that you thought the apprenticeship system was very
bad?--Yes, I think the whole system of apprenticeship at Sierra Leone is
bad, and ought to be done away with.

5589. Mr. _G. Wood_.] What system would you substitute for it?--I would
not object to apprenticing children to artizans and to master tradesmen,
but I certainly would not apprentice them to other persons.

5590. _Chairman._] Your system of disposing of the liberated Africans in
the West Indies would, of course, get rid of the difficulty attending
upon the future?--Yes.

5591. Mr. _G. Wood_.] But supposing that system not to take place, what
system should you think preferable to the system of apprenticeship now
prevalent in Sierra Leone?--There can be no system introduced that would
not entail considerable expense upon the Government.

5592. _Chairman._] Would you throw the adults upon their own resources
at an earlier period than at present?--No; I think the time (six months)
for which the Government now support the adults is as short as it could
possibly be, and I do not think they could shorten that by one day.

5593. Mr. _G. Wood_.] You stated that no other system could be
substituted but what would be attended with considerable expense; do you
think it would be worth while to incur that expense?--I do not think the
present system should be continued, whatever the expense might be of
substituting another system for it.

5594. What system would you recommend as a substitute for it?--The
system that must be substituted for it, in case of the apprenticeship
being done away with, would be keeping all the children, as they now do
many of them, landed from slave vessels, in the schools till they are
old enough to be thrown upon their own resources.

5595. _Chairman._] Making them, in fact, boarding-schools?--There is a
boarding-school in many of the villages; in the villages the liberated
African children are lodged and fed by the manager, but that is only the
children who are not apprenticed.

5596. You would have all the children put into boarding-schools?--I see
no other way at present of disposing of them, if they are not
apprenticed.

5597. Mr. _G. Wood_.] Had the change of system that you alluded to
reference to an altered system with regard to the adults?--No; I would
not alter the system with regard to the adults, except, perhaps, by
extending the period two months, during which they should be maintained
by Government.

5598. That would be an extension from six months to eight months?--Yes;
at any rate, while the Government continues to use their services, as
they do at present, when they are employed for three months after their
arrival labouring upon Government works, and are prevented from
employing themselves upon farms.

5599. Mr. _Forster_.] In answer to question 5208, in your former
evidence, with respect to the system of landing the crews of captured
slavers, you said, “I have never known a cruizer act inhumanely. I heard
of one case the other day where people starved, but it was stated in
that case that it was owing to the refusal of the Portuguese factories
to support them.” Had you any opportunity at Sierra Leone of observing
the system pursued in this respect by our cruizers?--I have mentioned
that the only portion of the slave crews that we saw at Sierra Leone
were those who were sent up as witnesses.

5600. What case is this which you allude to as having heard of?--It was
a case I heard of in this room, mentioned by some gentleman connected
with the Bonny trade.

5601. Are you aware whether there are any Spanish or Portuguese
factories in Bonny?--I am aware that there were some slave factories
there formerly.


_Lunæ, 27º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Mr. W. Hamilton.
  Mr. Milnes.

  VISCOUNT SANDON, IN THE CHAIR.

  _Captain Henry Worsley Hill_, R. N., called in; and examined.

7109. _Chairman._] What has been your connexion with the coast of
Africa?--I commanded the “Saracen” on the coast of Africa from October
1837 till January 1841.

7110. What part of the coast have you cruized along?--The first eight
months I was in the Bight of Benin; after that I went to the Cape of
Good Hope and Madagascar, returning to Sierra Leone in December 1838;
and continuing on the coast between Cape Palmas and Portendique till
June 1841.

7111. Has the character of the system of cruizing altered during that
period?--On the Sierra Leone side, certainly. Latterly, we established a
very close blockade.

7112. Have you been engaged in descents on the coast?--Yes, at Gallinas,
and at Sea-bar.

7113. At Gallinas you were engaged with Captain Denman?--Yes.

7114. At Sea-bar, were you by yourself?--The “Ferret” was there
likewise.

7115. What were the circumstances of your operations at Sea-bar?--I had
had a boat blockading Sea-bar, where there was a noted slave factory,
and my boat’s crew had required water, and on landing to procure water,
the king, Harry Tucker, refused water without I paid for it at a most
exorbitant rate, about a dollar a gallon he demanded; and I was
authorized by the Governor of Sierra Leone to endeavour to effect a
treaty, that had been sent out from the Home Government with the chiefs
of that part of the coast. I landed for the purpose of endeavouring to
effect this treaty, and also to inquire into the cause of the king’s
refusing my boat’s crew water. The slave factory belonging to Mr.
François is close to the usual place of landing, being close to the
water; it is at the southernmost entrance of the Sherboro’ River. On
landing I found that every person had left the factory; after a short
time, I succeeded in getting a messenger to go to the king, who was
represented to be in the bush, and requested that he would come to see
me, assuring him that I had come upon a friendly mission. He refused; I
then wrote to him for the same purpose; after waiting some time, several
people appeared at the borders of the wood, armed, and one man advanced
and came to me, and told me that Mr. François, the slave merchant, and
the king had armed the slaves for the purpose of coming down to attack
us, but that they preferred giving themselves up to us, and going to
Sierra Leone to be made free, and asking if I would receive them on
board; I of course told them yes, as many as would come, and I think
about fifty came down armed with muskets and cane knives. They procured
for themselves a canoe; I had not room in my own boats for them. They
represented that they had been very ill-used by the slave-factor, Mr.
François, flogged and beaten, and kept in irons, and confined closely in
the barracoons; and when they were in the boat they expressed their
delight, by clapping their hands and singing in their country manner. I
had determined upon destroying the barracoons, but I thought it better
if I could induce the slaves to do it themselves, it would be setting a
better example. Upon its being mentioned to the slave who could speak
English (there was only one who could speak English), he mentioned it to
the others, and two or three immediately volunteered from the troop, to
go up and burn the barracoons and the factory. They went and set fire to
it in about twenty places, and the place was destroyed. I was told
afterwards that this was followed by another slave factory being burnt
on the opposite side of the river the following day, by the slaves
themselves.

7116. Who was this Mr. François?--He is a slave factor, who has resided
a long time at Sea-bar; I believe he was once in the French navy as a
foremast man, but I am not certain.

7117. Was he living under the protection of the native chief there?--He
was living in the chief’s territory; therefore, I suppose he was there
with his sanction and knowledge; I had been there before, and I had seen
the chief in Mr. François’ house.

7118. Mr. _Forster_.] Do not you think it was setting rather a dangerous
example to tell the natives to destroy property under such
circumstances?--No, I thought I was setting a good example, or I should
not have done it.

7119. You think they could fully appreciate the motives and views with
which you acted?--Undoubtedly.

7120. Do the natives condemn the slave trade themselves?--They carry the
slave trade on; if they did not carry it on, there would be no slave
trade.

7121. Then on what ground of moral right could they account for your
destroying this property for the reason that it was with the view of
doing away with the slave trade, a trade which they do not consider
morally wrong?--They can easily, I think, appreciate the view with which
the slaves were armed to come down and attack Her Majesty’s boats, who
went there with friendly intentions.

7122. _Chairman._] Those whom you got to destroy the barracoons were
slaves themselves?--They were slaves, who had been armed to come and
attack us, and they came and placed themselves under British protection,
and begged to be taken to Sierra Leone.

7123. You think they would understand why you sent them to destroy the
means of imprisonment;--I think so, certainly.

7124. Mr. _Forster_.] You carried them to Sierra Leone?--I carried them
to Sierra Leone, and entrusted them to the protection of the governor.

7125. _Chairman._] Do you know any thing of the circumstances under
which those slaves had come there?--They were Mr. François’ slaves, and
I imagine they must have been purchased in the way in which all the
slave factors purchase their slaves; they are brought down from the
interior.

7126. Mr. _Forster_.] Have you given any similar advice to the native
chiefs, or the natives, on any other part of the coast, to destroy the
property of slave dealers?--I have advised the whole of the chiefs that
I have had any communication with to discontinue the slave trade, the
sale or barter of negroes to Europeans.

7127. _Chairman._] Was there property in those barracoons that were
destroyed?--There was very little property; I think the goods must have
been removed from the slave factory some time previously.

7128. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] The use of those barracoons was distinctly
for the purpose of keeping up the traffic in slaves?--The slaves had
been confined there, according to what I learned from those I received
on board, on the previous night, to the number of between 300 and 400.
There were a vast number of shackles and chains, with which they had
been chained, and the slaves had been removed out of the barracoons on
the approach of my boats.

7129. Therefore the property destroyed was only such as was used for the
most criminal purpose?--There was no property destroyed but what was
used for the slave trade. In fact, there was very little property
besides the buildings; every thing had been removed.

7130. Mr. _Forster_.] You think the natives could draw the distinction
between property of that description and other property which you
yourself might feel inclined to respect?--I think the natives could draw
the distinction between property intended for the slave trade, belonging
to a foreign slave dealer who had settled in the country for the express
purpose of carrying on the slave trade, which the natives know is
contrary to the laws of his own country, and contrary to the laws of all
Europe.

7131. But when they see those persons settle in their own country, with
the sanction and under the protection of their chiefs, do you think
that, under those circumstances, to teach them such a want of respect
for property can have a beneficial tendency in the country generally,
where it must have been witnessed by other natives, and known to other
natives besides those which you have mentioned as being engaged in this
transaction?--I think it must have a beneficial effect on the natives of
the country where it takes place.

7132. _Chairman._] In doing this did you act under specific
instructions, or upon your own responsibility?--Upon my own
responsibility; I have received the approbation of the Admiralty.

7133. Did you receive any general instructions to attack slave factories
wherever they were not under an European flag?--Not while I was on the
coast.

7134. Mr. _Forster_.] Did you visit the Rio Nunez?--Yes.

7135. Do you know two chiefs there of the names of Sallafou and
Sarra?--Sallafou is the chief of the Narrow country, and Sarra is the
chief of the Kikandy country.

7136. Did you advise those chiefs to get possession of the goods of any
slave vessel that might come within their reach, and any property that
might be in them?--I think it is very likely that I advised those
chiefs, while I was in their country, to discontinue the European slave
trade and to prohibit slave vessels from coming to their country.

7137. But you did not advise them to seize slave vessels or slave
cargoes?--I advised them to prohibit slave vessels coming to their
country, and not to allow the slave trade.

7138. But you did not advise them to use every means in their power to
get possession of any property belonging to a slave dealer that might
come within their reach?--They could not get possession of any property,
or slave vessel, if they followed my advice of not allowing them to come
to their country to trade for slaves. There was no slave vessel, nor did
I see any factories, in the Nunez, or any signs of the slave trade being
carried on there.

7139. But they could not prevent slave vessels coming into their country
without being in contact with them, and therefore having the means of
seizing them?--Their seizing slave vessels and goods would be an act of
their own. I remember no advice being given them by me, that they were
to lie wait, or endeavour to seize vessels that they supposed to be
engaged in the slave trade, or to seize goods on board those vessels, or
to use any fraudulent means of getting those goods into their
possession.

7140. Then if they have made your advice a pretext for seizing property
in vessels belonging to Frenchmen in their rivers, they have done so
falsely?--They never received any advice or recommendation from me to
seize goods or vessels belonging to the French or any other nation. When
I was in the Nunez there were three English merchants and four French
merchants with me. The origin of my going there was owing to a war
existing between King Sarra and the Nallow chief, which had stopped the
trade of the river. There had also been some outrages committed upon an
English vessel; the captain of one English vessel had been forcibly made
to pay between 60 and 70 dollars, and another English vessel had been
fired on by the natives. I entered into treaties with the chiefs that
French and English property should be respected. The merchants were
present at both interviews with those chiefs, a Foolah chief, with about
100 or 120 Foolahs, who had been sent down from the Foolah country, was
also with me, and assisted in making king Sarra refund 64 dollars which
he had taken from this English captain, which money I delivered to the
Governor of Sierra Leone; and on leaving the river both the English and
French merchants expressed themselves very much satisfied with what I
had done. There was no advice given by me to either of the chiefs but in
the presence of those merchants.

7141. _Chairman._] Did you find, in the course of your cruize,
assistance given to the slave trade by English merchants?--I detained an
English vessel bound to the Gallinas, freighted through the agency of
Messrs. Zulueta, of London, on behalf of Pedro Martinez, of the
Havannah, consigned to some notorious slaving establishment at the
Gallinas.

7142. What was the result?--I sent the vessel to Sierra Leone; she was
tried in the Vice-Admiralty Court, and condemned; the master was also
tried at the sessions at Sierra Leone. The grand jury found a true bill
against him, and I have every reason to believe the petty jury would
have found him guilty, had the Queen’s advocate, who conducted the
prosecution, represented the master as also the owner. But upon the
trial he was tried merely as the master, and the jury acquitted him on
the supposition that the master of a vessel might be ignorant of the
trade in which she was engaged; but he being master and owner, and
having been to the Gallinas on two previous voyages, and delivered
cargoes, consigned in one instance to the notorious Pedro Blanco, and in
another instance to another slave merchant; had this appeared, I have
every reason to believe he would have been convicted. It is my opinion
the house of Zulueta have aided and abetted the slave trade for a number
of years, by acting as agents for slave dealers. There is a case on
record, very nearly similar to this, of the brig Arrogante, which was
sent out to the Havannah, and represented to the English Government by
the English consul at the Havannah.

7143. You mean by the same house?--By the same house.

7144. What is the nature of the interest which the house of Zulueta have
in these transactions?--They appear as agents only.

7145. What is the nature of their agency?--I will state the whole case
of the vessel. I have copies of the principal papers with me in London,
if the Committee should wish to see them. The “Augusta” was originally
the “Goluptichick.” The “Goluptichick” was detained by me off Gallinas
under Russian colours, with a crew composed solely of Spaniards. Her
course of trade for two years had been wholly confined to Spanish ports
and the coast of Africa. I had information of her taking a cargo of
slaves from the coast a few months previously to my capturing her; I
sent her to Sierra Leone, and attempted to try her in the Spanish and
British Mixed Commission Court, under the treaty with Spain. She was
refused to be admitted into the court, being under Russian colours and
papers. I then determined upon sending her to England, being convinced
that this vessel could not be trading lawfully from Russia, Russia
having no colonies to which it was possible she could be carrying
slaves. The vessel was perfectly equipped for the slave trade.

7146. What year was this in?--This was in 1839. The master of the
vessel, rather than be sent to England, told me he would prove that the
vessel was Spanish property, and gave me a certificate to that effect. I
tried a second time to get her into the Mixed Commission Court, and
failed, and then sent her to England. She was detained in England by the
English Government for some time, and I believe given up to the Russian
authorities; but I have received no official information on the subject.
The vessel was sold at Portsmouth to a Mr. Jennings, but by the papers
found on board her this purchase appears to have been effected by
Zulueta & Co. The vessel proceeded to Liverpool, and shipped a cargo
through the agency of Zulueta, on account of P. Martinez, of Havannah,
which cargo was to be delivered at the Gallinas, to three notorious
slave dealers. I found her at the Gallinas, and immediately seized her,
when she was tried, as I have related, at Sierra Leone. An appeal has
been entered before the Privy Council, and is now pending. In the trial
at Sierra Leone the master and owner, Mr. Jennings, did not defend the
vessel, which is an extraordinary thing, because the master and owner of
the vessel, when she was tried before the Vice-Admiralty Court at Sierra
Leone, ought to have defended her.

7147. Mr. _Hamilton_.] Was she equipped for the slave trade the second
time?--No, she was not.

7148. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Who defended her?--She was not defended at
all.

7149. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] This is the second time that she has been
tried at Sierra Leone?--This is the third time. The case of the
Arrogante is very nearly similar; it is to be seen in the Papers laid
before Parliament in 1839 or 1840.

  [Adjourned to Wednesday next, at Half-past Twelve o’clock.


_Mercurii, 29º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Mr. W. Hamilton.
  Sir R. H. Inglis.
  Mr. Milnes.

  VISCOUNT SANDON in the chair.

  Captain _Henry Worsley Hill_, R.N., called in; and further examined.

7150. _Chairman._] When you were last examined, you were stating the
cases in which you conceived that British merchants had given assistance
to the slave trade?--Yes; I stated the case of the Augusta having been
detained by me.

7151. Are there other cases which have come to your knowledge?--Not of
vessels being engaged in the slave trade.

7152. Are there any other instances in which you have ascertained that
English merchants had aided or abetted the slave trade?--A
representation in a private way was made to me by the governor of
Liberia, that an English vessel had supplied Mr. Canót at New Cestos,
with goods and arms. He mentioned among other things, two or three
pieces of brass ordnance, with which Mr. Canót was supposed to be
fortifying his slaving establishments.

7153. Was that case investigated?--No, I could not gain sufficient
proof. I went on board the vessel, and the master of the vessel did not
deny having landed goods at Theodore Canót’s establishment, but I could
find nothing amongst her papers or her custom-house cockets that went to
convince me that guns and things had been taken out from England
consigned to Mr. Canót. It did not come to any thing, it was merely a
representation made by the governor of Liberia, as a set-off to the
complaints that were daily made of the American flag covering the slave
trade upon the coast; but I could find nothing whatever that justified
me in supposing that that vessel came out with her cargo consigned to
Mr. Canót.

7154. Do you know of any other case?--No, I know of no other case.

7155. Have you received assistance in the prosecution of your duty upon
the coast from English vessels engaged in trade, in the way of
information or otherwise?--In one or two instances I have.

7156. Of what nature?--Merely giving information of vessels which they
had seen on the coast, which they suspected of being engaged in the
slave trade.

7157. Have you ever received obstruction from them?--No, I have not.

7158. Mr. _Forster_.] You have spoken very strongly of Messrs. Zulueta &
Co. as connected with the slave trade; are you aware that those
gentlemen act very extensively as agents for foreign houses in Cuba, in
Spain, and in Brazil, as Spanish merchants?--I have no means of
ascertaining that.

7159. The cargo of the Augusta, which you seized, was shipped at
Liverpool, where Messrs. Zulueta & Co. have a house?--It was.

7160. Did you find any prohibited goods in that cargo which had been
shipped at Liverpool?--None.

7161. That cargo having been shipped at Liverpool, composed of lawful
goods, and legally cleared by the custom-house officers there, in what
way do you consider Messrs. Zulueta & Co. criminally implicated in such
a transaction?--The custom-house officers at Liverpool may be totally
ignorant of the trade carried on at the Gallinas, and also totally
ignorant of the trade carried on by Pedro Martinez & Co. at the
Havannah.

7162. Suppose Messrs. Zulueta & Co. to have received orders from their
foreign correspondents to ship those goods; in what way do you consider
them bound to know the history and pursuits of the person to whom they
were directed to consign them at the Gallinas?--I should certainly think
they are bound to be cautious that they did nothing contrary to the
laws of the country in which they were residing.

7163. But unless they knew that those goods were to be applied for the
purchase of slaves on the coast of Africa, in what way do you consider
them bound to exercise any caution, and above all, to refuse to comply
with the orders of their correspondents?--I certainly think they are
bound to use every caution that they do not act contrary to law.

7164. Who were the parties to whom they were consigned at the
Gallinas?--The goods were consigned to be delivered to Don José Alvarez,
and Don Angel Ximenes, and Don José Perez Rola, all noted slave dealers.

7165. _Chairman._] Have Messrs. Zulueta direct intercourse with the
coast of Africa themselves, as merchants, or are they only agents?--I
have never met a vessel belonging to Messrs. Zulueta & Co. on the coast
of Africa.

7166. They are shipping agents in England, obeying orders given them by
their correspondents abroad?--I have never known Zulueta & Co. to be
employed in any mercantile transactions on the coast of Africa, except
with regard to Spanish slave merchants. I have never seen their names in
any vessels that I have boarded, engaged in innocent traffic.

7167. Do you conceive that a shipping agent is bound to make himself
acquainted with the pursuits of the parties to whom he ships lawful
goods?--I think, as far as regards the slave trade on the coast of
Africa, it is the duty of a merchant residing in England, to be cautious
that he does not do any thing that will at all be acting contrary to the
Act of Parliament for the Abolition of the Slave Trade.

7168. Supposing he had consigned goods to the Bight of Benin, for
instance, where many of the greatest dealers in produce have been till
lately dealers in slaves; can you conceive that he would have been
engaging in unlawful traffic in complying with such orders from his
correspondent?--If the goods were to be consigned to a port where
innocent traffic was carried on, and to merchants who carried on that
traffic as well as the slave trade, of course it would admit of great
doubt to what purpose those goods would be applied; but, in this case,
the goods being consigned to those three people at the Gallinas, a port
where no trade but the slave trade has been carried on for a
considerable number of years, I think it materially alters the position
of the parties in the shipping of the goods.

7169. Then the innocence or otherwise of the transaction depends, in
your opinion, upon the knowledge on the part of the shipping agent in
England of the exclusively slave-dealing character, of the trade carried
on from any point of the coast of Africa to which the goods may be
consigned?--I think not exactly.

7170. Supposing the Gallinas had carried on a trade to the extent of 100
pieces of ivory annually, would that have been an innocent transaction
which you now consider to have been a culpable one?--I think it might
admit of a doubt whether there was a possibility of the goods shipped
being employed in innocent traffic; but I think, being shipped to a
place like the Gallinas, there can be no doubt whatever to what purpose
the goods would be applied.

7171. Is not the nature of the traffic carried on from different points
of the coast of Africa, shifting and varying from time to time; at one
time exclusively in slave dealing, at other times partly in slave
dealing and partly in produce; and at other times wholly in produce;
according as the efforts of the English merchants have prevailed more or
less. Would it not, therefore, according to this view, require constant
reports to the shipper in England of the state for the year of the
different points of trade on the coast of Africa, to enable him to know
whether he could with safety carry on trade with any one place?--I think
the slave trade has been at the point to which the vessel in question
was consigned to deliver her cargo, so fully established, that it can
admit of no doubt whatever as to the trade in which that vessel was
employed. But it may happen, at many places on the coast, that a doubt
might exist. For instance, if a merchant were established on the coast,
carrying on the joint traffic of exchange of the produce of the country
as well as the slave trade, it certainly would admit of a doubt. But I
think it is the business of the merchant residing in England to make
himself acquainted with the character of the persons on the coast of
Africa to whom he makes consignments, especially seeing the attempts
that are making and have been made for the suppression of the slave
trade.

7172. You observe that the case in question is not the case of a
merchant carrying on a direct trade with a slave dealer, but a merchant
obeying the orders of his correspondent, to make consignments merely as
his shipping agent?--I think myself it depends in a great measure upon
the place to which the cargo is to be delivered. I think at New Cestos,
for example, there might be a doubt to what trade the cargo would be
applied; but there are many cases which will not admit of a doubt. Now
if a merchant has been in the habit of acting as agent to a foreign
house for a length of time, I think he must somehow acquire a knowledge
of the trade which this foreign merchant is embarked in. I think it
becomes the duty of the merchant to endeavour to make some inquiry,
because the Act of Parliament is very decisive; it says, “Or in any
other manner to engage or contract to engage directly or indirectly
therein as a partner, agent or otherwise, or to ship, tranship, lade,
receive or put on board, or to contract for the shipping, transhipping,
lading, receiving or putting on board of any ship, vessel or boat,
money, goods or effects to be employed in accomplishing any of the
objects or the contracts in relation to the objects, which objects and
contracts have hereinbefore been declared unlawful.” The law is very
decisive.

7173. Mr. _Forster_.] What are the objects and contracts which have been
previously declared unlawful?--“For any persons to deal or trade in,
purchase, sell, barter, or transfer, or to contract for the dealing or
trading in, purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of slaves or persons
intended to be dealt with as slaves.”

7174. Do you consider the lawful shipping of goods at Liverpool a
dealing in slaves?--A lawful shipment of goods cannot be unlawful.

7175. But if the shipment had not been lawful, would not the
custom-house officers at Liverpool have seized the goods?--It is
possible that the custom-house officers at Liverpool may be ignorant of
what caused the shipment of the goods to be unlawful.

7176. But the custom-house officers cannot be ignorant whether the goods
which they pass at Liverpool are lawfully shipped?--The parties and the
port to which the goods are to be delivered of course stamp the
character of the trade in which they are sent out.

7177. _Chairman._] Would it be convenient if the custom-house officers
were informed from time to time to what ports vessels might clear with
safety, and to what they might not?--I think in the case of such a port
as the Gallinas, it would have been convenient, and perhaps have been
attended with some benefit, had the custom-house officers in our
different ports in England been made acquainted with the trade that was
there carried on, to prevent goods being shipped direct for that port;
but that again would be evaded by shipping goods, as is frequently done,
for the coast of Africa, without specifying any port.

7178. Do you conceive that the destruction of the barracoons is very
effectual in putting down the slave trade?--I think that in many cases
it would be attended with great benefit to the suppression of the slave
trade, almost in every instance; but great care should be exercised in
doing it.

7179. In what respects?--That the establishments should be decidedly
ascertained to be slaving establishments, so as not to destroy any
establishments that might be erected where innocent traffic was carried
on, but only the slaving establishments that were _bonâ fide_ for the
express purpose of slaving.

7180. Have you found any feeling of irritation created among the natives
upon the coast by that mode of proceeding?--No; I was frequently at the
Gallinas after the barracoons at the Gallinas were destroyed, and I
thought a good feeling was springing up amongst the chiefs for the
establishment of commerce and the cultivation of their soil. They
certainly expressed a wish that the barracoons and the slaving
establishments in the neighbouring states should be destroyed as well as
their own.

7181. Do you conceive that the slave trade is popular with the natives
of all classes, or that its profits are principally confined to the
chiefs?--I think it is popular with the natives of all classes.

7182. Mr. _Forster_.] If it is popular with all classes, how do you
account for their expressing a wish that the barracoons should be
destroyed?--That followed after their own barracoons had been destroyed;
they wished their neighbours’ barracoons to be destroyed likewise; they
expressed their delight very openly when I went to the Gallinas after
the establishments at Sea-bar had been destroyed.

7183. Supposing them to feel any irritation upon the subject, do you
think it likely that it would be to the officer of a ship of war that
they would communicate those feelings?--Perhaps not, directly; but I
think the officers on being on shore would very easily observe if their
feelings were unfavourable.

7184. _Chairman._] Had you any communication with the slave dealers
themselves upon the subject of this method of putting down the slave
trade?--Yes; I saw, I think, the most intelligent of the slave dealers
that were established at the Gallinas, I think it was Don Angel Ximenes,
who told me that it was impossible for him to carry on the slave trade,
if this plan was followed up; that he was ruined by it; and that he
intended immediately going to America, and that he had recommended the
other slave dealers to do the same. Two or three of them, I know, left
Africa immediately, and one other man left the Gallinas territory and
settled in the neighbouring states, with the intention of trying to
carry on the slave trade again.

7185. Has the introduction of the Equipment Article led, as a matter of
necessity, to carrying on the slave trade by the collection of slaves in
barracoons, ready for the descent of any slaver, who can no longer now
hover in sight, and remain waiting for the collection of slaves during
its stay there?--Yes; slave vessels now come across from the Havannah in
every way ready equipped for embarking their slaves at an hour’s notice;
they appear off the coast, and in one or two instances, I have heard
that in two hours their cargoes have been put on board them.

7186. Barracoons have now become an essential part of the existing
system of the slave trade?--They have always had barracoons.

7187. Mr. _Milnes_.] Do you think the slave trade is popular among the
lower classes?--Yes, I think it is in those parts of Africa where they
have known no other trade; that has been the trade by which they have
derived all the principal articles that have almost become necessary to
them.

7188. _Chairman._] Have you seen instances where, upon the extinction of
the slave trade, legitimate trade has taken its place?--I heard various
reports of its having done so at the Bonny and at Benin; at the Bonny
particularly. Again, Mr. Spence, in the River St. George’s, established
himself and introduced innocent trade, and I believe totally expelled
the slave dealers; it had a very beneficial effect in those three
places.

7189. Was that a case where lawful traffic had the effect, without the
assistance of cruizers, of expelling the slave trade, or was it in
co-operation with them?--I think in co-operation with the cruizers. Mr.
Spence took a great deal of pains, and if he had known of a slave vessel
coming into St. George’s, he would have immediately informed the
cruizers, and in fact he had so much influence with the chiefs
immediately around him, that he prevented them from carrying on the
slave trade. The slave trade cannot be carried on without the sanction
of the chief, and in fact in almost every case it is done by the chief
of the district himself; he is the principal slave dealer, receiving a
certain emolument from the slave dealers coming to his place to trade.

7190. When you speak of the co-operation of the cruizers with Mr.
Spence’s efforts, you mean that the cruizers protected Mr. Spence in his
operations, but not that they were preventing the slave trade at the
time by a blockade?--Exactly.

7191. Have you heard since the destruction of the slave factory at the
Gallinas, or at Sea-bar, whether lawful trade has taken the place of
the slave trade?--When I was last at the Gallinas, one of the chiefs
showed me a sample of cotton that he was cultivating, and he promised
that he would collect as much as he could for the purpose of carrying on
innocent trade: he had then, I think, at the time I am speaking of, six
or eight large packages in his house, and he said, that in the course of
time, he could produce any quantity. He seemed to be honest in his
intentions.

7192. Viscount _Courtenay_.] Was it wild or cultivated cotton?--He told
me that he had cultivated it; and it appeared to me to be particularly
good; it was much finer than any I have seen elsewhere.

7193. Mr. _Aldam_.] Did you see any cotton cultivated?--No, I did not
see any cultivated; this was up the country, 10 or 12 miles up the
Gallinas River.

7194. Would it be practicable to collect a considerable quantity of wild
cotton?--No; I think the wild cotton is so much scattered, that without
cultivation they could not collect any quantity.

7195. _Chairman._] Had you any conversation with the chief upon the
advantage with which the people might be employed in raising produce
rather than their being sold as slaves?--Frequently I endeavoured to
instil into their minds the advantages they would derive from giving up
the slave trade, and employing their own slaves in tilling the ground,
and collecting cam wood, and any thing the country might produce. I
think in many parts of the Gallinas the country is capable of being
cultivated to a great extent. I am now speaking of King Siacca’s Town,
which is 10 or 12 miles up the river.

7196. Do you think it would be of advantage, either for the suppression
of the slave trade, or for the encouragement of the lawful trade to have
factories or forts planted at particular points?--I think, decidedly; I
think if factories were established along the coast, it would materially
lead to the suppression of the slave trade, and also to the cultivation
and improvement of Africa generally; I think particularly on the coast
from Sierra Leone to Cape Mount, which has been the chief slavery
district on that part of Africa.

7197. Have you had reason to know whether there would be facilities or
otherwise for the purchase of sites for settlements of that description
from the native chiefs?--I think there might be a little opposition made
in the first instance, which might easily be overcome. I remember one of
the chiefs of the Gallinas telling me that he would have no objection to
see the English settle there; but others again did not seem so desirous
of it. Again, at Cape Mount the chief was very anxious that the English
should establish themselves, and carry on trade there; and when I was
last at Cape Mount the English flag was flying. The American governor of
Liberia came up, and was very desirous that the American flag should be
likewise hoisted, which the chief refused; he showed a decided
preference to the English.

7198. Is there a coasting traffic established along the coast to any
degree from point to point, and is any part of it carried on by the
liberated Africans of Sierra Leone?--I think not; I think the coasting
trade of Sierra Leone to the southward does not extend beyond one or two
towns in the Sherboro’ River, where they go for cam wood, which is
particularly good there. To the northward the canoes trade to the River
Scarcies, and occasionally, I think, as far as the Pongos. But those
boats that go to the Pongos always incur the suspicion that they are all
more or less carrying goods for the slave dealers in the Pongos; but as
far as regards the immediate coasting trade of Sierra Leone, it is very
much confined.

7199. You would be glad to see the services of a steamer secured for
Sierra Leone?--I think it is absolutely necessary.

7200. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] And also for the Gambia?--And for the Gambia
likewise. I think it is absolutely necessary for the Gambia, to
communicate between St. Mary’s and M‘Carthy’s Island. For instance, it
occurred while I was at the Gambia that information arrived from
M‘Carthy’s Island of the natives having attacked the island, and before
troops could be sent up, or I could get up in a sailing vessel, many
days elapsed, where a steam-boat would have done it in a day and a half.
Steam-boats would also be particularly useful for the suppression of the
slave trade.

7201. Is there any other point besides Sierra Leone and the Gambia where
you think they are particularly wanted?--I would say, generally along
the coast, for the suppression of the slave trade, I should say that it
would require half-a-dozen steamers to protect the coast between the
Gambia and the southernmost slaving ports on the western coast of
Africa.

7202. Where?--Down to Benguela. I think about half-a-dozen steam-boats
would be sufficient.

7203. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] What is the average passage by steam and the
average passage by sailing vessels between the Bight of Benin and Sierra
Leone?--It depends a great deal upon the season of the year. I think
from the Bight of Benin to Sierra Leone the average passage in sailing
vessels is about a month.

7204. Have you experience sufficient to enable you to state to the
Committee the average passage by steam-vessels?--No, I have not.

7205. What is the extreme length of passage between the Bight of Benin
and Sierra Leone in a sailing vessel; the question having reference
particularly to a sailing vessel taking slaves on board for adjudication
before the court at Sierra Leone?--I have heard of vessels being a very
long time, three months; I think I remember slave vessels that have
taken between two or three months to get up from the Bight of Benin to
Sierra Leone; but I think that is a very rare occurrence; usually the
passage is made in about a month.

7206. In all seasons?--In all seasons; I think a month is the average
passage.

7207. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] What is the shortest?--I think I have heard
of its being done in a fortnight.

7208. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] What is the average passage across the
Atlantic, from the Bight of Benin to the Havannah?--From five to six
weeks; but I think it is done in less time; I think I remember a slaver
telling me, that he did it in something less than a month, but I think
from five to six weeks is the average passage; the great difficulty is
getting immediately off the coast.

7209. _Chairman._] Are the winds mostly on shore?--It depends a great
deal on the season of the year.

7210. Would there be any difficulty in a vessel lying off Cape Palmas,
if it were thought desirable, for the purpose of regulating any
emigration that might proceed from those parts?--I think there would be
no difficulty in a cruizer remaining off Cape Palmas; in lying at anchor
there would be danger, but not in keeping under weigh.

7211. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you think that it would be possible for a
naval officer to undertake the service of clearing vessels for the West
Indies, having ascertained that the natives embarked on board came with
their free will, without any fraud or compulsion?--I think the local
authorities could do that better than a naval officer.

7212. The question refers to those parts where there are no local
authorities; and it proceeds on the supposition that no vessel could be
received with emigrants in the West Indies without a clearance from the
British officer commanding a certain range of coast: could a British
officer in the first place lie off and on, and in the next place, could
he discharge the duty of ascertaining whether the emigrants on board any
vessel submitted to his examination, were or were not engaged on that
voyage without fraud or compulsion?--I think he would have no other
means of ascertaining, but what he was told by the natives themselves.

7213. What course would he pursue; would he muster the emigrants on
deck, and be able to ascertain from them the circumstances under which
they were embarked?--Of course he would have to muster the negroes, and
he would question each whether they embarked with their free will for
the purpose of emigration; but to do that, he would require an
interpreter, and perhaps amongst the number, there might be a great many
who spoke different languages; therefore there would be as many
interpreters required, as there were different languages; and after all,
those people might declare that they had not been asked, and probably
place the naval officer in a very awkward predicament. He would be
subject entirely to the African, who might tell half-a-dozen different
stories in the course of so many months. It would be a very difficult
measure to carry out.

7214. _Chairman._] If they were only to embark Kroomen or inhabitants of
the coast, do you think he would have any difficulty in ascertaining
whether they were free agents or otherwise?--With Kroomen or Fishmen, I
think none whatever; because in the Kroo country and in the Fish country
the slave trade is not carried on, or if it is carried on, it is so
slight that we hardly know any thing about it.

7215. Mr. _Aldam_.] Is there more than one language spoken by the
Kroomen and the Fishmen?--There is some difference of language, but
still they understand one another.

7216. One interpreter would be sufficient with the Kroomen and the
Fishmen?--I think so.

7217. _Chairman._] Would the officer on the station be able
to distinguish Kroomen and Fishmen from the natives of the
interior?--Decidedly, any person could.

7218. So that if he were instructed to sanction the emigration only of
Kroomen and Fishmen, he would be in no danger of confounding them with
any other tribes?--No, they are so distinct a class; they are perfectly
different from any other natives. They differ materially in appearance,
and manners, and language, and every thing.

7219. Then if the emigration were confined to those classes, you do not
apprehend that there would be any difficulty in preventing that
emigration from assuming the character of slave trade?--I think there
would be no difficulty in the Kroo country and in the Fish country. The
difficulty would be on the part of the coast where the slave trade is
known to have been carried on, and where, from the slave trade having
been carried on, the different tribes are so very much intermixed.

7220. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Could it in that case be done by the
commander of a fort on shore, who if he had time, would be able to
ascertain the facts?--I think it would be an undertaking of great
trouble.

7221. Mr. _Forster_.] Have you made any other seizures on the coast of
Africa than the Augusta?--Several.

7222. Did you seize a vessel called the Sénégambie at St. Mary’s?--Yes,
I seized a vessel called the Sénégambie in the river Gambia.

7223. On what ground was that seizure made?--On account of being
equipped for the slave trade.

7224. Were you aware at the time you seized her that she had been
chartered by the governor of Senegal for the voyage in which she was
engaged?--I do not know whether I knew that at the time of making the
seizure, or whether it was immediately afterwards, but the impression
upon my mind is, that the owner told me in the custom-house that he was
going to Bissao for a cargo of negroes.

7225. Did he not show you his papers and engagements, or rather did you
examine them yourself?--The papers of the vessel when I seized her were
in the custom-house. The vessel had been in the port of St. Mary’s two
or three days.

7226. Did you not examine the papers?--I went to the custom-house for
the purpose of examining the papers, and there I met Mr. Marbeau, the
owner of the vessel, who told me the vessel was going to Bissao for a
cargo of negroes.

7227. Did he not inform you that the negroes were for the service of the
French government?--Afterwards I received copies of an agreement entered
into between Mr. Marbeau and the governor of Senegal, transmitted to me
by the governor of St. Mary’s.

7228. When did you receive them?--While I was at St. Mary’s.

7229. Before or after you had seized the vessel?--I think two or three
days after I had seized the vessel; but those papers are printed in the
correspondence, and they give much better information upon the subject.
I have nothing to guide me but my recollection.

7230. Were there any mechanics or persons on board of her from the
shore, at the time you seized her?--Yes; there were some mechanics on
board of her belonging to St. Mary’s, who were employed in caulking and
fitting the vessel for her intended voyage. There were also on board of
her three small children, who I thought were under most suspicious
circumstances, belonging to St. Mary’s.

7231. Did you think the carpenters and caulkers, who were engaged on
board the vessel from shore, were there under suspicious
circumstances?--No, they were employed on board the vessel, fitting the
vessel for her intended voyage to Bissao for a cargo of slaves. The
Sénégambie was partly equipped for the slave trade; she was lying in a
British port, equipping for a cargo of slaves, where she had been for
two or three days; the equipments were quite sufficient to condemn her,
and she was condemned at Sierra Leone. She was absolutely lying in a
British port equipping; she was to get provisions, and she had
carpenters and men at work upon her belonging to the colony.

7232. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Was she preparing false decks?--The
slave-deck was partly laid, not wholly laid; she was being generally
equipped for the voyage she was going on.

7233. _Chairman._] Were the carpenters laying the slave-deck?--I cannot
say exactly what the carpenters were doing; I did not see them laying
the slave-deck; but she was fitting out for her intended voyage to
Bissao. There was a slave-deck partly laid, and part of it to be laid,
and I believe they would have finished it.

7234. Were the planks ready for completing the slave-deck lying
there?--I think they were.

7235. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] But you are certain that part of her
slave-deck was laid?--Yes.

7236. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Did you seize her upon the ground of her
partial equipment?--Her equipment was the ground upon which I seized
her.

7237. _Chairman._] And it was the ground of her subsequent
condemnation?--It was; the equipment was perfectly proved.

7238. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you wish the Committee to understand that that
vessel was chartered by the governor of Senegal for a voyage to Bissao,
and that she was not fitted out for that voyage at Senegal?--That I
cannot say; I found her partly equipped, and lying in a British port,
equipping for her intended voyage. She was so far equipped for the slave
trade that there were ample grounds for my seizing her; and she was
there caulking, fitting, and preparing for sea. She was to receive
provisions for her intended voyage from the colony of St. Mary’s; at
least, so I was informed by the supercargo.

7239. How do you account for the vessel coming from the neighbouring
French settlement of Senegal to fit out for the purpose of receiving
those negroes at the Gambia?--It is a most extraordinary thing, in my
mind, that a vessel should sail from a French port, only distant 50 or
60 miles, and come to an English port, and there remain for two or three
days, with people at work upon her, caulking and repairing her, and
fitting her for sea.

7240. Mr. _Aldam_.] Had she had bad weather?--No, nothing at all of the
sort; by the vessel’s papers she was not out of Goree more than one day
before she arrived at the Gambia; I think less than one day.

7241. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you wish the Committee to understand that the
vessel did not arrive at the Gambia with all her fittings for the
voyage?--I have before stated that the vessel was lying in the Gambia,
caulking and equipping for her intended voyage. It is impossible for me
to state whether she brought her slave-deck with her to the Gambia, or
whether she procured her slave-deck at the Gambia; but if she came to
the Gambia with all those equipments on board, I would ask what can be
thought of our custom-house officers at the Gambia?

7242. Do you think the custom-house officers at the Gambia would very
readily conceive themselves entitled to seize a French vessel, chartered
by the governor of Senegal?--The vessel being chartered by the governor
of Senegal could have nothing to do with the laws that prevail in a
British port. The French governor of Senegal cannot be regarded in an
English port; our own laws are what are to govern our officers. The
custom-house officers’ duty was to seize a vessel that was acting
contrary to the laws of a British port.

7243. Therefore you think it was no excuse for the custom-house officers
that she was employed in the service of the French government?--None
whatever, because the custom-house officers, in all probability, would
be perfectly ignorant of that circumstance, as I was myself. I seized
her, and I was not aware she was employed by the French government till
I had seized her one or two days.

7244. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] The last question, and your last answer, have
assumed that the vessel was employed in the service of the French
government; is that what you wish the Committee to understand in respect
of a vessel chartered by the governor of Senegal: might it not have been
a speculation, on the part of the governor, as an individual, not
involving any responsibility on the part of the government of
France?--Undoubtedly it is very possible that it might have been a
speculation on the part of the governor of Senegal without the knowledge
of the French government; but in the case of a vessel equipped for the
slave trade in a British port, whether she is employed by the governor
of Senegal, or the governor of Bissao, or the governor of any nation,
cannot in any way affect our laws.

7245. Mr. _Aldam_.] Was this vessel, which was fitted up for the purpose
of procuring negroes for the French service, fitted up as an ordinary
slave ship?--As an ordinary slave ship.

7246. There were the same means of restraint?--Precisely; iron bars
across the hatchway, and the usual equipment of a slave vessel.

7247. So that it appeared that men were intended to be kept under
restraint upon the voyage?--Certainly.

7248. Mr. _Forster_.] Were there any slave-irons on board?--I do not at
this period remember very minutely her equipment, but there was quite
sufficient ground to authorise my seizing the vessel.

7249. What were those carpenters doing on board?--They were at work upon
the vessel.

7250. Can you describe the work they were doing?--I cannot do that: they
were performing their work as carpenters.

7251. _Chairman._] Do you recollect whether they were caulking outside,
or performing work inside the vessel?--I saw them at work, but I do not
remember whether they were caulking the outside or the inside; but I see
in my report that she had caulkers on board belonging to St. Mary’s, who
were caulking and equipping her.

7252. Mr. _Forster_.] When you found that those carpenters belonged to
St. Mary’s, did you send them on shore?--No, most assuredly not.

7253. Did you seize them with the vessel?--I sent them up with the
vessel to Sierra Leone, and put them into the court with the vessel; and
with respect to the three children that were on board, I considered,
from their age, that they could be in no way connected with the
equipping of the vessel, or otherwise concerned in the vessel beyond a
general suspicion arising in my mind of what was intended to be done
with those children, and I therefore sent them on shore to the governor
of the Gambia, that he might make such inquiry respecting those children
as he might judge proper.

7254. Did you consider that those carpenters, working for hire on board
a vessel in the harbour, were justly chargeable with a participation in
the slave trade?--They were found on board the vessel, and I considered
it was necessary that I should send them with the vessel before the
Vice-Admiralty Court.

7255. Did you consider them as assisting in the equipment of the
vessel?--They were assisting in the equipment of the vessel, and it was
with that view I sent them up; and, moreover, their evidence, if the
court had required it, would have been necessary to show that the vessel
was absolutely equipping in a British port; but perhaps the vessel would
have been condemned without it.

7256. What was the result of the trial?--The vessel was condemned.

7257. Mr. _Forster_.] If the vessel was so fully equipped for the
purposes of the slave trade, as you stated, how could the evidence of
those carpenters be necessary at Sierra Leone?--I have stated that the
vessel was partly equipped, and was completing her equipment in the port
of St. Mary’s; those carpenters being on board, I considered that it was
necessary that I should send them to Sierra Leone for the court to
decide in what way they were punishable.

7258. Were not representations made to you from the shore that those
people were carpenters belonging to the settlement, hired by the master
of the vessel, and in no way answerable for his proceedings, or for the
destination of the vessel?--No official representation was made to me;
perhaps some merchant, or some person connected with some mercantile
houses on shore might have told me so, but I certainly paid no attention
to it, nor did I consider myself bound to pay attention to any thing of
the sort. Had an official representation been made to me from the
governor, of course it would require my greatest attention; but if an
officer in the execution of his duty is to be guided by every person
that he may meet in the settlement telling him this, that, or the other,
there would be no possibility of his ever performing his duty.

7259. But at all events you knew that they were native workmen,
belonging to the British settlement at the Gambia?--Yes; I knew that
from their own story. I sent them up with the vessel, and put them into
court with the vessel, and moreover acquainted the lieutenant-governor
of the Gambia officially that I intended doing so.

7260. Were they put in prison upon their arrival at Sierra Leone?--I was
not at Sierra Leone when the vessel arrived. To the best of my knowledge
they were confined about a month.

7261. _Chairman._] Were they condemned?--I do not know.

7262. Mr. _Aldam_.] Were they confined preparatory to trial, or after
sentence?--I forget, for I was not at Sierra Leone at the time; but I
believe it was the Vice-Admiralty Court that confined them.

7263. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you know whether the carpenters were tried or
not?--I do not know; I was not at Sierra Leone during the trial of the
vessel, but I believe I arrived at Sierra Leone the very day that the
vessel was condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court.

7264. Did you make no inquiry as to the fate of those carpenters?--No, I
did not, because I left Sierra Leone, I think, the day after the vessel
was condemned, for Portendique, and I had no time to make inquiry on
either of the two days that I was at Sierra Leone. I knew that the
vessel was before the Vice-Admiralty Court who would decide upon the
merits of the case.

7265. Was there a French gentleman also on board the vessel when you
seized her?--There was a French person on board, whom I believed to be
the supercargo, and, I rather think, was the brother of Mr. Marbeau.

7266. Did you find that he was the supercargo of the vessel?--He told me
that he was the supercargo; and I believe that he was the brother of Mr.
Marbeau, the owner.

7267. Was he not a passenger from Senegal to the Gambia?--It is
impossible for me to say what he was.

7268. Had he been on shore at the Gambia previously to your seizing the
vessel?--It is impossible for me to say.

7269. Did you carry a French gentleman from the Gambia to Sierra Leone,
without making inquiry into his character and pursuits, and his
connexion with that vessel?--All persons who were found on board the
vessel, as I have before stated, with the exception of three black
children, I sent to Sierra Leone, because I could not tell, of course,
what he was doing in the vessel; he might be a French gentleman, or he
might be there for the purpose of purchasing slaves; or he might be, for
what I could tell, the very person who had got on board the three
children, who, I have before stated, I thought were placed in a very
suspicious position. My duty was to send everybody found in the vessel I
had captured, on the suspicion of slave dealing, before the court
appointed to adjudicate upon such cases.

7270. How did you consider him to be connected with those three
children?--What I stated was, that he might be; I have not said that he
was; I stated that I knew nothing about him, but finding him in the
slave vessel, I sent him with the slave vessel before the court.

7271. You sent the three children on shore?--Yes; everybody else I sent
before the court; and if any person in the world had been on board the
vessel I should have sent him in the same way; if an English merchant
had been on board, that merchant would have gone with the vessel
likewise before the court; the court is to decide upon the legality or
illegality of the conduct of persons found under such circumstances.

7272. _Chairman._] You conceive that that vessel, by her equipment was
clearly seizable, as engaged in the slave trade?--Yes, or else I should
not have seized her; I took upon myself a great responsibility in
seizing her.

7273. And under those circumstances you felt yourself called upon to
send every person found on board the vessel for adjudication before the
proper court?--Yes; if I had not done so, I should have conceived that I
laid myself open to the charge of not doing my duty.

7274. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] When you find a vessel reasonably suspected
of being engaged in the slave trade, you think those who are found on
board are liable to the same suspicion?--In the case of a vessel seized
amenable to the British law.

7275. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] Did you not find on board the vessel a
contract between Marbeau and Pellett on the one hand, and the French
governor on the other, to deliver a certain number of “passengers” at
Goree?--This contract for “Blacks” was forwarded to me by the
lieutenant-governor of the Gambia, one or two days after I had made the
seizure, which contract I sent to the Vice-Admiralty court, with the
vessel; every paper connected with the vessel, as well as the contract,
was laid before the court.

7276. Mr. _Forster_.] Were you aware that she was engaged by the French
government before you sent her from the Gambia?--I had seen this
contract, which was entered into by the French governor of Senegal, but
not the French government.

7277. Was the French gentleman, M. Pellett, put in prison also upon his
arrival at Sierra Leone?--I have stated that I know not what was done by
the court at Sierra Leone. Not being in Sierra Leone at the time the
vessel was at Sierra Leone, I cannot say; but, to the best of my belief,
the whole of them were put in prison.

7278. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Have you known instances of persons in
authority under other governments being engaged in slave dealing?--The
charge has been frequently repeated very strongly of the governor of
Bissao being engaged very frequently in slave dealing, and I verily
believe it myself, because I have frequently detected vessels with
papers given by the governor of Bissao, which vessels were equipped in
every way for being engaged in the slave trade; and I have also some
recollection of some papers being found from the governor of Bissao,
detailing how some slaves that he had sent from Bissao were to be
disposed of.

7279. That slave dealing being contrary to the law of his own
country?--That slave dealing being contrary to the treaty between
England and Portugal.

7280. Therefore the mere fact of finding the name of a governor upon
the papers would not be a complete warrant for the lawfulness of the
traffic in which the vessel was engaged?--I should pay great respect to
the name of the French governor, but I should be very cautious how I
regarded the name of the governor of Bissao, because I have seen so many
instances of papers in which his name has been used to cover slaving
transactions.

7281. Mr. _Forster_.] Was the captain of the Sénégambie a black or a
white man?--I think a black man was represented to me as the captain.

7282. Mr. _Aldam_.] You spoke of the desirableness of having forts upon
the African coast, upon the territory of the native chiefs. What
establishment would it be necessary to have in any such fort?--I should
think if the forts were small and well built, a very few men would be
sufficient; I should fancy the best form of fort to be erected would be
a Martello tower, that they might have one gun upon a pivot, so that for
the defence of the fort it would require very few men.

7283. How many whites?--I should say half white and half black; I should
say a dozen men altogether.

7284.--Would not one or two white officers be sufficient, the rest of
the men being black?--That would do if you could insure white officers
living, but the danger is of one dying, and in that case to whom would
the charge of the fort devolve. It would be necessary to have a
sufficient number of white people, that you might always insure one
person to be in command.

7285. Are there no sub-officers blacks, whom you might entrust with a
command of that kind, subject to the visits of the captains of
men-of-war upon the station?--I think not at present; I think Africa
would require to be much further advanced in civilization before it
would be prudent to trust a fort entirely to black men.

7286. And it would generally happen that those forts would be built upon
an unhealthy part of the coast?--It is almost impossible to select any
part of the coast of Africa as being healthy. One spot may be more
healthy this season than another; but there is very little difference
upon the coast. The coast of Africa, from the Kroo country up to
Senegal, is generally composed of a low swampy mangrove line of coast.
Those mangroves extend frequently from 25 to 30 miles into the interior.
There are spots like Sierra Leone, Cape Verde, and Cape Mount, where you
can find high land; but generally speaking it is all a swampy mangrove
coast.

7287. The spots you would select for those forts for commercial purposes
would generally happen to be unhealthy?--It would naturally so occur,
because they would require to be near the mouths of the principal
rivers, for drawing the exports down from the interior; but I should
think that the communication would be drawn down better from the
interior by opening some communication, or making an agreement or treaty
with some of the inland powerful chiefs, such as the Foolahs, who are by
far the most enlightened race that I have seen, and much more advanced
towards civilization than the people in any other part of Africa that I
have been in.

7288. Sir _T. D. Acland._] Does Teembo belong to them?--Yes.

7289. Mr. _Aldam_.] Would you contemplate in that case having a fort
some distance up the river?--No; in the River Nunez, to which I allude
with respect to the Foolahs, I do not think it would be necessary,
because the petty chiefs immediately at the mouth of the Nunez, who are
now likely to give trouble, would be kept in order by them; I think a
treaty entered into with the Foolah chief, would in a great measure
ensure our trade with the Foolah country. Through the means of the
Foolah chief we should be enabled to carry on trade independent of the
petty chiefs, through whose territory the trade now has to pass.

7290. What kind of treaty would you make with those chiefs?--The object
of it would be to bind the Foolah chief down to afford protection and
security to our commerce, and to people settling in his country, for the
purpose of carrying on trade.

7291. And you think it would be easy to obtain such a treaty?--I think
so; I judge from the opinion given me by a Foolah chief, whom I met in
the Nunez, and who expressed himself desirous that the white people
should not leave the River Nunez, and said that he would be very happy
to escort me up to Teembo, that the Foolah Almaamy would be very happy
to see me.

7292. Over what extent of country would the influence of this chief
extend?--The Foolah country is now very extensive. The kingdom of
Kikandy is in some measure tributary to the Foolah country.

7293. Mr. _Forster_.] Were you at Sierra Leone when the affair of the
Hamburgh vessel, the Echo, took place?--I was at Sierra Leone while the
Echo was there.

7294. Did you apply to the captain of the Echo for some of his crew?--I
met some of the crew of the Echo, who came to me and expressed a wish to
enter the Saracen for Her Majesty’s service, and on meeting the captain
of the Echo, I mentioned to him that those people had done so; but I had
no idea of entering the crew, as they were all foreigners.

7295. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] How far is the Nunez navigable?--For vessels
drawing 10 feet water to Debucca, a distance of 50 or 60 miles; and for
large canoes I should think much higher.


  HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  _Select Committee on West Coast of Africa._
  R. R. GIBBONS, Esq. to MESSRS. ZULUETA & Co.

  Gentlemen,

  July 15th, 1842.

  I send you herewith a copy of evidence given by Captain Hill, of a
  later date than that I sent on a previous occasion.

  I am, &c.

  (signed)

  _R. R. Gibbons._


_Lunæ, 4º die Julii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. W. Hamilton.

  VISCOUNT SANDON, in the chair.

  Captain _Henry Worsley Hill_, called in; and further Examined.

7958*. _Chairman._] Have you something which you wish to add to your
evidence on the case of the Augusta?--Yes; I wish to state, with respect
to my detaining the Augusta, the grounds on which the seizure was made,
as far as my memory will admit of my going, and I feel myself at liberty
to disclose to the Committee. On going on board the Augusta, amongst the
letters and papers that were seized by me, I found a letter, dated
“London, 20th August 1840.” This letter is a reply to a letter written
by Captain Jennings from Portsmouth, stating, “We cannot exceed 500_l._
for the vessel in question, such as described in your letter; if you
cannot, therefore, succeed at those limits, we must give up the
purchase.” This letter is signed Zulueta & Co. By this letter, it
certainly appears to me that the vessel was purchased by Zulueta &, Co.,
or intended to be purchased by that firm. The next letter is dated
“London, 26th of September 1840,” addressed to Captain Thomas Jennings,
Portsmouth; the signature of this letter was cut out on my finding it.
It acknowledged the receipt of Captain Jenning’s letter of the following
day, observing “that the sum remitted would not be sufficient to cover
the expenses, to clear the ship, and requesting that Captain Jennings
would write the next day, stating the sum that was necessary, that it
might be forwarded to him by the post of Monday night, to enable the
ship to sail for Liverpool on Tuesday or Wednesday at furthest.” The
signature cut out. But there is a note to the letter: “According to our
Liverpool mode, note, you will go on shore to the Salt House Dock.” The
next paper I would allude to, is the charter-party of the vessel, dated
London, 19th October 1840, wherein it is mutually agreed, between Mr.
Thomas Jennings, master and owner of the good ship or vessel called the
Augusta, and Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. of Havannah, that the ship
shall load from the factories of the said Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. a
cargo of legal goods, and shall proceed therewith to Gallinas, on the
coast of Africa, and there deliver the same; after which she may be sent
on any legal voyage between the West Indies, England, Africa, or the
United States, according to the directions of the charterer’s agents.
The freight to be paid on unloading and right delivery of the cargo, at
the rate of 100_l._ sterling per calendar month. The necessary cash for
the ship’s disbursements to be furnished to the captain free of
commission; the captain being indebted to the charterers in certain
sums, as per acknowledgment elsewhere. The freight earned by the vessel
to be held as general lien for such sums.” This is signed Thomas
Jennings, for Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. of Havannah, Zulueta & Co.

7959*. Jennings is the owner of the vessels?--Yes.

7960*. And Zulueta appears as the agent to Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co.,
chartering Jenning’s vessel for certain purposes?--Yes; by the extract
from the first letter it appears that Zulueta bought the vessel; by the
second letter he pays the expenses of the vessel; but the charter-party
is made out by Thomas Jennings, as the owner of the vessel.

7961*. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Then Zulueta acts as agent for Messrs. Pedro
Martinez & Co.?--Yes; the next paper, I will read the extract from is
marked “Additional Memorandum of Charter-party;” which commences, “I
Thomas Jennings, captain and owner of the ship Augusta, declare I have
received from Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. of this city, 1,100_l._
sterling, for the disbursements of the said ship, the fitting out and
provisions, which I engage myself to repay, with the earnings of the
same, namely, all the earnings of the ship, will be accounted for and
applied to the said Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co., they furnishing the
cash for all expenses, crew’s wages (including 15_l._ per month for my
salary as captain). At any time when the said gentlemen may think proper
to close the charter-party, I will deliver to them, or their
representative, a bill of sale for the said ship, and all her
appurtenances, to cover the balance due to them in the said account.” It
states, that Mr. Thomas Jennings is no way responsible for the
settlement of the above-mentioned debt, but with the said ship and her
earnings, and that Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. will take on themselves
the insurance and risk on the vessel. This paper is dated London, 21st
October, 1840, and signed “Thomas Jennings.” The next paper is the bill
of lading, which states the cargo to be shipped by Thomas Jennings, of
Liverpool, in the Augusta, lying in the port of Liverpool and bound to
Gallinas: 20 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, one case of
looking-glasses, 10 casks copper ware, 134 bales of merchandize, 1,600
iron pots, 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be delivered at Gallinas to Don
Alvarez, Don Angel Ximenez, and Don Jose Perez Rolla. This is dated
Liverpool, 10th November 1840. The vessel had no register, but a sailing
licence from the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs, wherein Thomas
Jennings, of No. 2, James-street, Limehouse, is represented to be the
owner, and that the vessel is to be employed in foreign trade. There is
also an account current between Messrs. Zulueta with Thomas Jennings,
master of the Augusta, amounting to 339_l._ 16_s._ 9_d._, the chief part
of which is for the disbursements of the vessel. I further state to the
Committee, that ten letters were found on board this vessel, dated
Cadiz, and addressed to three notorious slave merchants at Gallinas: in
one of these letters, addressed to Señor Ignacio Perez Rolla, at
Gallinas, dated Cadiz, 30th November 1840, is a paragraph to the
following effect: “In a letter, dated London the 21st instant, which I
have just received from Messrs. Zulueta & Co., merchants, in London, I
had the pleasure of receiving a bill drawn by you on them for 250_l._,
which I this day place to their credit, waiting your advice of the
same.” This letter is signed “M.” but no name. The other letters were
all on slave business; not a word of any innocent trade, but the whole
directing how slaves were to be shipped on board various vessels.

7962*. Who were they signed by?--All signed in the same way.

7963*. Signed “M.”?--Yes, and to the best of my recollection, every
vessel to which they referred was captured by Captain Denman and myself.

7964*. Where were these letters dated from?--From Cadiz; the Vanguardia
was captured by Captain Denman; the Uracca by myself, the Diana also;
the other vessel referred to in the letters is the Gabriel, which vessel
fired upon the boats of Her Majesty’s vessel Termagant, killing three or
four of her crew, and has been since captured by the Acorn, Captain
Adams. Therefore these letters at once show that the three persons to
whom they were addressed, residing at Gallinas, and who were the parties
to whom the Augusta was consigned, were most extensively engaged in
slave dealing. No other letters were found on board the Augusta but
those that related to slave dealing.

7965*. The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her way out from
England?--Yes, and landed part of her cargo at Cadiz, although it was
consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.

7966*. What are the inferences that you draw from these papers?--That
Zulueta, by the letter of the 20th of August, 1840, advanced the money
for the purchase of the vessel; that by the letter of the 26th of
September, that Zulueta advanced the money to defray her expenses and
fitting out, necessary before she proceeded to sea; that Mr. Jennings
was put in as the owner, when in fact he was not the owner; that Zulueta
was perfectly aware of this, and that he chartered the vessel to carry a
cargo on behalf of Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. of Havannah, a notorious
slave dealer, which cargo was to be delivered to three notorious slave
dealers at the Gallinas; that afterwards these notorious slave dealers
at Gallinas were to have the direction of the vessel for the future
proceedings; and, moreover, that at any time Messrs. Martinez, or their
agents, thought proper to close the charter party, the vessel was to be
given up to their agents, by which means, a ship bearing English colours
was certainly employed by notorious slave dealers; she was to be
directed in her voyage by slave dealers; and she was, at any time these
notorious slave dealers thought proper to name, to be given up to them
entirely. This transaction, with the purchase of the vessel, and a
person put in as the nominal owner who was not the owner, cannot but
stamp a character that the vessel was engaged, with the knowledge of
Zulueta, in some trade that they were desirous should not be discovered.

7967*. Mr. _Forster_.] Inform the Committee in what way you connect
Messrs. Zulueta & Co. illegally with any improper transaction there, or
what part of the transaction which you have detailed it was not
competent for foreign merchants to perform as agents in this country;
mention which part they were not bound to perform, provided they
received instructions from their agents at Havannah to do it, having
money in their hands to make a purchase of the vessel and ship the
goods?--Messrs. Zulueta must be aware that it is contrary to law to act
as agents, or otherwise, for the shipment of goods that are to be
employed in the slave trade; they were bound to do no thing illegal;
they are merchants residing in England, and they must conform themselves
to the laws of England, and they cannot, by the laws of England, plead
ignorance of those laws.

7968*. _Chairman._] You conceive it would be unlawful for an agent in
this country to ship goods to be employed in the slave trade?--Yes.

7969*. Mr. _Forster_.] How is a merchant acting in this country in
pursuance of orders from his correspondent abroad to know what that
correspondent means to do with the goods which he purchases on his
account and ships at Liverpool?--In this case I think it is plain that
Messrs. Zulueta entered into a scheme for chartering and purchasing a
vessel, and putting in an owner, and establishing a British character to
a vessel that he could not be ignorant was to be engaged in the slave
trade, or in some trade which, for reasons that Messrs. Martinez may
have, that they wished to keep in the back ground, and that secrecy
alone ought to have called from Messrs. Zulueta a degree of vigilance,
and more particularly a vessel being bound to a place on the coast of
Africa, where, if they had taken the slightest trouble in the world,
they must have known there were no constituted authorities or
custom-house officers, or any persons of an European nation who could
ascertain if she was engaged in legal trade.

7970*. Then, in fact, you think it is imperative on the English
merchant, before he executes the orders of his foreign correspondent, in
any matter relating to the trade between Brazils, Cuba, and the coast of
Africa, to send out and inquire the character of the party with whom the
transaction is connected on the coast of Africa?--I have stated nothing
of the sort; but I have endeavoured to be particular in making it appear
that this vessel was chartered to a place where there were no
constituted authorities. A vessel to be chartered to the Brazils or
Cuba, or any country where authorities existed in the colony of a
recognized nation, would materially alter the position of Messrs.
Zulueta; but Messrs. Zulueta, as I before stated, residing in England,
it became the duty of that house to be guarded that they did not break
the laws.

7971*. Do you speak of this as a matter of prudence and taste on the
part of Zulueta & Co., or as an act of criminality?--As far as I am able
to give my own opinion, I believe that Messrs. Zulueta were perfectly
criminal; at least they had a perfect knowledge of what they were doing.
I think I am borne out in that by the secrecy they have endeavoured to
purchase, and putting in a false owner. Messrs. Zulueta have been for a
number of years agents to the notorious Pedro Blanco; they have also
before this purchased and sent out to the Havannah a notorious slave
vessel called the Arrogante, which circumstance was represented by Mr.
Tolme, Her Majesty’s consul at the Havannah, to the English Government,
and is also in the printed correspondence laid before parliament, either
for the year 1839 or 1840. In fact, there can be no want of evidence to
show that Messrs. Zulueta had for a length of time been agents to slave
dealers; and I think it is impossible that any merchant can be an agent
and ship cargoes of goods without ascertaining some knowledge of the
party for whom they are shipped.

7972*. in the first place, you assume that it was illegal for Messrs.
Zulueta & Co. to ship these goods to Alvarez at the Gallinas; are you
quite sure that that is not a gratuitous assumption of law on your
part?--I am speaking from my own belief; I cannot say what the law is,
but I am speaking from my own belief, and the inferences I can draw from
the vessel’s papers. I think the papers are quite conclusive to the mind
of any man that Zulueta was cognizant of what he was doing; but as far
as it is an illegal transaction it is not for me to judge, but the judge
of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone did think it illegal, and
condemned the vessel; and, moreover, the man who is put forward as
captain and owner did not defend the vessel on her trial.

7973*. Are you quite sure he had the means to do so?--He cannot plead as
an excuse that he had not the means, for the owner of a vessel in a
British port, with a cargo worth between 4,000_l._ and 5,000_l._, I
think, could always manage to raise 30_l._ or 40_l._ for the defence of
his vessel.

7974*. Was that cargo in his possession, or was it under seizure at the
time you speak of?--The vessel and all was seized by me, but still there
was the captain and the owner present, and nothing was touched until the
condemnation took place.

7975*. How could he offer security and raise money on a seized ship and
cargo?--To say how he is to do so is not for me; I am not a mercantile
man, but I only observe, that it is most extraordinary that the owner of
a ship, with a cargo on board, cannot, in a British port, raise 50_l._
for the defence of that vessel.

7976*. But how can you affect any wonder on that subject, when you
yourself admit that you do not know how he was to do it?--I have already
stated that I am no mercantile man, and to say how these things are
done, I cannot.


  MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
  TAKEN BEFORE
  THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WEST COAST OF AFRICA.

_Mercurii, 22º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Mr. Aldam.
  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Sir Robert H. Inglis.
  Mr. Milnes.
  Mr. W. Patten.
  Mr. Stuart Wortley.

  Captain the Honourable _Joseph Denman_, R. N. called in; and Examined.

6540. _Chairman._] Will you state what your service on the coast of
Africa has been?--My first acquaintance with the coast of Africa was in
the year 1834, when I took over a slave vessel from Rio Janeiro. In the
year 1835 I commanded the Curlew, upon that coast, for a considerable
period; and for the last two years I have been in charge of the coast
between Cape Verde and Cape Palmas. I was the senior officer upon that
district.

6541. What has been the course of the slave trade since your
acquaintance with the coast of Africa; has it decreased in extent, or
changed its direction?--Since my first acquaintance with the coast, the
slave trade has changed in many most important particulars, both with
regard to the locality and with regard to the method in which it has
been carried on.

6542. Will you state first, as to the locality, in what respect it has
changed?--In the year 1835, when the Equipment Treaty came into force,
the effect was, in a great measure, to drive the slave trade into the
south latitude, where it was carried on with perfect impunity, under the
flag of Portugal, by the then existing treaty. They then found that upon
the north coast they could carry on the slave trade, by using the flag
of Portugal, exactly as before.

6543. By the north coast, you mean north of the equator?--Yes: but from
the end of the year 1839 they have been equally shut out from the
Portuguese and from the Spanish flag. Up to that period no check
whatever had been effected. Since that period I conceive that the slave
trade has diminished to one-half what it was before.

6544. Not only north of the equator, but along the whole coast?--Along
the whole coast of Africa. The whole amount of the export of slaves from
Africa is, in my opinion, now, not one-half what it was previously to
the Act of 2 Victoria, empowering us to capture Portuguese ships fitted
for the slave trade. The effect of all former changes had been to throw
the slave trade under the flag of Portugal, where it received a perfect
protection in the southern latitude, and in the northern latitude was
on the same footing on which it had been always since the trade was
first established.

6545. Does the trade seem now to look to any flag to cover itself
under?--They seem to have been deprived of every flag they could
possibly look to; they no longer receive protection from any flag.

6546. Not from the American?--Not from the American flag, decidedly,
except indirectly.

6547. Do you conceive that the present system, if carried on with the
same amount of force, will reduce the slave trade to a still greater
extent?--My opinion is, that the system of blockade is that which alone
can be successful under any circumstances, but that to render it
effective we want a considerable increase of force; with an increase of
force I believe that in three years the slave trade may be demolished
and exterminated.

6548. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] In the south as well as in the north?--Yes;
there is no longer any difference since the 2nd of Victoria.

6549. _Chairman._] Do you contemplate a blockade of the whole coast?--I
contemplate the blockade of those parts where the slave trade is carried
on.

6550. Do you believe that a material check to the trade, or an
extirpation of the trade for two or three years, in any one place, makes
it difficult to resume it afterwards, if the interference of the
cruizers is suspended?--It turns the trade into another course. When
once the trade is interrupted at any place, people are not in the habit
of sending traders up the country for slaves, and traders from the
interior cease to bring slaves down to them there, and there is great
difficulty felt in resuming it; and in almost every instance legitimate
commerce comes in, and the wants of the natives are supplied by those
means; but I would not in such cases suspend the interference of the
cruizers altogether, until the slave trade should be entirely
eradicated.

6551. You believe that when the slave trade is checked for a period,
legitimate commerce grows up in its place, and the desire to resume it
is diminished?--I think the desire to resume it is diminished, in the
first place, principally on account of the difficulty of resuming it. I
believe that all over Africa the natives prefer the slave trade to any
other trade.

6552. But you conceive that the lawful trade co-operates with the
efforts of the cruizers?--In speaking of lawful trade I think it is
necessary to state, that in my opinion the only legitimate trade of
Africa, in the strict sense of the term, is that wherein goods are paid
for in produce; all other trade, more or less, is connected with the
slave trade.

6553. You mean that the money by which goods are paid for can only have
been acquired by the slave trade?--Universally by the slave trade;
dollars are brought upon the coast by no other means.

6554. Mr. _Forster_.] Those dollars and doubloons being diffused over
the coast, in what way would you propose to stop the circulation of
them?--I do not propose to stop the circulation of them.

6555. _Chairman._] When you say “lawful trade,” you mean trade which you
would consider as free from any connexion with the slave trade?--Trade
which is altogether unconnected with the slave trade.

6556. Where it is a mere exchange of goods for produce, you see no
connexion with the slave trade?--No connexion whatever.

6557. But where you see an exchange of goods for money, there you
conceive there is at least a suspicion of the slave trade?--I do not
think that an individual receiving dollars or money upon the coast
should of necessity be suspected or accused of engaging in or conniving
at the slave trade in any way; I merely say that such transactions do
indirectly partake and mingle with slave-trading transactions.

6558. Because the money is brought upon the coast originally only by the
slave trade?--Yes.

6559. But the parties receiving the money may be totally exempt from any
connexion themselves with the slave trade?--They may be certainly
unconnected with the slave trade altogether.

6560. Wherever the slave trade is carried on, there probably money will
be found?--Invariably.

6561. And therefore those who deal in lawful goods, in places where the
slave trade is also carried on, will probably receive money in the
course of their transactions?--In many places altogether money.

6562. What is the change in the system of blockade at present, as
compared with the former system?--Under the former system we had no
power over the ship until the slaves were actually on board. The
consequence was, that if a man-of-war lay in a port full of slavers, as
I have seen Whydah, with ten or a dozen slavers at one time, so long as
the man-of-war was in sight they would not ship their slaves; directly
the man-of-war was out of sight they shipped their slaves; and every
vessel in the harbour would weigh their anchor and set sail. The cruizer
would probably chase the wrong ship, and after having chased 100 miles
would be laughed at by the master of her, and told that he only did it
as a _pasatiempo_.

6563. Then the change of system is essentially dependent upon the power
of seizing under the equipment treaty?--Yes, entirely; the system of
blockade is only effective in consequence of that change in the powers
of the cruizers.

6564. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] The equipment treaty allows you to enter
rivers, and to board ships even while lying in the river?--The equipment
treaties do not give any new rights as regards places.

6565. Under that treaty you may examine slavers lying in the river, and
seize them there?--The sole difference is this, we might have searched
them formerly as we may search them now, but we could not seize them
before unless slaves were on board.

6566. _Chairman._] Are you acquainted with the condition of the leeward
coast?--I have not been on the leeward coast since the year 1835.

6567. You cannot speak to the condition of that coast as to the slave
trade?--I can state that then it was carried on to an enormous extent;
that I knew 20 sail of vessels to be there, and that under those former
treaties every one of those 20 escaped with full cargoes of slaves.

6568. You have been cruizing the last two years to the north of Cape
Palmas?--I have.

6569. What are the points that have been principally the resort of the
slave trade during that period?--The Gallinas, to an enormous extent;
New Cestos, which lies to the southward of Mesurado, between Mesurado
and Cape Palmas; Sea-bar at the Sherboro’ river; the rivers Pongas,
Bissao, and Cacheo.

6570. Which should you say have been the places from which the slave
trade has been carried on with the greatest vigour?--The Gallinas,
immeasurably more than any other place; but at Bissao, since the
destruction of the Gallinas, owing to the great difficulty of cruizing
there, it has increased, and no doubt will increase more, unless proper
measures are taken.

6571. What is the great difficulty of cruizing off Bissao?--There is an
inland navigation, a chain reaching from Bissao to the sea upon the
north. There are innumerable islands to the south, amongst which there
are seven or eight different passages by which the slavers could escape;
and there is the Portuguese settlement of Bissao, under which a slaver
may lie with perfect impunity under the Portuguese flag. From all those
circumstances, there is the greatest difficulty in the cruizers
operating effectually there.

6572. You have not the right of capturing under the walls of either a
Spanish or a Portuguese fort?--No, we cannot supersede their municipal
laws; all we can do is to remonstrate with the authorities.

6573. But you may seize as soon as the vessel is out of their
waters?--Yes; but they take care never to go out when you are in the
neighbourhood; they can get the most perfect information by canoes.

6574. Would steamers be especially adapted for cruizing on that
coast?--I consider two steamers indispensable for eradicating the slave
trade between the isle of Bulama and Bissao, assisted by two cruizers at
least; but a yet more important object is the occupation of the Bulama
island, from which the slavers have received the greatest possible
assistance, and the occupation of which would directly intercept the
principal supply of slaves. It is an island not only of immense
importance as regards commerce, but also of extraordinary fertility.

6575. Is it salubrious?--I cannot say that any part of the coast of
Africa is salubrious, but I have no reason to believe that it is less so
than other parts; this inland is one of the last importance; I do not
think it is possible to appreciate it without seeing Captain Belcher’s
chart.

6576. What is the importance of that island to commerce?--It is at the
mouth of all the rivers; the river Nunez, which is a river of vast
importance, in my opinion, and the Rio Grande, and the Rio Pongos. It
intercepts the trade with Bissao completely.

6577. Do those great rivers open out a fertile country?--I think not,
generally; I think the banks are generally very swampy near the sea; but
there is a very large inland trade brought down the river, both in
slaves and produce: the slaves are carried almost entirely to Bissao.

6578. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] You have referred to the occupation of the
island of Bulama, as furnishing by its geographical position a most
important station for the prevention of the slave trade, was not it
selected by Captain Beaver for that purpose, and was not its almost
proverbial unhealthiness the cause of its abandonment?--I believe there
was a great deal of prejudice upon the subject; I believe, moreover,
that the settlement was most injudiciously selected for health, and I
think, besides, that if you compare it with certain periods at Sierra
Leone, and every other part of the coast, there will be found periods
quite as unhealthy at other places as at Bulama. I think Captain
Beaver’s account of the island fully explains the causes of the
sickness. It was very much from the misconduct of the people. I know
that when orders came out to declare the sovereignty of Great Britain
over that island, 1,600 persons at Sierra Leone volunteered to me to go
there to settle it at a time when the emigrant ships could not get a
man, so high was the impression of the people as to its advantages.

6579. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Are none of the other islands so well
situated?--None to be compared to this, and this is the only one over
which we have any claim.

6580. In point of health how are the other islands as compared with
Bulama?--I have no means of judging, being inhabited by barbarous
piratical people, with whom we have no sort of intercourse at present;
the policy of the Portuguese is to keep all the persons surrounding
their settlement in the most barbarous state.

6581. Mr. _Aldam_.] What is the nature of the land on the opposite
coast?--All swampy, I believe.

6582. Then is not the island necessarily unhealthy?--No, I think not; I
think that if the sea coast on the western side of the island was
occupied, it would not be so; it is certainly not more swampy than the
Gambia itself, and many other settlements.

6583. Mr. _Forster_.] You attribute the failure of Captain Beaver to the
inadequacy of the means that he employed rather than to the fault of the
island?--I think it was a great deal owing to that; I think there is no
proof that the island is unhealthy to the extent supposed, and I believe
the island might be immediately peopled by blacks.

6584. Have you in the course of your cruizing on the coast of Africa
seen any part that appeared to you to be so eligible for a settlement as
the island of Bulama?--I have already stated in as strong terms as I am
able, the importance of the island, in my opinion, in every respect;
there may be places that I should suppose to be more healthy; for
instance, Sierra Leone itself, is apparently the most healthy part of
the whole coast, but there seems to be great doubt whether it is so.

6585. Mr. _Aldam_.] If the opposite coast is swampy, would not fever
almost always prevail there when the wind sets from the land?--I am not
at all able to say what causes fever, for we find it under all
circumstances; you find sometimes swampy places less unhealthy than high
places.

6586. Mr. _Forster_.] Did you land on the island of Bulama?--Yes.

6587. Have you seen any considerable portion of the island?--No, I have
not, excepting the coast.

6588. Is it your opinion that there is open ground there?--I found the
ground under cultivation, and therefore only told the people that it was
a British island; I thought it would have been injudicious to remove
them and let jungles spring up before the Government took possession of
it.

6589. You saw no extraordinary obstacle to the cultivation and
improvement of the island?--Decidedly not; I think it is the most
favourable spot for cultivation I have seen upon the coast of Africa.

6590. Have you been up to the river Nunez or the river Pongas?--I have
been up the Nunez and the Pongas.

6591. To what distance?--I went up the Nunez as high as Kacundy, about
40 or 50 miles in a direct line; it is where the British factories are;
it is the place to which all the trade of the Foota-Jallon nation is
brought.

6592. Did you land upon the banks of the river?--Yes; I was five days in
the river altogether.

6593. Did you see any thing of the state of the cultivation?--I had no
means of judging; I do not believe the exports of the produce raised in
the neighbourhood of the river itself at all important; the important
commerce is that which is brought down from Foota-Jallon; and the
opportunities I had of judging gave me the highest impression of the
state of that country. I think they are far superior to any other
African people I have ever had the means of acquiring a knowledge of;
they are a Foolah nation, in the Foota-Jallon country; Teembo is the
capital.

6594 Mr. _Forster_.] You found those British factories depending
entirely upon the protection of the natives, without any British
establishment to assist them?--I went up for the purpose of affording
them protection; there is no Government establishment of any sort, nor
do I think it desirable there should be.

6595. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] What is the ground of that opinion?--That the
river is exceedingly unhealthy; and my opinion is that the Government
influence would be quite as well supported by occasional visits by steam
ships, and Bulama would afford support to the trade, if colonized.

6596. _Chairman._] What kind of settlement do you contemplate upon the
island of Bulama?--A colony of black people, with any traders there that
choose to go there, supported by a small fort, with a detachment of the
African corps.

6597. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Under the English Government?--Under the
English Government.

6597*. And visited by steamers?--And visited by steamers and cruizers.

6598. Mr. _W. Patten_.] What time does it require to go from Sierra
Leone to Bulama?--It depends a great deal upon the time of year; I
should say, generally, the passage might be made in less than three
days.

6599. Do you recollect the distance?--I am not quite sure; 200 miles, I
should think.

6600. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Would you have this colony dependent upon the
Government of Sierra Leone?--Yes, I think decidedly.

6601. Mr. _Forster_.] Tn preference to its being attached to the
Gambia?--It depends upon the facility of communication between the two;
whichever the communication is most easy with, I should say it should be
connected with. I am not prepared to say at this moment with which the
communication is most easy.

6602. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] But at all events you think it should be
dependent upon one or the other, not separate?--I think so.

6603. Mr. _Forster_.] You were understood to say that the country up the
River Nunez, and the River Pongas, is swampy in the interior?--The
mouths of the rivers are swampy, but up the Nunez there is good rising
ground; the Pongas is a succession of creeks joining each other.

6604. Did you become acquainted with the fact up the Nunez of the growth
of coffee on the mountains?--I became aware of the fact of coffee
growing in whole forests, which have been hitherto neglected in
consequence of the duties amounting to a prohibition.

6605. Is it your opinion that the slave trade is carried on in the Nunez
to any material extent?--The Portuguese settlement of Bissao has small
boats and canoes collecting slaves, together with produce, as far down
as the north bank of the Sierra Leone river; there are many of those
boats and canoes employed in the Nunez, but to the best of my belief no
vessel has carried slaves from thence for several years, except in one
instance, where, under the plea of recruits, the French took away a
cargo.

6606. _Chairman._] The canoes go about picking up a few at a time, and
collecting them into a store, as it were, at Bissao and Cacheo?--At
Bissao and Cacheo; I have no doubt that there are also barracoons upon
the Bissagos islands, but I had no opportunity to examine as to the
fact.

6607. Mr. _Forster_.] You do not consider the British factories in Rio
as at all responsible for those proceedings?--Decidedly not; I have no
reason to suppose that they are.

6608. How do you account for so few cruizers having generally visited
that part of the coast hitherto?--Because the station which I had charge
of has generally been very short of cruizers; the only means of
communication was by boats, and owing to the long exposure, and the
fatigue it occasioned, it invariably cost the lives of about a fourth of
the people employed, whereas a steamer might do in one day what boats
take four or five days to do.

6609. _Chairman._] How would you provide fuel for the steamers in those
parts?--I am not aware how far wood might be substituted for coal; I
think in that part wood certainly might be used, because they would be
able to take in supplies so frequently.

6610. They would have no long distances to go?--Not in that district.

6611. So that they need never be far removed from the
depôts?--Precisely; there might be depôts at Bulama, and at the Gambia,
and at Sierra Leone; the great difficulty is the engineers; you are
obliged to have white engineers at present, but there is no sort of
reason why black people of Sierra Leone should not be brought up for
the purpose. There are numbers sufficiently educated for the purpose,
and with proper instruction, in the course of a few years, they would
supersede the necessity for white engineers.

6612. Mr. _Forster_.]--Have you not found the natives rather remarkable
for the quickness and facility with which they learn mechanical
operations of that kind?--I have found them quite equal to white people
in that respect, possessing great intelligence, and quickness, and
shrewdness, making allowance for their want of education and barbarous
habits in general.

6613. Mr. _Wortley_.] Did you ever consider how far it would be possible
to establish an effective blockade upon the coast which has been the
scene of the slave trade by means of a combination of steamers and
sailing cruizers?--I believe that by such means, by taking certain
districts of the coast pointed out by particular circumstances, and
effectively and continuously blockading those parts, and then moving
from point to point, leaving a smaller force to prevent the slave trade
from reviving, that system would be perfectly effective in the course of
three years, supposing the forces to be increased.

6614. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] From what point to what point?--I speak
merely of the West Coast, I have no knowledge of the East; but I have no
hesitation in saying that it might be effected from Cape Verde down to
the northern part of our Cape of Good Hope dominions.

6615. Mr. _Wortley_.] In order to accomplish that object are you able to
state what you imagine would be the necessary force of steamers and
cruizers?--I should say that steamers are only necessary in particular
parts; I should say that six steamers would be quite enough.

6616. _Chairman._] And how many sailing-vessels?--There are now upon the
coast sixteen sailing-vessels; I would increase them by at least
one-half; I would withdraw all the cruizers now employed in checking the
slave trade on the other side of the Atlantic; I consider them, as
regards the suppression of the slave trade, as entirely useless.

6617. Do you know what number are employed on the other side of the
Atlantic?--On the other side of the Atlantic they have various other
duties to perform; I can scarcely say that any of them are exclusively
employed in this service.

6618. Mr. _Wortley_.] But the whole number there is rendered large by
having this service to perform?--Yes.

6619. Can you say what number it would be possible to dispense with, in
case the slave trade service were discontinued on the other side of the
Atlantic?--I cannot answer this question, as they have various other
duties to perform, and are not exclusively employed against slave trade.

6620. When you said that you would increase the number of cruizers by
one-half, did you mean that you would increase it by one-half, including
the number of steamers that you propose to have?--No, excluding those; I
would make the present 16 vessels 24, and have six steamers in addition.

6621. And you think that if there were a force of that kind employed
upon the West Coast of Africa, it would have the effect of entirely
suppressing the slave trade?--If a proper system of blockade were
adopted, I have no doubt of it.

6622. _Chairman._] Do you consider that it is useless, towards putting
down the slave trade, to capture slave vessels off the coast of Brazil
or the West Indies?--My opinion is, that any captures there are such
utter chance that they do no good whatever, as on that side not one
vessel out of ten can ever be captured, and wherever it is reduced to a
chance at all, the profits are sufficient to keep up the slave trade. My
opinion is, that the only way in which the slave trade can be stopped is
in the interior of Africa. Every slave vessel that sails with her cargo
of slaves has already done all she can to keep the slave trade going in
Africa. The native dealer has his profit upon them; he does not care
where she goes to, or what becomes of the slaves afterwards.

6623. Mr. _Forster_.] Is not a slave vessel captured on the western side
of the Atlantic, equally a loss to the slave dealer as a slave vessel
captured on the eastern side of the Atlantic?--My opinion is, that the
amount of loss to the slave dealer is of little consequence, seeing that
it is the result of chances which, in that quarter, must be always
immensely in favour of the slave dealer, and that, compared with the
chance of escape, the chance of capture is nothing; the profits are so
large that the risk will be readily incurred.

6624. _Chairman._] You think that the chance of escape is much greater
with cruizers on the western side of the Atlantic than on the
eastern?--My opinion is, that if the slaves are once on board, the
mischief is already done.

6625. Mr. _Aldam_.] Do you think that the only effect of capturing a
slave ship off the coast of America, is to increase the price of slaves,
and that any increase which that can cause, the planters can still
afford to pay?--The capture of a slave ship after her slaves are on
board inflicts a heavy loss on the owners; but while embarkation can be
effected to any extent, slave trade can never be stopped. The mere fact
of keeping cruizers on the American side of the Atlantic is in itself an
absolute proof of the want of success of our efforts, and the strongest
argument in favour of the system I recommend. While slaves can be
introduced, planters can afford to pay almost any price.

6626. Mr. _Wortley_.] Do you think it would be possible to suppress the
slave trade by any system pursued in the interior of Africa, without an
effectual suppression of the trade upon the coast?--The only way in
which I contemplate the suppression of the slave trade in the interior
of Africa, is by the suppression of the embarkation of slaves.

6627. As long as the temptation upon the coast exists, do you think it
impossible to put an end to the slave trade in the interior?--Precisely;
as long as embarkation takes place, that temptation continues, and the
slave trade of the interior remains untouched.

6628. _Chairman._] Has not the cruizing off the coast of Africa the
additional advantage of protecting British trade incidentally, and
showing to the natives before their eyes that the English flag is
actively exerted to put down that traffic, which advantages would not be
secured by cruizing on the western side of the Atlantic?--Certainly, it
is one of our first duties to protect British trade, and in that respect
I have no doubt it is useful, as well as in the suppression of the slave
trade.

6629. Is it not of considerable advantage in a traffic like that upon
the coast of Africa, that the British power should be pretty frequently
displayed?--It is highly necessary.

6630. _Chairman._] Supposing even the chance of capture to be equal in
the two cases, has not cruizing off the coast of Africa the further
advantage of checking or entirely preventing the horrors of the middle
passage?--If you capture a full vessel upon the coast of Africa, she has
nearly the same voyage to Sierra Leone from many parts: it depends upon
circumstances.

6631. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] You have stated that the slave trade is a
favourite trade throughout Africa; would, therefore, the prevention of
the slave trade, whether on the east or on the west of the Atlantic,
remove the temptation in the one case more than in the other?--My
opinion is, that the temptation is removed alone by throwing
difficulties in the way of embarkation; because, as long as the native
can sell his slaves, he does not care where they go to; he goes and buys
more slaves.

6632. _Chairman._] Would you think it advantageous if the cruizers were
allowed to fit up one of their prizes as a cruizing tender?--It would be
undoubtedly of great advantage, but it would be contrary to the
treaties.

6633. To all the treaties?--I think to all the treaties; and it would be
open to great abuses.

6634. What abuses?--I think you would have young midshipmen and people
cruizing away in those vessels, and getting into scrapes, by improperly
searching foreign vessels.

6635. You regard the duty as one of rather a delicate nature, which is
not to be entrusted to subordinate officers?--The most difficult and the
most delicate that a British officer can be entrusted with; the immense
mischief produced by an indiscreet search, by giving offence to foreign
nations, has been very much experienced.

6636. Do not the treaties require that officers of a certain rank shall
alone be empowered to carry out the search?--That is the case in most of
the treaties.

6637. Mr. _Wortley_.] Has not there been an improvement of late years in
the class of vessels employed in cruizing?--Very great; I believe that
for some years they have been replacing the old brigs with a superior
class of vessels; fast sailing vessels, which are quite equal to the
slavers in sailing qualities.

6638. Are you aware whether that change has been followed by a
perceptible increase of efficiency in the service?--That change was
about contemporaneous with the change by the Act of the 2d of Victoria;
you cannot distinguish between the effects of the two.

6639. According to your observation, should you say that the present
class of vessels is an efficient class for the service for which they
are employed?--Decidedly; there are still a few of the old class, but
they have been always replaced at the expiration of their term of
service by efficient vessels.

6640. How are they in point of sailing as compared with the generality
of slavers?--They are generally superior; I commanded one for two years,
and I never chased a vessel that I did not overhaul; some got away from
darkness coming on, but I had the advantage in point of sailing in every
instance.

6641. What vessel was that?--The Wanderer, a 16-gun brig.

6642. _Chairman._] What are the respective functions that you would
assign to the sailing-vessel and to the steamer, the two acting in
combination?--The steamer, I think, should be probing the rivers and
ranging about the coast; the sailing-vessel should be as much as
possible a fixture at the place where the slaves are put on board, which
should never be left unguarded for an hour. The steamer should be
employed in going from place to place to see whether from new places
they are making arrangements to embark slaves, and also for carrying
provisions and water, and in chasing; but steamers could not entirely
blockade, because they are so much more frequently obliged to leave
their stations for supplies.

6643. Mr. _Wortley_.] What was the system you generally pursued in the
course of your service; did you pass your time principally in stationary
blockade, or were you upon a moving cruize?--When I took charge of the
station, the orders I issued to the other cruizers (as well as what I
practised myself) were, to maintain the principle of blockade; and if
they chased a vessel off a certain port where slaves were shipped, never
to lose sight of that port; but if they could not catch the vessel
without losing sight of it, to go back again, for she was sure to come
back again, and there was no harm done. If, on the other hand, the chase
is continued to any distance, other vessels might get in and ship
slaves; and even the very one pursued might dodge the cruizer at night,
and run in and effect her escape with a cargo.

6644. Mr. _Aldam_.] Then where would you place the six steamers you
propose to have?--I would have two between Cape Mesaduro and the river
Gambia, principally stationed at the Bissagos; but those operations I
speak of would very soon alter the character of the trade, and it would
be removed from point to point. I think there should be two more
steamers, perhaps, between Cape Formosa and Cape Palmas, and two more to
the southward of those points.

6645. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you think they could be navigated with wood
fuel entirely?--I am not prepared to answer that question, but I think
not; I think coal would be required upon most parts of the coast.

6646. Mr. _Aldam_.] What would be the size of the steamers necessary,
the tonnage, and the power of the engine?--The steamers on the coast of
Africa ought to be small steamers, not drawing more than five or six
feet water.

6647. _Chairman._] Might not the slave vessels be useful as tenders
sometimes after condemnation?--Under the treaties we are not empowered
to buy them. In the Act of 2d Victoria, there is a clause by which the
Government can take any captured vessel that they please for the purpose
of a tender,--one was established by me under that clause by orders from
the Admiralty,--but not to cruize; simply to convey the prize crews to
their proper ships.

6648. Mr. _Forster_.] Do not you consider the British settlements on the
coast of Africa an important assistance in the suppression of the slave
trade?--I consider that the settlements on shore have done some service
in that way, but not half so much as they might have done.

6649. _Chairman._] Will you state the grounds of that opinion?--With
regard to Sierra Leone, I have no hesitation in saying, that the slave
trade has derived great advantage from it, and that the British
influence does not extend there much beyond the limits of the colony as
regards this object. The entrance of the Sherboro’ river has on one side
of it Sierra Leone, and there is a slave trade carried on there, and
that has been owing to the view which the Government took of General
Turner’s proceeding in 1826, the consequence of which has been to
prevent future governors from attempting similar plans.

6650. What were those plans?--To obtain the sovereignty of the coast
down as far as the Boom Kittam river, which lies on the south side of
the Sherboro’, and from thence, I believe, to Cape Mount.

6651. Mr. _Forster_.] Had he already entered into treaties for that
purpose?--He had already got possession as far as the Boom Kittam, and
the Government ordered that that should be relinquished again.

6652. _Chairman._] In what way has Sierra Leone lent assistance to the
slave trade?--The slave vessels have been repeatedly purchased there by
people, notoriously agents of Pedro Blanco, and others at Gallinas, and
they have gone back into his hands.

6653. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you think the settlement of Sierra Leone was so
much responsible for that as the system under which the vessels were
sold?--I think the individuals who purchased slave vessels for slave
dealers were very much to blame, and it is only to be regretted that no
punishment could be inflicted upon them.

6654. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] By the law at present the slave vessels must
be broken up?--Not in all cases. Under the British law, the Act of the
5th George the 4th, vessels are not broken up, so that if a vessel is
condemned in British waters by the British law, she is sold, and
probably goes into a slave dealer’s hands the next day, which is the
case also with vessels condemned under the Brazilian treaty.

6655. Mr. _Forster_.] Are you aware that those vessels are sold by
auction to the highest bidder?--I am perfectly aware of that; that is
according to the treaties under which they are condemned: it is no fault
of the authorities of Sierra Leone nor of the Mixed Commission Court;
the authorities are compelled to allow her to leave the port afterwards.

6656. If an agent of Pedro Blanco, or even Pedro Blanco himself, went
into the auction room and bid the highest price he would get the
vessel?--I suppose so.

6657. _Chairman._] It is in that respect that you consider that Sierra
Leone has afforded facilities to the slave trade?--It is in that
respect; but, at the same time, I cannot conceive Pedro Blanco having
the audacity to go into the sale room for such a purpose, or the
authorities letting the vessel under such circumstances sail out of
port.

6658. How could the authorities stop the vessel going out under the
charge of Pedro Blanco himself, as well as under the charge of his
agent?--I think the facts would be almost sufficient to prove that she
was engaged in the slave trade; but there would be a difficulty, unless
she had equipments about her.

6659. Mr. _Forster_.] You would not propose to punish the auctioneer who
sold the vessel to the agent of Pedro Blanco?--No, he could not be
responsible; he would be acting as a Government agent.

6660. Mr. _Aldam_.] If a vessel was purchased on behalf of a slave
dealer at Sierra Leone, where would she clear for?--Probably for the
Cape Verd Islands. I know two cases where the vessels cleared for the
Cape Verd Islands; one of them I captured. I will state an instance of
the way in which vessels not broken up pass into the slave trade again.
The Republicano, a prize of the Fantome, was condemned at Sierra Leone;
she was purchased by an individual known to be engaged in the slave
trade; I went on board her and saw what her object was, that she was
going to carry slaves, and I detained her.

6661*. The purchaser was a man known to be engaged in the slave
trade?--Yes, and I detained her. When I went away myself I left orders
with my agent, on no account to let her go without a decree of the
court; but he thought that we could not prove sufficient to justify her
detention, and he let her go. The purchaser then proceeded to the Cape
de Verd Islands, and fitted her out for the slave trade, and she was
taken off the Gallinas by Captain Hill, of the Saracen, perfectly
equipped as a slave ship.

6662*. Who was the slave dealer?--He was an American; I forget his name.

6663*. Do you mean to say that he was a resident at Sierra Leone,
carrying on the slave trade?--No; but I merely mention that as an
instance of the way in which captured vessels, when not broken up, are
afterwards employed again in the slave trade. I do not say that he was
amenable to British law.

6664*. _Chairman._] Was it the actual slave dealer who made the purchase
in Sierra Leone?--He was a man known very well to be closely connected
with a slave vessel lately condemned.

6665*. What was the nature of his real or supposed connexion with the
slave trade?--I cannot exactly call to mind the proof of the fact; but
that it was so a reference to the printed correspondence will show.

6666*. Mr. _Aldam_.] Whose name appeared as owner; was the owner of the
ship that you captured a Spaniard or a Portuguese?--It was a Spanish
master; she appeared as the property of the American who had made the
purchase.

6667*. _Chairman._] Have there been instances in which a slave dealer
in his own person has come to Sierra Leone and made purchases of this
kind?--In the case I have just mentioned he had been already brought to
Sierra Leone in some vessel, but he was not known as Pedro Blanco was;
but I believe there would be no means of preventing them from taking the
vessel away, unless equipment was on board.

6668*. Has the colony of Sierra Leone in any other way contributed to
the maintenance of the slave trade, besides the facilities which it has
afforded of purchasing ships which have been condemned?--I have no doubt
that some degree of communication has been kept up between the slave
dealers in the neighbourhood of the Gallinas and the Sherboro’, and
parties in Sierra Leone.

6669*. Have you reason to know that any liberated Africans have engaged
in slave dealing?--I have no actual knowledge of any such circumstance;
I have no doubt that many, I have proof that some, liberated Africans
have been sold again into slavery.

6670*. To any extent?--I am not able to say to what extent; I should
think to a considerable extent, from cases which have fallen within my
knowledge.

6671*. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] Do you believe that they have been
kidnapped?--I am unable to say whether they were kidnapped or not; I
should think it most likely.

6672*. _Chairman._] What are the cases with which you are
acquainted?--There were three cases at the Gallinas. There was one case
in the Pongas, where I went up and liberated a girl who had been carried
off.

6673*. Had those persons been carried off from within the district of
Sierra Leone, or in the course of their traffic along the coast?--The
one in the Pongas had been carried off from the colony of Sierra Leone,
and one of them had been taken away as a servant, and left as a pawn; in
fact a slave. The other two had been taken when out of the colony.

6674*. Was the case which you alluded to as having occurred within the
colony itself, a case of kidnapping or abduction conducted by
inhabitants of Sierra Leone?--I have Sir John Jeremie’s letter here upon
the subject. By the Timmanees, I see, is the statement in the letter.

6675*. Then this is a case in which some strangers entered the country
and carried off some of the inhabitants of Sierra Leone?--So it appears
from the letter.

6661. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] Then you wish the Committee to understand
nothing more than that Sierra Leone has been the scene of incursions
made with a view to carry persons as slaves from that part of Africa, as
might have been the case from the Bonny?--I stated my belief that a
considerable number had been kidnapped also by the people of Sierra
Leone, and sold to natives who have carried them away, often in canoes.

6662. But you do not attribute that to any overt acts, or any neglect of
the Government?--By no means; I think it is almost unavoidable under the
circumstances.

6663. _Chairman._] You have no reason to know that a system of
kidnapping prevails in the colony, though individual instances may have
occurred?--I have no reason to know it; but I have reason to believe
that it did exist to a considerable extent, more particularly formerly,
when a great number were landed from slave ships; but now that is
reduced to a small number.

6664. In those instances of kidnapping you imagine that they were the
acts rather of strangers to the colony than a system pursued by the
inhabitants of the colony?--In many cases I think they were the acts of
inhabitants of the colony, who had kidnapped people, or seduced them
from the colony, and then sold them to the slave dealers.

6665. Upon what ground do you imagine that kidnapping does exist to a
considerable extent in the colony?--I have heard the thing repeatedly
stated with great confidence, and I think those instances go to prove
it; when I went into the Gallinas I found 90 slaves, and of those 90 two
were British subjects.

6666. Mr. _Forster_.] Could such a system have been carried on without
the consequences of it becoming obvious to every person resident at
Sierra Leone, and acquainted with the number of captured negroes in the
neighbourhood?--I believe that it might at times, when there was a great
influx of those black people; my opinion is, from what I have heard, but
I am not able to enter into the facts very closely, that the
apprenticeship system at Sierra Leone is extremely defective, and that
the whole system of supervision over the liberated Africans, as well as
of the apprentices, is also exceedingly bad, and open to great abuses.

6667. _Chairman._] Would it not be the duty of the police magistrates of
the district to see that there was no diminution of numbers by
kidnapping?--I am not aware that there are any district police
magistrates, except the superintendents of the villages.

6668. Do not those superintendents exercise the functions of
magistrates?--I do not know; but they are very often taken off by
sickness, and villages are frequently left without proper people to take
charge of them; and I believe, in my own mind, that the system of
kidnapping has gone on to some considerable extent.

6669. Mr. _Forster_.] But your opinion upon that subject is founded
merely upon report?--Yes; and upon information I have received in
conversation.

6670. Mr. _Aldam_.] Do you think that there is any remedy for that
evil?--I think the only remedy would be to exercise more supervision
over the liberated Africans, by having a larger Government establishment
to some extent, and a better class of people employed.

6671. _Chairman._] Have any other settlements given facilities to the
slave trade besides Sierra Leone?--Not directly, to my knowledge; the
trade of the Gambia is principally with Bissao, and at Bissao there is a
great slave trade, and legitimate trade, or rather produce trade going
on hand-in-hand together; the merchants of Bissao purchase quantities of
slaves and quantities of produce; and again, goods supplied by the
merchants at the Gambia are paid for in produce and in money; those
goods, undoubtedly, are more or less used by the slave dealers in the
slave trade.

6672. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] The case to which you referred as within your
own knowledge, of a person detained in the Gallinas as a slave, taken
from Sierra Leone, was the case forming a subject of the Parliamentary
Papers of the year 1841?--No; another case; that was a case where she
had gone voluntarily into the country, and been detained.

6673. Mr. _Aldam_.] How many white people would be necessary to manage
the establishment on the island of Bulama?--I do not see the absolute
necessity of one white person, unless it be the officer commanding the
detachment; but at the utmost, three or four, independently of those who
chose voluntarily to settle in order to trade.

6674. Mr. _Forster_.] You appear to entertain a doubt whether the
British settlements already on the coast have rendered as much service
as they might have done for the suppression of the slave trade?--I spoke
more particularly of Sierra Leone; at the same time, the connexion of
the Gambia trade with the slave trade is a fact that there is no doubt
about.

6675. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you also include the settlements on the
Gold Coast?--I have no knowledge of the Gold Coast settlements.

6676. Then your remark does not apply to them?--No.

6677. Mr. _Forster_.] When you speak in terms of disapproval of the
transactions which you say have taken place between Sierra Leone and the
Gallinas, do you wish the Committee to understand that you would
recommend that the intercourse between Sierra Leone and the Gallinas
should be put a stop to?--There is now no intercourse whatever between
Sierra Leone and the Gallinas, and there has not been any for the last
few years; I speak of former years.

6678. Would you think it desirable that there should be a commercial
intercourse between Sierra Leone and the Gallinas?--Undoubtedly I think
a commercial intercourse is the only means of eradicating the slave
trade; it is the best auxiliary of the cruizers.

6679. And your opinion would be the same with respect to the intercourse
between the Gambia and Bissao, that it is desirable that commercial
intercourse should be continued and extended if possible between those
two places?--Yes, and that it should be separated as much as possible
from the slave trade.

6680. _Chairman._] How do you distinguish the lawful from the unlawful
trade carried on in a place where both are going on together?--It is
almost impossible to distinguish them; for instance, at Bissao the
principal slave dealer is also the principal produce dealer, Caetano or
Kyetan Nossolino, with whom all the merchants at the Gambia have
dealings; in my opinion, that is not a very beneficial trade, because it
is not a direct trade with the natives at all; it is a trade between the
slave dealer and the British merchants; he buys produce, with which he
procures slaves; his principal trade is the slave trade, and he derives
great advantages from his commerce with the Gambia in his slave trade.

6681. Would he not have the same facilities of getting the goods
necessary for the slave trade from other sources?--He would not have the
same facility; it would be much more difficult for him to get it from
any other quarter, I apprehend.

6682. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you mean that it would be difficult, supposing
the supply from the British settlements at the Gambia were cut off?--I
think it would be more difficult.

6683. _Chairman._] Could you stop an American or a Hamburgh vessel going
in with the same produce?--Certainly not, nor would I stop an English
vessel, but I should wish to consider the means by which we might
separate the legitimate trade from the slave trade; my opinion is, that
the separation would be best effected by the occupation of Bulama, which
would put our merchants in a better position to trade themselves direct
with the natives.

6684. You consider then that the trade with Bissao is now thrown too
much into the hands of one man, who becomes a monopolist of the trade,
and who derives advantages from it in carrying on the slave trade, which
would not be derived if we had an entrepôt of our own, to which the
natives could resort for goods?--I do; instead of the trade passing all
through his hands, I would endeavour, by the occupation of such places
as Bulama, to create a rival trade between the English merchants and the
natives, instead of goods going, as they now do, through the hands of
Caetano and other slave dealers.

6685. You would not, by a legislative enactment, endeavour to prevent a
communication by British merchants with slave dealers, but you would
rather open other means of trade which were less likely to be
objectionable in their results, and thus rival the slave dealers?--Where
produce trade existed to any extent at all, I would trust to such
measures for the separation of the two; but there are some places where
there is no produce trade whatever, where, from one year’s end to
another, not a single piece of ivory, or a single gallon of palm oil is
exported. The Gallinas is a case in point; it is very true that British
vessels can supply goods to the Gallinas, but there is, I think, a
scandal in our ships supplying goods there, which does infinite harm to
our claim on other nations to abolish and make an end of the slave
trade.

6686. Mr. _Forster_.] How would you introduce British trade in produce
at the Gallinas unless you encouraged British traders to go there?--The
fact is, that wherever the slave trade exists people never turn to
legitimate traffic at all, unless the slave trade is insufficient to
supply their wants, or until the slave trade is stopped, or at least
checked, by forcible means. When the slave trade no longer supplies what
they want they are compelled to labour and raise produce, and they are
then ready enough to engage in lawful trade; but the goods now brought
are as much slave trade almost as the slaves that are exported.

6687. Are you not aware that in some places on the coast the slave trade
has been in a great measure, if not entirely, suppressed by the force of
commerce alone?--I do not know of any instance; in every case the first
step has been the suppression or the check of the slave trade, and then,
and not till then, do the natives labour to raise produce.

6688. Have you been to Popo lately?--I have been to Popo; the cruizers
at Popo first checked the slave trade, and then the slave dealers
preferred Whydah, which is in the neighbourhood, and they have since
taken to legitimate trade at Popo.

6689. Are you aware that there was a considerable slave trade formerly
from the Rio Nunez?--I am not particularly acquainted with the slave
trade that has been carried on from thence; I know that in the year 1835
there was no great amount of slave trade from thence.

6690. You are not then aware that since the establishment of British
factories there, the slave trade has entirely disappeared excepting in
the way you have referred to, by the visits of Portuguese canoes picking
up slaves in the neighbourhood?--I consider that simply produced by the
fact of Bissao being a more convenient place; slavers lie there in
perfect security under the walls of the Portuguese fort; they prefer
bringing their slaves from the Nunez, which they do in great numbers, in
canoes to Bissao, to shipping them direct from the Nunez, from whence
the passage and the escape is much more difficult than from Bissao.

6691. Is it your opinion then that the slavers would have the same
facility in procuring slaves at the place or near the place where a
British factory was established, as in any other part of the coast where
no such establishment existed?--I consider that the British factory
would never, unassisted, put down the slave trade in any way; I can
answer for the statement that I received from Mr. Benjamin Campbell, a
merchant in the Nunez, and formerly in the Pongas, a man of great
intelligence and great experience: his statement to me was, that
directly a slave vessel came in, his factory was abandoned; that nobody
would come near him when she was there; that the natives invariably
preferred slave commerce to legitimate commerce.

6692. Are you not aware that the whole of the Gold Coast is at present
dependent upon our settlements for the suppression of the slave trade,
and that if those settlements were removed, the slave trade would be
immediately resumed there?--I have no doubt whatever that the
settlements on the Gold Coast have put down the slave trade, but that
has been not by the unassisted force of commerce; it is because they
have an establishment and force, and are able to govern the natives; it
is not like a single merchant upon the banks of a river forming a
factory. I have a letter from Mr. Campbell here, in which he states that
when the natives hear of a slave vessel in the Pongas or Bissao, they
accuse the British merchants of driving away their trade. That I believe
to be an error on their part, especially as Mr. Campbell, in the same
letter, states that Caetano has two white agents in the river purchasing
slaves for him. I believe the reason that they go to the Bissao is
because they are more secure; but the slave trade with the Nunez is by
no means given up; dozens of canoes go every month with slaves.

6693. None are shipped there?--They are shipped in the canoes, and they
are taken to Bissao, because Bissao is a more convenient place for
sending them off.

6694. Would they not be shipped from Rio Nunez but for the presence of
the British factories?--I think they may throw some doubt over the minds
of people as to the probability of giving information, and so on; but I
believe the reason that the slave dealers prefer Bissao is what I have
stated; viz. the difficulty of escaping from the Nunez.

6695. If British factories, without a British fleet or any British
force, can have a beneficial tendency in suppressing the trade, does it
not follow that settlements with a British force, and British authority
to support them, would be still more efficient in suppressing that
trade?--That is undeniable; and I allow that the influence would be
beneficial in conjunction with the naval force, but I deny the power of
unassisted British factories in putting down the slave trade; I do not
believe that there is a single instance of it on the whole coast.

6696. Then if British factories and British commerce cannot have that
influence, you apprehend that a large British force will continue to be
necessary upon that coast?--That is not what I have stated; what I have
stated is, that they have never, unassisted, put down the slave trade;
wherever it is put down commerce instantly springs up: and there is the
strongest reason to suppose, that when the slave trade is put down
generally, commerce will be established throughout Africa; and when
legitimate trade exists as a habit of the people, in the course of time
I look to that legitimate trade putting an end to the slave trade for
ever.

6697. Mr. _Wortley_.] Your observation and experience have led you to
the decided conclusion that all attempts to suppress the slave trade by
inducing the natives to betake themselves to legitimate traffic would be
abortive, unless the direct suppression of the slave trade was
effectual?--Unless the slave trade was checked by other means; when it
is checked, commerce begins, and extends by degrees.

6698. _Chairman._] How would you carry out the principle of separation;
would you proceed to prohibit certain places which you considered to
have no other traffic than the slave trade till the slave trade should
have been to a certain amount checked, if not extirpated from that
place?--My opinion is, that there is a change required in the law. At
present, English merchant ships may supply slave factories, known to
every soul at Sierra Leone to be slave factories, and yet if they cannot
prove that the person who sold those goods for the purpose of buying
slaves, did actually and positively know in his own mind the fact of
those goods being certainly to be used in the slave trade, there can be
no conviction.

6699. In a case such as that of Canôt, who is a great produce dealer, as
well as a dealer in slaves, would you prohibit intercourse with him?--I
would not prohibit intercourse with any body: but in every case where it
was clearly proved that goods were sold to a person who it was well
known could only use those goods in the slave trade, and the slave trade
alone, that man’s character being perfectly notorious, I think that
British vessels supplying him with goods, ignorant of his character, and
from the want of the exercise of reasonable care and precaution, so
aiding and abetting the slave trade, should be subject to the penalties
of the Act.

6700. Speaking of this as a legal question to be provided for by Act of
Parliament, how would you decide the proportion of produce trade which
should entitle a foreign slave dealer, under such an Act of Parliament,
to carry on intercourse with British traders; unless you could define
that, would it not be easy for every slave dealer wishing to have that
intercourse, to carry on a trade in produce, however small, sufficient
to bring him within the permission given to deal with persons carrying
on trade lawfully as well as unlawfully?--I do not think that it would
be desirable to apply the provision very strictly; I think it would be
very injudicious to be searching and inquiring in every case, whether
the proceedings were of this character or not; but where there is a
glaring and an unquestionable case, such as any English merchant sending
goods to a slave ship, or to a factory where there is no other trade, I
think he should be punished, and I think that it is highly important to
the position which England holds upon this question with regard to
foreign nations; my proposition is, that if from want of reasonable care
he did not know that which was a notorious fact to every body else, he
should be subject to the penalties.

6701. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] The trade of which you are speaking is that
which is carried on with factories, notoriously used for the purpose of
the slave trade; would you apply the law to such places?--I can mention
a case which I think is a very strong one, the case of the Gallinas,
where, to my certain knowledge, cargoes to a great extent were brought
under the American flag, and other flags, solely for the purpose of
purchasing slaves, the freight for all those cargoes being paid for in
the Havannah, and without one single atom of produce being exported in
return. Now in my opinion it was open under the Act for a British
merchant ship to have carried all those goods to the Gallinas instead of
an American with perfect impunity, and such a course of trade would
bring the utmost scandal upon the English name, and the utmost doubt
upon the sincerity of our wishes to put an end to the slave trade. You
could not probably have proved to the satisfaction of juries at Sierra
Leone, that they were knowingly aiding and abetting the slave trade.

6702. Mr. _Forster_.] Then to render such a law effectual you must
induce all nations to enter into a common league to carry it out?--I
think not; my view is, that England must leave to other countries the
control of their own merchant vessels; but especially considering the
situation she holds with regard to the slave trade, I think she is bound
to prevent such a direct system of aiding and abetting slave trade on
the part of English vessels.

6703. Do you think, if England were to do so, that it would have any
real tendency to prevent the slave trader obtaining a supply of
goods?--Certainly not; as in this instance he got all those goods
without the assistance of the British flag; but had the British flag
been used, I think it would have been an abominable disgrace.


_Veneris, 24º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Mr. E. Denison.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Mr. W. Hamilton.
  Sir R. H. Inglis.
  Mr. Milnes.

  VISCOUNT SANDON, in the chair.

  Captain the Honourable _Joseph Denman_, R. N. called in; and further
  Examined.

6742. _Chairman._] You mentioned that there had been a considerable
change in the means employed for putting down the slave trade, within
the last two or three years: and you mentioned, in the first instance, a
different system of cruizing pursued in consequence of the Equipment
Treaty. Has there not been another means lately introduced, by means of
destroying the slave factories upon the coast?--The slave factories of
the Gallinas were not destroyed as a part of the powers with which I was
invested. It was in consequence of peculiar circumstances, which I took
advantage of for the purpose.

6743. What was it that entitled you to make that attack?--For a long
series of months, the people upon the shore had been guilty of the most
inhuman conduct towards my boats, conduct which a state of war would not
justify, and which would be a fair subject of war if committed in any
civilized country.

6744. You grounded your attack upon information received of the
detention in slavery, by the son of the chief of the Gallinas, of two of
Her Majesty’s subjects of the colony of Sierra Leone?--I did; but I had
long previously intended to destroy the barracoons and the slave
factories, if I found the case to be what I supposed it was, upon the
grounds that I have before mentioned.

6745. What were those grounds?--The inhuman treatment of my boats. I can
show the Committee letters from the officers reporting the treatment
they had received. The circumstances detailed in those letters were
reported to me by the commander of the ship as having occurred some time
previously to the destruction of the factories. This is the report of
the officer in the boat; he wrote me this letter subsequently to the
affair, at my desire, the circumstances having been stated before. He
was entrusted with one of the Rolla’s boats. He says, “I stood out for
the purpose of reconnoitring, it blowing a strong breeze, with a head
sea. I had not proceeded above three miles from the Alexander,” an
American brig, “when the boat was unfortunately stove, and it was with
great difficulty she was kept afloat by constant baling with three
buckets, until we arrived alongside the Alexander, the captain of which
vessel kindly allowed us to hoist her on board for the purpose of
repairing. Subsequently the captain of the Alexander going on shore to
wait on his consignees, they very strongly expressed their
disapprobation at his having rendered any assistance to a British
cruizer’s boat, and at the same time regretted that he had not left us
to sink or swim. Had the captain complied with their wishes, which had
been communicated to him previous to this accident, the only resource
left us would have been to attempt beaching the boat, which, owing to
the boisterous state of the weather, would have been almost impossible,
and probably attended with loss of life to all or most of the crew, the
bar at the time being perfectly impassable, and not the slightest
probability of keeping the boat afloat for any length of time by means
of baling.” That is signed by Mr. George Marriott, mate. In consequence
of this prohibition, refuge was repeatedly refused to my boats by
friendly vessels disposed to succour them, and had any boat subsequently
been in the same condition, she would have been left to drown with all
her hands. My whole knowledge of this was from the circumstances
reported to me by different officers.

6746. Were there other cases of the same nature?--Other cases of the
same nature, produced by threats of the persons on shore, which
prevented American and French vessels in the roads, otherwise disposed
to do so, having done so before, from affording refuge to our boats
under almost similar circumstances. But no case was so strong as that of
the boat sinking.

6747. Mr. _Forster_.] Were those things done by the authority of the
native chiefs, or by the authority of the Spanish slave dealers?--Before
I went into the river I had no means of knowing; but I considered that
the chiefs of the country were responsible for the treatment of cruizers
in their waters according to the law of nations.

6748. It appears by the correspondence that the detention of a woman
named Try Norman and her child were the grounds you chiefly relied upon
to justify that proceeding?--I might have gone upon either ground. I
preferred choosing the ground of the detention of that woman and her
child; first, because it was an outrage of a far graver nature even than
those I have described, which had occurred in the anchorage; and
secondly, because it would enable me at once to go to the barracoons to
get out all the slaves, to endeavour to find out whether Try Norman and
her child were among them.

6749. By which of the chiefs was this woman detained?--By a man of the
name of Manna, the eldest son of King Siacca.

6750. Did he assign any reason for detaining this woman and her child;
did he justify himself in anyway?--It was impossible that he could
justify himself in any way. I considered that the woman Try Norman was
as much a British subject as any person in this room. I can see no
distinction between his making a slave of her and his making a slave of
any white person.

6751. Did he attempt any justification?--He attempted a justification
which was utterly unsatisfactory. His justification was, that the
person to whom she had been an apprentice had owed him money and that
was the ground of his excuse, as appears in the printed correspondence.

6752. Do you know the name of the woman who, he said, owed him money?--I
know nothing of it but by his own statement; the woman’s name was
Rosanna Gray.

6753. You have read the correspondence?--I have.

6754. Is there not a letter from this Prince Manna, complaining that one
of his wives, whom he had sent to Sierra Leone for instruction, had been
made a prostitute by this Mrs. Gray?--So it appears in his letter.

6755. Did not his detention of this woman and her child arise out of
that transaction?--Such was his statement.

6756. Did you inquire, when you arrived at Sierra Leone, whether there
was any ground for that statement?--I did make some inquiry about it,
and Mrs. Gray stated that the girl had run after the men herself. I put
the correspondence into the governor’s hands, and requested him to
afford such redress to Prince Manna as the case might require.

6757. But you ascertained that she had been under the care of Mrs.
Gray?--There was no doubt of that fact, I believe.

6758. Then, at all events, you destroyed those factories and barracoons
on your own responsibility, and not by virtue of any treaty with
Spain?--I destroyed those barracoons upon my own responsibility, because
I found that the Spanish slave dealers had been the persons who had been
the cause of the inhuman treatment of my boats at sea, in the first
place; in the second place, I found in those barracoons two British
subjects. The destruction of the barracoons and factories was done
through the medium of the consent of the native chiefs.

6759. _Chairman._] Did you not act in some degree under instructions
from the governor of Sierra Leone?--The governor of Sierra Leone had no
power to give me any instructions; he merely mentioned the
circumstances, and requested me to take the necessary measures for
redeeming this woman; I considered that a stronger ground to go upon
than that which I before intended to go upon, and I therefore adopted
that which appeared most advantageous.

6760. Mr. _Forster_.] Did the native chiefs grant that authority to
destroy the property of the Spaniards voluntarily?--Decidedly; they
agreed to destroy it themselves, upon the grounds stated in the
correspondence.

6761. It would appear by the correspondence that they showed great
unwillingness to meet you and confer with you on the subject of your
mission, when you arrived there?--For the obvious reason, that Prince
Manna felt, that having held a British subject in captivity, he was in a
very awkward position; I think that is explained in my letter to
Governor Doherty.

6762. In the letter of the 20th of November you call upon King Siacca to
“destroy their factories, and their contents, or consent to Captain
Denman’s doing so, and that he will deliver up the slaves who have been
carried into the bush from the factories.” You mean that he consented
after you had made a requisition to this effect?--Undoubtedly; a
requisition to that effect was made, because he stated that the white
slave factors had got him into the scrape without his knowledge, and
without his authority; and also because I found them in possession of
British subjects for the purpose of exportation.

6763. The first article of your treaty with him stipulates that he shall
totally destroy “the factories belonging to these white men, without
delay,” and in a sort of postscript to the treaty, you promise him the
forfeiture of the goods belonging to the Spaniards that were deposited
in the Spanish stores?--I made no promise of the sort. The postscript
states, that King Siacca having declared that the white slave dealers
have acted in defiance of his laws, he considers their goods are
forfeited to him; for that reason my demand for their destruction was
withdrawn, and I consented that he should take possession of them.

6764. In point of fact, they received as the reward of their consent,
the whole of the property belonging to the Spaniards that was found in
the stores at the Gallinas?--No, it was not so, for the treaty was
already entered into before this permission was made; and, moreover, at
the time this treaty was made they had already taken possession of the
goods out of all the factories but one.

6765. But, at all events, they got the goods as the result of their
proceedings?--They undoubtedly got the goods. I do not mean that the
chiefs got the goods, but the people in general got the goods.

6766. Do you think that the Spaniards were settled there with the
approbation or consent of the chiefs?--I believe that the Spaniards did
settle there, in the first instance, with the consent of the chiefs; but
I believe that they afterwards became very powerful, and were
exceedingly hated by the chiefs. I had various complaints from the
natives of the haughty and disgusting treatment which they received from
the Spaniards.

6767. If they were so averse to the settlement of those Spanish slave
dealers, how did it appear to be necessary to insert an article in the
treaty, binding King Siacca that no white man should ever for the future
settle in his country for the purpose of slave dealing?--I thought it
desirable to prevent the possibility of the slave trade being
re-established by the white people, as it had been before established.

6768. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Does it follow, that because the chiefs were
averse to those Spaniards living with them, that they should also be
averse to every other white man who might come there?--I thought there
was a very considerable chance of the slave trade being re-established
by white men afterwards.

6769. And therefore you took such steps as you thought best to prevent
any similar settlement?--To prevent any similar settlement, and to give
us a right to compel them to send them out of the country again if ever
they should resume such practices. It was a precautionary measure.

6770. Mr. _Forster_.] Does it not seem somewhat inconsistent with the
seventh article of the treaty, which stipulates that “no white man from
Sierra Leone shall settle down in King Siacca’s country without his full
permission and consent”?--It seems to me quite in accordance with the
other principle. I say, “No white man shall sit down as a slave trader.”
King Siacca, upon the other hand, in order to insure himself against his
country being taken possession of by the English, proposes this, which I
accede to. It was a proposal of the chiefs on the part of the King
Siacca.

6771. Does it not imply that the king was averse to allow British
traders to settle there from Sierra Leone?--I think it bears upon its
face that he was averse, for the reason I have before stated.

6772. _Chairman._] Did you feel yourself entitled, by King Siacca’s
country having been made the means of carrying on a slave trade, through
which some of Her Majesty’s subjects had been made slaves, to make
stipulations which should prevent the recurrence of such an outrage for
the future?--Not only entitled, but bound to do so.

6773. And you conceived that one of the most effectual means for that
purpose would be to prevent other white men, foreigners, from taking
advantage of King Siacca’s country as a position from which to carry on
a trade which endangered the safety of Her Majesty’s subjects and their
free passage into that neighbourhood?--I will state the principle upon
which I acted, and the relation in which I considered that we stood
towards King Siacca. In the first place, the outrages and inhospitality
committed in his waters I considered him responsible for; secondly, I
considered him responsible for holding Sierra Leone people in his
country as slaves for the purpose of traffic. Upon his declaring that he
knew nothing of those acts, I considered it perfectly just that the
punishment should be visited upon the persons who had committed those
crimes, and who had been the cause of those crimes.

6774. And you felt yourself entitled, if the king professed an inability
to prevent others from taking advantage of his territory for purposes
injurious to the security of British subjects, to take means yourself
for securing such objects?--I entered into a treaty for the purpose of
preventing future proceedings of the description that had already
occurred, and enabling me to meet such cases if they should recur.

6775. Mr. _Forster_.] Is it not your opinion that it has been owing to
the preference given to Spanish slave dealers that British merchants
have not sooner established themselves at the Gallinas, and carried on
commercial pursuits there?--In my Report to the Governor of Sierra Leone
upon the state and prospects of trade in the Gallinas, in page 15 of the
Printed Papers, I say, “When the English slave trade was abolished,
considerable traffic sprung up and was rapidly increasing when the
Spaniards commenced the slave trade in about 1817. From that time
legitimate commerce gradually withered, and was at length totally
annihilated by the establishment of a permanent slave factory in-shore,
about 15 years ago, by Pedro Blanco, at that time mate of a slave
vessel. Since then the slave trade has been the only pursuit, and during
the long period that has since elapsed, not enough produce has been
exported to form the cargo of the smallest coasting vessel.”

6776. Had there been any legitimate trade carried on at the Gallinas
previous to your operations there?--A passage in the letter I have just
read states my opinion upon that subject, derived from information from
the chiefs themselves.

6777. _Chairman._] You mean by legitimate commerce, the exchange of
manufactures for produce?--Exactly; and I stated that there was no
legitimate commerce, because there was no produce whatever. Might I be
allowed to refer to a question and answer that I understand has been put
referring to the Gallinas. I have been informed that this question was
put to Mr. Peters: “You do not think Captain Denman’s observations upon
the subject practically of any value.” Now I beg to observe that Mr.
Peters can never have seen my observations upon the subject. The answer
of Mr. Peters is, that I thought I had put an effectual stop to the
slave trade in the Gallinas, and that many others thought so.

6778. Mr. _Forster_.] In a letter to the Governor of Sierra Leone, dated
the 12th of December, you say that the people at the Gallinas “have
already, in a wild state, but of the finest quality, cotton, indigo,
pepper, and palm nut, the sugar cane and tobacco, which they are enabled
to cure. Salt is procured in considerable quantities, and there is no
doubt that coffee would flourish as well as at Sierra Leone and
Monrovia.” Do you wish the Committee to understand that if a trader from
Sierra Leone were to go there with goods, he could obtain in exchange
for them any of those articles you have enumerated?--With regard to the
tobacco there is a misprint; instead of “enabled to cure” it should be
“unable to cure.” I have stated in the same letter that no cultivation
whatever did exist, and that I used every effort to persuade the chiefs
to cultivate the soil. My information was derived from the chiefs as to
the existence of these articles.

6779. _Chairman._] Do cotton, indigo, pepper, palm nut, the sugar cane,
and tobacco, grow there in a wild state, and are they of good
quality?--It is a fact that I derived from the unanimous declaration of
the chiefs of the country.

6780. Mr. _Aldam_.] Are there any means of carrying on any considerable
commerce at the present moment?--Certainly not. It must begin upon a
small scale, as elsewhere; it does not spring at once into a
considerable commerce.

6781. Mr. _Forster_.] Are you of opinion that there is nothing
questionable in the proceedings of our navy in destroying the property
of foreigners in a foreign country, and encouraging the native chiefs in
those proceedings, with reference to the moral effect of it upon the
minds of the chiefs and the natives?--It depends entirely upon
circumstances. If aggressions have been committed against persons
belonging to Sierra Leone (and I can conceive no aggressions or injuries
so great as that of making British subjects slaves), I consider that
those people are in every respect entitled to the same protection as
white people. Indeed I consider that the liberated Africans of Sierra
Leone have peculiar claims to the regard and protection and favour of
England. I see no distinction whatever between them and British
subjects. Supposing three British subjects had been held in this way, I
conceive it would have been highly improper to have allowed such a
proceeding to pass unnoticed.

6782. _Chairman._] You rest your proceeding at the Gallinas, not upon
the general ground of using means for putting down the slave trade, but
upon the specific offences committed by the chiefs of the Gallinas
against British subjects settled at Sierra Leone, and their
inhospitality to your crews upon the coast?--Precisely so.

6783. Therefore you do not consider that you are making a precedent for
indiscriminate descents upon the coast, wherever a slave barracoon is
established, for the purpose of destroying it as a means of putting down
the slave trade?--In the proceeding adopted by me at the Gallinas, the
grounds were exactly those stated in the preceding question. At the same
time I conceive that the destruction of barracoons and slave places not
in settlements belonging to European powers, would be justifiable all
over the coast. Nothing of the sort had been done before, and therefore
I did it under very heavy responsibility. I could not have struck out a
new line without some special grounds to go upon.

6784. Should you consider yourself entitled, without any of those
peculiar grounds for the interposition which the proceedings at the
Gallinas gave you, to make a descent upon any point of the coast under
the jurisdiction of a native chief, where slaves were collected for the
purpose of exportation, and destroying those barracoons, and insisting
upon the slave trade being given up?--I should think myself perfectly
justified in doing so whoever the slave factor might be. Whether it
would be borne out by my instructions from the Admiralty would depend
upon what those instructions were.

6785. You would conceive yourself, if you were an officer on that
station now, entitled to pursue that as a general method of putting down
the slave trade?--I should certainly have pursued it had I remained.

6785*. Do you conceive yourself entitled to do this under instructions,
under treaties, or entirely upon your own responsibility, without any
direct authority?--I consider that it might have been done upon my own
responsibility entirely, upon the footing that the law of nations can
afford no sort of recognition of the dealing in slaves by Spaniards in a
foreign country. And secondly, that those persons were criminals by
their own laws, and could not look to protection from their own
government. So long as the slave trade was clearly and distinctly
separated from legitimate trade, I consider that such proceedings would
have been perfectly justifiable.

6786. Supposing a native chief had collected slaves in barracoons upon
his own territory for exportation, should you then have felt yourself
justified in destroying such places?--I should have considered myself
justified in following the same system there, upon the ground that the
native chiefs are not recognized amongst the nations of the world; they
are in a barbarous state, and the law of nations, in my opinion, cannot
apply to them further than for their own good and their own protection,
and I should have considered the destruction of those buildings and the
taking off the slaves as an act most directly and most importantly
tending to their own good and benefit.

6787. Captain _Fitzroy_.] It has appeared in evidence before this
Committee that the Pluto sailed from Fernando Po, under orders from the
Admiralty, to destroy any barracoons or other slaving establishments
that she might meet with in various parts of the coast, not being the
property of Europeans; were similar instructions issued to the officers
on that coast while you were there?--I saw instructions to that effect a
few weeks before I left that coast.

6788. From the Admiralty?--From the Admiralty.

6789. _Chairman._] Have you been at the Gallinas since?--Yes, I have
been three or four times at the Gallinas.

6790. Has the effect of what you did been to put down the slave trade,
or to what extent has it done so?--It has nearly broken up the system
then followed, except as regards the south-east branch of the river,
upon which a place called Soolimane stands; there was, when I was at the
river, a small factory there, which I did not destroy, as I had no case
against it, and this is the factory which Captain Blount has recently
destroyed. In the part where I went, it does not appear that any slave
trade has sprung up again.

6791. You conceive then that if this process is followed, it will be
effectual for its object?--My opinion is, that in such a part of the
coast as the Gallinas, blockade alone is quite sufficient to stop the
slave trade. These measures, of course, render the operation of the
blockade more quick. But I had kept a blockade up at that place for
nearly a year, during which only two vessels had escaped. Nearly 20
vessels had been captured, and they were reduced to despair. Every
American vessel generally used to inform my officers that the slave
dealers declared they could not carry on the trade under the pressure of
a blockade so maintained. The blockade during a great part of the time,
both at Cestos, where similar results were produced, and at the
Gallinas, was carried on for the greater part of the time at the
Gallinas by my ship alone, and at Cestos by the Termagant alone, under
my orders.

6792. During that blockade, did you prevent the access of any vessel
bringing goods into the country?--I interfered with only vessels
equipped for the slave trade; goods to purchase the slaves I could not
interfere with. Had they been brought in British vessels, I should
certainly have seized those vessels; but I should have been very
doubtful whether conviction would have followed under the penal clauses,
where the necessity of proving the knowledge of the party is so
difficult.

6793. But you would have taken the risk?--I should have felt it my duty
to take that risk.

6794. Mr. _Aldam_.] Did any British vessels attempt to go in during that
period with goods?--No, not while I was there.

6795. _Chairman._] Did any vessels of any nation come in with lawful
goods during that period?--There is a list of them in the
correspondence.

6796. Mr. _Forster_.] Then if a British vessel, laden with lawful
merchandise, had attempted to enter the Gallinas, you would have seized
her?--Not so, exactly; but if British vessels had come under the same
circumstances as American vessels did, with cargoes consigned from Pedro
Blanco to Thomas Buron, both notorious slave dealers, to be paid for at
the Havannah, or in dollars there, I certainly should have seized them.

6797. How could you have known how the goods were to be paid for?--I
should have considered it a clear case of aiding and abetting the slave
trade, as clear as it is possible for any thing to be.

6798. How could you have learned that the goods would be paid for at the
Havannah in dollars?--I think it is immaterial whether they were paid
for in dollars at the Havannah or at the Gallinas; but the fact that
they were not paid for in produce, and that it was distinctly putting
goods into the hands of the Spaniard Buron to buy slaves with, would, in
my opinion, make it a clear case of aiding and abetting the slave trade.

6799. _Chairman._] And you would argue, from those circumstances, that
guilty knowledge could not be absent?--Guilty knowledge could not be
absent, in my opinion, in such a case. It may repeatedly happen that, in
default of proving their guilty knowledge, people may escape; whereas
every one but the criminal himself perfectly well knows the character of
the trade which is going on, and which alone could be going on at such a
place. Sierra Leone juries are exceedingly careful to have the fact of
the knowledge imprinted upon the mind of the culprit proved to them; and
unless it is proved they will not convict.

6800. Mr. _Forster_.] At all events, you would have assumed the guilty
knowledge, and seized the vessel under the supposed circumstances?--I
should; and had I not done so, I think my conduct would have been open
to a court-martial.

6801. You have stated that you think the slave trade can be effectually
prevented, and was effectually prevented, by a blockade at the
Gallinas?--It can certainly be effectually prevented, and was
effectually prevented to such an extent that during 9 or 10 months but
two vessels escaped, and about 20 were captured.

6802. Then it was not necessary, for the purpose of putting down the
slave trade there, to destroy the Spanish property?--My reflection in
such a case always would be, the miseries that the slaves on shore were
enduring in consequence of this; and I should always be eager to take
every opportunity of relieving them from it. It would be undoubtedly the
most effectual measure possible.

6803. The using means to put down the slave trade, or to throw
difficulties in the way of the slave trade, carries a moral
justification with it, which no one can question; but do you think the
means you took in that case were altogether justifiable, upon the ground
of example to the natives, and the native chiefs; do not you think they
might misunderstand those proceedings, and that it might lead to conduct
on their part prejudicial to the interests of British commerce?--I think
not in any way whatever; I think the operation would be the opposite.

6804. _Chairman._] Are you aware that any British commerce has followed
since those operations against the Gallinas?--No, it has not; I knew
very shortly afterwards that they were endeavouring to re-establish the
slave trade about there, and I kept the blockade up, intending to knock
them down immediately the fine season commenced, and that has been done
by Captain Blount.

6805. Mr. _Forster_.] From your experience in Africa you are aware of
the great importance of setting all ranks of the natives a high example
of honour, and equity, and honesty, in all dealings and transactions;
and the question is, whether the effect of those proceedings in that
point of view may not render them open to objection. Is it not your
opinion, considering that they are not themselves opposed to the slave
trade, that they might be at some loss to understand, on any principle
of justice, why you should be at liberty to destroy the property of a
Spaniard who favoured the trade which they also favoured, and they not
be at equal liberty to destroy the property of a British merchant who
was opposed to them on the subject of the slave trade?--They are
perfectly well aware that the one trade is a legal trade and that the
other is a prohibited trade; and they are, moreover, perfectly sensible
of the injustice of the custom of selling their fellow-creatures.

6806. _Chairman._] You find them open to feelings of that
nature?--Perfectly; the _argumentum ad hominem_ always tells very well
with them.

6807. Mr. _Forster_.] In your opinion, do they consider the slave trade
a crime?--They do not consider it a crime, because it is not against
their laws; but they perfectly well know that it is opposed to every
principle of justice, that it is founded upon the grossest injustice and
cruelty, and that it is productive of the utmost misery.

6808. How could they reconcile it to their notions of justice that you
should destroy the property of Spaniards for doing that which is legal
according to their own civil institutions?--Because they are perfectly
aware that the Spaniards are carrying on a contraband and prohibited
trade, and therefore they are not surprised to find that their vessels
are captured; nor are they much surprised when they find that their
slaves on shore are emancipated. The one is just as easily to be
reconciled to their minds as the other.

6809. _Chairman._] Have you found, among any of the native chiefs with
whom you have had to deal, a feeling against this as an act of
injustice?--No, I cannot say that I have, in any instance. On the
contrary, I have a letter from the chiefs of Sea Bar, distinguishing
their position altogether from that of the Gallinas people, and, upon
that ground, begging that I would not come and burn them down.

6810. Do you think they are aware that the slave trade, if carried on by
any European nation, is a trade in itself illegal?--They are perfectly
aware of it.

6811. Mr. _Aldam_.] How do the chiefs at Sea Bar distinguish between
their case and the case of the Gallinas?--It is rather a difficult
letter to understand. It was sent off with two ducks, which I believe
were poisoned for my benefit. It is a long letter. It alludes to General
Turner’s endeavours to get possession of their country, and then points
out that it is not under the English laws, and that they have received
intelligence from the Gallinas that I have burnt and destroyed the
Spanish factories, and that it is my intention to come to Sea Bar and do
the same; and it ends with something like a threat, that if we did do
it, we might be insulted by their people, which they should be sorry
for.

6812. Will you have the goodness to deliver in the letter?--

  [_The same was delivered in, and read as follows_:]

  “Sea Bar.” On Her Majesty’s Service.

  To

  Deman Esq., Commander of Her Majesty’s brig Wander.

  Hon. Sir,

  2 December 1840.

  Be it known to you and all other officers commanding Her Majesty’s
  vessels cruizing on this part of Africa, particularly off Sea Bar,
  that we the undermentioned gentlemen of this country, do with the
  greatest honour to you and all Her Majesty’s subjects, do relate and
  acquaint you of our poor late and respected father, Mr. James Tucker,
  chief of this country, which I have no doubt the Government knows the
  same, as he told them when they consulted together with Messrs.
  Rendall, Macauley, Campbell, and several other gentlemen of the colony
  of Sierra Leone, when with intention to put him under the controul of
  the English laws, but which he did not consent to, stating that it was
  his living throughout all his ancient family, and he had no other
  means for his livelyhood, yes certainly the inhabitants of the colony
  of Sierra Leone trade in this river, but their trade is no profit nor
  benefit to us in this country, although they receive a great
  assistance from this country, but however we have received
  intelligence from the Gallinas that you the subject of Her Majesty’s
  have burnt and destroyed all the Spanish factories in that country,
  and that it is your intention coming down here at Sea Bar, and will
  act the same here as have done with Gallinas, so therefore we the
  under gentlemen of this country do beg and warn you with the greatest
  friendship towards Her Majesty’s subjects to acquaint you that this
  part of the country is very different with the Gallinas, as the land
  is our and all the standing property and building is belonging to us,
  and in case they should be destroyed and burnt down on account of
  foreigners, it cannot be an injury to them, but to us in the country;
  we very knows that it is a law between the different nations of Europe
  for diminishing that traffic, but however it dont concern with us as
  they comes to us, if you meet them outside to sea, but coming in the
  rivers and destroying places, so therefore hearing such news from Her
  Majesty’s subjects about this country and taking as friends, and if
  you coming on any purpose you dont let us know in the country and burn
  any place belonging to us; as we do honour the English colour for fear
  of coming in such a manner, perhaps some of our subjects might do what
  may be an insult to the English flag, and we dont wish such a thing to
  be between us, so therefore we beg you all to allow us the liberty of
  relating to you the aforementioned laws of this country, and hoping it
  will not be an offence to you.

  We remain, &c.

    Tessana Town,  } _Henry Tucker._
  2 December 1840. } _Johnny Tucker._
                   } _Jack Tucker._

6813. _Chairman._] Did you have intercourse with those chiefs after that
letter?--No, I did not. The rainy season was coming on, and I was
compelled to go to another part of my station.

6814. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Did Governor Doherty make a requisition to
you, that you should take those measures with respect to the Gallinas
which you have described?--The only requisition from Governor Doherty to
me was, to recover the woman and her child, who had been made slaves of
by Prince Manna.

6815. Did Governor Doherty express himself satisfied, or otherwise, with
the result of your expedition to the Gallinas?--In the first letter in
the correspondence before the Committee, a despatch to Lord John
Russell, Governor Doherty expresses, in the strongest way, his
satisfaction.

6816. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] Having received the approbation of the local
government near the scene of your exploit, have you also received any
expression of approbation on the part of Her Majesty’s Government,
either on the part of the Colonial-office, or of the Admiralty, or of
both?--The Colonial Secretary and the Foreign Secretary both expressed,
in the strongest terms, their approbation of my proceedings. My
despatches to the Admiralty did not arrive till the middle of July. They
had, however, previously approved of my conduct, although they had
declared that they could not entertain the question with reference to
promotion, as the despatches had not come to them. The despatches sent
through the senior officer arrived at the Admiralty in July, and I was
promoted in August.

6817. Were you promoted by the Admiralty with reference to those
services?--No, I cannot say that; I think they may also have considered
that as affording some claim, from the tone of letters which I have
seen, not addressed to myself, by the Foreign and the Colonial
Secretaries.

6818. But the approbation of the Colonial Secretary and of the Foreign
Secretary was absolute?--It was absolute.

6819. And the approbation of the Admiralty may be inferred from the fact
of your promotion?--That approbation was expressed, in the first
instance, by them before they received the despatches, from what had
appeared before Parliament.

6820. Mr. _Aldam_.] Has the Admiralty issued orders for other officers
in similar cases to follow the same course?--I think the Admiralty has
done so.

6821. Mr. _Forster_.] You wish the Committee distinctly to understand
that you think such means as you resorted to would not have the effect
of offering a bad example to the native chiefs, which they might
imitate, and under some pretext or other to seize upon British
property?--I think not; I think no example in the natives engaged in the
slave trade can possibly make them worse than they are while such
traffic is there pursued, nor is there a possibility of improvement
until it is stopped.

6822. You think that, when the slave trade is once put down, British
settlements planted at the parts where it has been carried on will keep
it down?--I think eventually legitimate trade will keep it down; I do
not limit it to British settlements only, although British settlements
would undoubtedly have a good effect for that object.

6823. Then if a British settlement had been founded at the Gallinas on
the completion of your operations there, you think the slave trade would
have been permanently suppressed?--Undoubtedly I think so, if founded on
good principles.

6824. In your last examination you spoke in terms of strong condemnation
of the traders upon the coast having any commercial dealings with
persons suspected of being engaged in the slave trade; now, without
requiring from a naval commander an intimate or practical knowledge of
the principles of commerce, it may nevertheless be reasonable to ask
you, after the strong opinions you have expressed, how British trade in
Africa could possibly be successfully carried on in competition with
foreigners under any restrictions such as you have pointed at?--The
restriction that I recommend is, that there should be such a change in
the law as to enable us to seize and to condemn any vessel that trades
with a notorious slave factory, there being no other trade but the slave
trade there prosecuted; also, against the supply of slave ships with
goods for the purposes of their traffic, and also against the sale of
vessels calculated for the slave trade to slave dealers. In my opinion,
those three practices should be stopped.

6825. Do you know Senor Caetano, at the Bissao?--I know who he is, well.

6826. You have stated in your former evidence, that Senor Caetano dealt
both in produce and in slaves; how would you act in his case?--I have
stated that it would be impossible to distinguish in such cases.

6827. You are aware that slavery and slave dealing are extensively
carried on in Cuba?--Undoubtedly; the slave trade to a much diminished
extent of late.

6828. And you are aware that it is equally the case in Brazil?--I am
aware that it is also the case in the Brazils.

6829. And also in the southern states of the North American Union?--I
have no reason to believe that any slave trade whatever exists there,
except the slave trade from one part of the coast to another; I believe
that no new slaves are introduced.

6830. Are you aware that they buy and sell slaves throughout the
southern states of the Union?--Yes; I am speaking of the external slave
trade; slavery implies the right of selling slaves within their
territory; I mean that they have no external slave trade, to the best of
my belief.

6831. Do you draw any distinction between slaves sold and shipped from
Virginia to New Orleans, as compared with slaves shipped from the coast
of Africa?--Unquestionably; they were at Virginia in the same condition
as they are again at New Orleans; it is merely a change of locality in
the same country or state, quite distinct from the African slave trade.

6832. Are the slaves shipped from the coast of Africa in the same
condition in the West Indies as they were in previously to their being
shipped from the coast of Africa?--No, decidedly they are not; they are
in a very different condition in Africa from what they are in the West
Indies; they are not equally slaves; their condition is entirely
different. The whole bearing and meaning of the trade is as different as
possible, in my opinion.

6833. Do you draw any distinction, in a moral point of view, between
selling and shipping men from the state of Virginia to the Mississippi,
as compared with selling and shipping men from Africa to the West
Indies?--I consider the case is altogether different; as distinct as
possible.

6834. Do you consider that there is any difference in a moral point of
view?--Yes, I think there is a difference in a moral point of view. In
my opinion, the distinction between commerce with slave states in
America and commerce with slave factories in Africa is this: the
commerce with the slave factories in Africa, in the cases I have before
contemplated, goes there entirely for the purpose of purchasing and
making men slaves: the commerce with the slave states of America has no
such tendency whatever; the slaves are already property. In my opinion,
there is the broadest distinction between the cases.

6835. Then you disapprove of selling goods to persons connected with the
slave trade on the coast of Africa, not on account of the moral
difference of the act, but on account of the difference of the tendency
and consequences of that act?--I consider that, in every case, the
dealings of British merchants with slave dealers, although their produce
trade may be mixed with the slave trade, is, in a very high degree,
objectionable and improper; but, at the same time, I do not think that
we can separate them; I do not think it would be politic, or for the
benefit of Africa, or for the cause that England has in hand, to
endeavour to carry the distinction between them too far.

6836. But if it be wrong or immoral to have dealings with persons
engaged in the slave trade, is it not equally wrong for a British
merchant to ship and sell goods to a slave merchant in Cuba and Brazil,
as it is to sell goods to a slave dealer on the coast of Africa, so far
as the moral question is concerned?--I think so, decidedly, supposing
those goods are intended to go into the slave trade, and it is known
that they will go into the slave trade.

6837. Are you not aware, from your observation on the coast, that most
of the goods, if not all, the cotton goods in particular, brought to the
coast of Africa by Spanish and Portuguese slave dealers, are
manufactured in this country?--I am perfectly aware of it; I consider
this highly objectionable, in the same way as the mixed trade upon the
coast is; but I do not think it would be wise to interfere with it.

6838. The Committee cannot but highly appreciate and deeply sympathise
with your benevolent feelings on this subject; but do you consider
yourself sufficiently familiar with the searching effects of commerce,
to pronounce a sound opinion on the collateral tendency of trade to
supersede the slave trade on the coast of Africa, even when carried on
with persons connected with the slave trade?--I consider myself
perfectly qualified to give opinions, so far as I have given them. The
opinions I have given, I feel myself perfectly qualified to give, and to
support.

6839. _Chairman._] You do not see any indirect advantage in dealing with
persons solely engaged in the slave trade, by means of lawful goods,
sufficient to counterbalance the direct evil of the facilities given by
that means to the slave trade?--The case of the Gallinas, I think, is a
perfect answer to the question; no good whatever is derived from the
exchange of the commodities of the civilized world for slaves. There is
no export of produce in that district of the coast. I conceive that this
commerce has no good effect whatever.

6840. You think it promotes no industry?--On the contrary, it
annihilates it.

6841. Mr. _Forster_.] You have stated that there has been no British
commerce carried on there to any extent?--In the Return which I have
already referred to, in the 14th page of this correspondence, is given
an account of the trade which formerly did exist, and which, under the
withering influence of the slave trade, has been utterly destroyed.
There is no doubt that there was considerable export trade at one time
from the Gallinas; they exported rice, and they exported produce. Now
they are obliged to import rice to feed themselves; cattle, which were
formerly abundant, are now hardly to be procured, and then only at an
enormous expense. They used to get cattle from Sierra Leone. Indeed, the
only case I know of any communication with Sierra Leone, while I was
last on the coast, was, in one or two instances of very small boats, not
above six or seven tons, which had in one instance cattle and sheep on
board. In the second instance I did not search her.

6842. You have stated that the Gallinas has been principally supplied
with goods for the slave trade by foreign ships, and not by British
traders?--That has been my statement.

6843. You have stated also that you would have felt it your duty to
prevent English trading vessels entering there?--Under certain
circumstances, which I have detailed.

6844. Are you not of opinion that if British commerce had been
encouraged there, and more particularly if a British settlement had been
formed there, British commerce would have been of material assistance in
discountenancing and putting down the slave trade at the
Gallinas?--Legitimate commerce at the Gallinas has been eradicated and
annihilated by the sole influence of the slave trade. It existed there,
and the slave trade annihilated it. Had a British settlement been formed
there, the results might have been different.

6845. _Chairman._] Do you think the results would have been different if
the same goods had been brought by English ships carrying on the same
trade as the foreign ships?--I do not see, had they been brought in the
same way as the goods were brought in the foreign ships, how any
difference would have been made. It would have been the same unmixed
evil as it has been when carried on under the American flag.

6846. Mr. _Forster._] Then it is only by the formation of British
settlements that you think the advantages of British commerce could be
fully realized there?--I think the advantages of legitimate commerce
will commence when they make their minds up that the slave trade will no
longer supply them with what they have been hitherto accustomed to
receive, and that that might be further assisted by the formation of a
settlement, I have no doubt whatever.

6847. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] Have you any means of knowing how the slaves
in the barracoons at the Gallinas were procured for the slave market;
whether they were born in slavery, or were made slaves for the mere
purpose of sale?--The fact that the general system of society in Africa
is slavery, I believe is universally admitted. Those people were
brought down from the interior to meet the demand upon the coast.

6848. Do you mean the Committee to understand that in your opinion they
were born slaves, and brought up to the slave market, or that, having
been free, they were made slaves for the slave market?--In my opinion
they were all born in a state of domestic slavery, answering to a sort
of villeinage in the early periods of our own history. But my belief is,
that no African chief dare sell his domestic slaves in this way, except
occasionally under the pretence of crimes committed, or of debts owing;
they are generally, I fancy, either kidnapped or taken in wars, or in
the ways I before mentioned.

6849. The kidnapping and the wars being for the purpose of supplying the
slave market?--Undoubtedly, in my opinion.

6850. _Chairman._] Do you derive your information of the internal
condition of the Africans from investigations of your own, or from what
you have read?--Partly from inquiries I made while in shore at the
Gallinas and up the Nunez.

6851. You do not believe that, generally speaking, the chiefs, the
owners of slaves in Africa, have the right of selling their own
slaves?--By no means; I believe they dare not do it; that the population
would at once rise against it.

6852. Mr. _Aldam_.] Do you consider that the slaves are generally
prisoners taken in wars that have incidentally arisen, or that there are
wars carried on for the purpose of making slaves?--I believe both to a
great extent; I believe that wars are frequently begun for the purpose
of taking prisoners and making slaves, and frequently by agreement
between two chiefs, who dare not sell their own people. They go to war
in order to take each other’s people.

6853. Mr. _Forster_.] Did you hear of instances of that kind while you
were in the country?--I have heard statements of that kind from persons
conversant with the country up the rivers, and also from the natives.

6854. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Referring to the letter which you have
produced from the chiefs of Sea-bar, was that letter written by a
native?--It was written undoubtedly by a negro, whether a native of
Sierra Leone, trading to Sea-bar, or whether one of the chiefs there, I
cannot say; but I have seen natives write infinitely better than that.

6855. It is signed by Henry Tucker; who was that Henry Tucker?--He was
one of the chiefs of the country in the neighbourhood of Sea-bar; they
are a family who have dominion there.

6856. Was that chief, Tucker, educated at Sierra Leone?--I cannot say; I
believe he was, but I am not sure about it.

6857. (To Captain _Hill_.) Are you aware by whom that letter was
written?--I was at Sea-bar frequently, and have frequently seen Harry
Tucker, and have also seen a person whom he introduced to me as his
secretary, who, on conversation, I ascertained to be Harry Tucker’s son,
and this son was writing letters for him; and I asked his son where he
learned to write, and he told me that he was educated at Sierra Leone;
and Harry Tucker also told me, that he sent two or three of his sons to
Sierra Leone to learn to read and write.

6858. Then, it is your belief that that letter was written by a son of a
native chief, who was educated at Sierra Leone?--Yes.

6859. Mr. _Aldam_, to Captain _Denman_.] Where is Sea-bar?--It lies
between Sierra Leone and Gallinas. It is the passage between the
south-eastern end of the Sherboro’ Island and the main land.

6860. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Is “Sea-bar,” the place named in the letter,
the same as the River “Shebar,” in the map?--It is the same.

6861. Mr. _Hamilton_.] Had you any opportunity of making any observation
as to the climate of the Gallinas; how far it would be fit for Europeans
to live there?--As far as my observations went, they were rather
favourable, for I went in at not a very good time of the year, and, out
of upwards of 100 men, I think that only two or three deaths occurred. I
believe only two men died after having been on shore a week.

6862. Going up in the boats?--Yes.

6863. Is the ground swampy, or is there any high ground in the
neighbourhood?--The ground is rather low, but some of the islands are as
healthy as any of that part of Africa; indeed, the contrast between that
river and some of the rivers we afterwards went up, at a more favourable
season, was remarkable.

6864. Mr. _Milnes_.] Did you not fall in with a vessel called the Echo,
bringing a cargo of goods to the Coast of Africa?--I did, a Hamburgh
vessel; I think it was on the 11th of December.

6865. Had you any reason to suspect her of having any connexion with the
slave trade?--The officer who was sent on board her found that her cargo
was consigned from the Havannah, I think from Charles Tyng to Mr. Canôt,
a slave dealer at New Cestos, and she had also on board a Spanish
supercargo, affording strong ground for suspecting her, indeed proof,
that she was engaged in aiding and abetting the slave trade.

6866. Do you regard any commerce in which ships might be engaged with a
slave factory as necessarily abetting the slave trade?--Not all
commerce; but I consider that if she were sailing with goods consigned
from one slave dealer to another she would be aiding and abetting the
slave trade.

6867. _Chairman._] You mean that there could be no doubt of the guilty
intent of the parties?--There could be no doubt of the guilty intent of
the parties to aid and abet the slave trade.

6868. Mr. _Forster_.] Are you of an opinion that a Hamburgh vessel could
not lawfully enter into a charter-party to the Havannah, to convey goods
to a slave factory on the coast of Africa?--I think that where a
Hamburgh vessel is carrying a cargo under the same circumstances I have
described, it forms the strongest reason to suspect that she may be
doing still worse.

6869. Mr. _Milnes_.] You searched that Hamburgh vessel?--Upon the 11th
of December; it was late in the evening when I boarded her. The officer
returned to me, reporting after a very imperfect search, indeed after
no search, that he found on board nothing to condemn her, and that he
had given a certificate to that effect.

6870. Do you think that that certificate was prematurely given?--No,
that the search that I had to institute was under the treaty, and
therefore I considered her entitled to a certificate, although I
certainly intended, if I fell in with her again, to search her more
perfectly, as I was not satisfied upon the subject; all I could say then
was, that nothing was found.

6871. What time did the first search take?--It was not a search, it was
a visit; it did not amount to a search; it was a visit to the ship, and
some little examination, perhaps lifting the hatches; it was in one
sense a search, but a most imperfect search; it did not occupy above
half an hour.

6872. Did you afterwards see Mr. Canôt, upon the subject of that
vessel?--I afterwards saw Mr. Canôt, not upon the subject of that
vessel; he mentioned to me that he expected a vessel with a cargo.

6873. Under what circumstances did you search the Echo a second
time?--Upon our arrival at New Cestos, considering her exposed to the
worst suspicions, after I found that she was consigned to Mr. Canôt, I
caused a most perfect search to be instituted; the hold was cleared, and
she was thoroughly searched for slave equipments. It should be observed,
that the right of search is never carried to anything like this extent,
except in cases justifying the strongest suspicion.

6874. How long did that search take?--I think from the 15th to the 18th
of December.

6875. Were you then satisfied by the result of that search that there
were no grounds for seizing the Echo?--I certainly found nothing, in my
opinion, to convict her; at that time there was nothing detected on
board her to warrant detention; had there been, I should have detained
her of course.

6876. Did you or your master entrust to the captain of the Echo certain
captured Spaniards, to take to the Havannah?--When I was about to sail
from New Cestos, I allowed a prize crew of Spaniards, who had been
captured in a prize, to go on board this vessel, to endeavour to get a
passage back to their own country.

6877. Did you use any persuasion to Captain Soms to call at Sierra
Leone, as he states in the papers you have seen?--I never was on board
her in the first place, and I never saw Captain Soms; in the second
place, the master, on returning on board the Wanderer, told me, that he
had advised the captain of the Echo to go to Sierra Leone with the view
of getting passengers; subsequently, when I heard that the vessel was
captured, I recollect distinctly saying to the master, “Oh, they will
think you have betrayed them into the hands of the Sierra Leone
government.” The advice was given without my authority, and without my
knowledge until afterwards; but I saw no harm in the advice.

6878. Could the Echo have incurred any culpability with regard to the
slave trade between the time when you examined her and her seizure at
Sierra Leone?--Very possibly.

6879. How?--She might have entered into an arrangement to carry away a
cargo of slaves from another part of the coast; she might have equipped
herself for slave dealing; it does not at all follow because she was
apparently free from liability to capture when I was on board her, that
she should not have done something subsequently that rendered her so.

6880. You do not consider your having declared her to be innocent to be
a sufficient ground for saying that she was not guilty at Sierra Leone
at a subsequent period?--It was certainly no sort of guarantee against
the consequences of any future proceedings that she might choose to
take.

6881. Sir _R. H. Inglis_.] It was not either a retrospective or a
prospective guarantee; it was a guarantee only that on the 11th of
December, when you visited her, she at that time had no _primâ facie_
evidence of being engaged in the slave trade; is that your impression
upon the subject?--It was no particular guarantee, but it was a
certificate which the treaties, under the authority of which I searched
her, declared that I was to furnish her with; it was a certificate to
the effect that the treaty required.

6882. _Chairman._] Was that certificate a security to her against any
further search by any other man-of-war on the station?--It would
probably operate against any further search, because they would not take
the trouble to do it unless they had some new reason to suspect her;
they would have no wish to cause unnecessary vexation.

6883. Is the certificate intended, in your view, to operate as a
security against further trouble?--I think there are two motives for the
certificate; one is, that there may be no concealment as to the ship
which may have committed any wrong in the exercise of the right of
search upon her; and secondly, to act as a sort of certificate with
regard to others that may fall in with her; but if others have reason
still to doubt her, in spite of that certificate, they are perfectly at
liberty to search her again.

6884. Did you hear what became of the Echo afterwards?--I did not hear
of her detention at Sierra Leone until the end of March, I think the
28th of March; I visited Sierra Leone a few days after I had boarded
her, but before her arrival.

6885. Did you not hear that she was condemned?--I heard that she was
condemned.

6886. Upon what ground?--My knowledge upon the subject is merely
hearsay; all that I know is, that an officer of the Wanderer was at
Sierra Leone, and I mention it in order to show that Sir John Jeremie
was not moved by interested motives in seizing her, he was anxious that
this officer should seize her as a prize to the Wanderer.

6887. Has the Governor any interest in seizures?--He has a proportion of
the proceeds.

6888. Mr. _Forster_.] And he would be entitled to a proportion of the
proceeds of the Echo when condemned at Sierra Leone?--Yes.

6889. Mr. _Milnes_.] Did you ever fall in with any other Hamburgh vessel
engaged in abetting the slave trade?--I fell in once with the Argus, at
the Gallinas, when she was landing casks. I considered that a
suspicious circumstance, although one not warranting seizure. I never
met with any other.

6890. Have you ever heard that eight or any other number of Hamburgh
vessels had proceeded from Hamburgh for the purpose of abetting the
slave trade, or being engaged in it?--I think decidedly not.

6891. Mr. _Forster_.] If the Echo had been an English vessel, would you
have seized her under the circumstances in which you found the
Echo?--Undoubtedly, under the circumstances of the trade which she was
carrying on.

6892. Mr. _Milnes_.] Do you mean after the first or after the second
search?--The search told nothing. It was the fact of her carrying goods
from one slave dealer to another, with a Spanish supercargo on board,
that would have proved to me that she was aiding and abetting the slave
trade.

6893. Would you have seized her upon the knowledge of that fact
alone?--Undoubtedly, if she had been an English vessel.

6894. _Chairman._] But being a foreign vessel, you did not think that
ground sufficient to act upon?--Being a foreign vessel, I could not
apply the English laws to her case. I could only apply the treaty to her
case, and I held that according to the treaty only equipment would
warrant a seizure, or slaves.

6895. Mr. _Milnes_.] Would you have had a right to seize that ship under
those circumstances simply from the fact of her having a foreign
supercargo?--Not upon that fact, but upon the fact of her carrying goods
from one slave dealer to another slave dealer to buy slaves with.

6896. How do you know that it was to buy slaves with?--From the fact of
their being both engaged in the slave trade.

6897. Was Mr. Canôt at that time avowedly engaged in the slave
trade?--Mr. Canôt had, a very few days before the arrival of the Echo,
given up all his slaves and abandoned the slave trade. It was a mere
accidental circumstance their finding that Mr. Canôt was not then
carrying on the slave trade.

6898. _Chairman._] They were consigned to him under the expectation that
he was a slave dealer?--At the time the consignment took place he was a
slave dealer, and no one at that time could have contemplated so sudden
a change on his part.

6899. Mr. _Milnes_.] But at the time the Echo was there, Mr. Canôt was
not engaged in the slave trade, and was under British protection?--Mr.
Canôt had, a few days before, given up his slaves and abandoned the
slave trade.

6900. But the parties who chartered the Echo could not have been aware
of that fact?--They could not possibly have been aware of that fact.

6901. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Mr. Canôt was known to be concerned in the
slave trade at the time the consignment was made?--Perfectly.

6902. Mr. _Forster_.] You do not think that Mr. Canôt in abandoning the
slave trade, was at all influenced by the prospective arrival of this
vessel, with a view to possessing himself of the cargo?--I do not see
how he could have been influenced by that; because, under the
circumstances, I could not have seized her, whether he had been carrying
on the slave trade or not. On the other hand, although he had turned
from the slave trade, yet, had I found any equipment upon her, I should
have seized her. It made no difference whatever.

6903. Did he immediately avail himself of the services of the British
squadron to remove the goods from New Cestos, the place to which they
were consigned, to Monrovia?--It would be necessary to explain what had
taken place at New Cestos with reference to Mr. Canôt, to understand
what took place with respect to those goods. Mr. Canôt, on the 8th of
December, voluntarily delivered his slaves to Lieutenant Seagram,
commanding H. M. S. Termagant, stationed by me to blockade the place.
Lieutenant Seagram then sailed, to land those slaves at Sierra Leone,
carrying with him reports upon the subject for my information. I met at
New Cestos his boats, and not having received any information from him,
but only from the officer in charge of the boats, verbally, I left an
order for him to the following effect: that if he was persuaded of Mr.
Canôt’s integrity of purpose, and provided the slave trade was at an
end, he was to afford him convenience and protection, and to assist him
in establishing a factory for Redman & Co. at Cape Mount. After my
departure, the goods consigned to Mr. Canôt were, I believe, landed at
his factory, the supercargo being on board, and ready to object if there
was any thing improper about it; and they were subsequently, according
to the orders I had left, protected by Lieutenant Seagram, when embarked
from the beach, the natives showing every disposition to resist the
departure of Mr. Canôt.

6904. Mr. _Milnes_.] Did you hear any thing at Sierra Leone about a
buoy, in which the papers of the Echo were said to have been
concealed?--I saw a buoy at the registrar’s office, at the
Vice-Admiralty Court, which was hollowed out with a scuttle, and I was
told that the papers had been concealed in this buoy. I should state,
that on searching the Echo, there was no search for papers, because
papers under the treaty with Hamburgh would not have been sufficient to
condemn her. Equipments were what I searched for.

6905. Would any papers that you could have found have been sufficient to
condemn her under the treaty with Hamburgh?--Had I found papers
distinctly proving that she was intended to take slaves, I should have
taken upon myself the responsibility of sending her to Hamburgh for
trial, according to the treaty; because, although not according to the
letter of the treaty, I believe the spirit of the Hamburgh treaty is
entirely true and just, and I believe it would have been enforced.

6906. Would any papers found upon her in British waters cause her to be
condemned, which would not cause her to be condemned if found in other
waters?--Papers found upon her in British waters, proving her to be
engaged in the slave trade, might certainly condemn her under our laws,
as coming under our jurisdiction.

6907. Mr. _Forster_.] Did the registrar inform you that the hollow place
in the buoy was intended to conceal papers, or that papers were found
concealed in it?--He told me that papers had been concealed in it. He
did not say that they had been found there, but that it had been used
for that purpose.

6908. Did he say that papers of that nature had been found in it at
Sierra Leone?--No, I think not.

6909. Mr. _Milnes_.] Have you known many instances of the crews of
men-of-war boats remaining on board during a search of that kind, and
conducting themselves improperly, taking articles out of the cargo for
their own use?--Extremely rarely. In this instance I am aware that some
of my ship’s company misbehaved themselves; but they, well knowing the
punishment that awaited them, managed to desert.

6910. Did you order the return of the goods which they had taken?--There
were no goods taken; I believe there was a bottle or two of champagne
drunk.

6911. Did you order the men for punishment?--The men escaped; the master
did not bring them back with him. They both died shortly afterwards, or
rather one died and the other one was very badly wounded in the
Termagant’s boats, and never returned to the Wanderer.

6912. Is it not very difficult to prevent the men from committing those
abuses?--I think not when the officers are strictly vigilant; but upon
this occasion Mr. Elliott had been induced to go on shore by some
representations of Mr. Canôt, who wished to prove to him that his
intentions were honest and upright as regarded his abandonment of the
slave trade; and that accounted for it.

6913. Were the men left by themselves?--No, they were not; there were
the officers of the Termagant employed also, in whose charge they were
left.

6914. Mr. _Forster_.] What means do you suppose the master of the Echo
would have at the Havannah of knowing the character and pursuits of Mr.
Canôt, to whom he was consigned upon the charter-party?--If he had made
the smallest inquiry, he could not have been in doubt for a moment.

6915. Where should he have made inquiry?--In the Havannah; Mr. Canôt was
as well known in the Havannah as Pedro Blanco himself.

6916. Is it the duty of a merchant captain in search of trade at a
foreign port to make inquiries as to the character and pursuits of his
consignee in another country?--Applying it to an English captain, I
should say that he was just as much bound to ascertain that he was not
engaged in the slave trade as an apothecary, when he sells arsenic, is
bound, as far as in him lies, to ascertain that it is not intended to
poison any body.

6917. Mr. _Milnes_.] Is it common for a ship to be condemned, and for
the captain at the same time to be declared not guilty of aiding and
abetting in the slave trade?--It occurs frequently, upon the very
principle of the difficulty of proof of the individual being wilfully
and knowingly engaged in the slave trade.

6918. Is it supposed that a vessel can be engaged in the slave trade
without the cognizance of the captain?--Engaged in the slave trade
indirectly, as the Hamburgh ship, the Echo, was, I think is possible; it
is very unlikely.

6919. You would say generally, that where the ship was condemned and the
captain escaped, it was through some want of legal proof?--Through the
want of bringing home the proof of his having actual knowledge of the
tendency of the trade in which he was engaged.

6920. _Chairman._] Upon whom would the loss fall of the condemnation of
the ship?--Upon the owners of the ship.

6921. The owners being in Hamburgh?--The owners being in Hamburgh.

6922. What control would they have over their ship in the Havannah,
except through the medium of the captain?--They might have an agent
there, who might be ordered to allow her to be taken up for freight to
any part of the world, and who might send the goods on board; and the
master might not know what part of Africa he was going to till the
moment before he loosed sails.

6923. But a guilty knowledge on the part of some party is necessary to
the condemnation of the vessel, is it not?--Yes, it is.

6924. In such cases as those, would the articles have nothing on the
face of them in the character of equipment, to serve the purposes of the
slave trade?--Not necessarily.

6925. Where can the guilty knowledge reside which shall condemn the
vessel and the goods consigned, if the captain is supposed not to have
possessed it?--The guilty knowledge, in my opinion, might be presumed.
It is the duty of owners to take care that their ships are not turned
into pirates or into smugglers, and if they are turned into smugglers or
pirates, they must take the consequences; and so if they break other
laws I conceive.

6926. Mr. _Milnes_.] Do you know other instances of ships being
condemned, and the captains acquitted?--Yes; the Augusta, captured by
Captain Hill, was a case of that description.

6927. Mr. _Forster_.] Is it not equally an offence on the part of the
captain?--Undoubtedly so, if a guilty knowledge can be proved against
him.

6928. You cannot prove a guilty knowledge in the case of the ship?--I
think you may be able to show that the persons owning the ship or acting
as agent for the owners may have had a guilty knowledge, where the
master had no guilty knowledge.

6929. Mr. _Milnes_.] But you cannot legally sell the property of the
captain when the captain himself is declared to be not guilty?--If the
vessel was declared guilty by a proper court, undoubtedly that is a
consequence of the condemnation.

6930. Would the individual property of the captain himself be included
in the condemnation?--I believe the doctrine always has been, that the
whole property on board the ship is vitiated by her being engaged in the
slave trade. But these questions are all questions as to the
construction of the Act of Parliament of the 5th of George the 4th,
which I do not feel competent to interpret in this manner, although I
see my way clearly enough to act upon it.

6931. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you consider that the mere conveyance as a
common carrier of goods from the Havannah to the coast of Africa, is an
act of slave dealing?--Not the common carrying of goods: but if she is
carrying goods from Pedro Blanco to Mr. Canôt, I do not call that a
common act of carrying. It is the act of carrying goods for a specific
purpose between two persons engaged in a criminal trade.

6932. Mr. _Milnes_.] Could not Pedro Blanco and Mr. Canôt have
mercantile communications which should be of an indisputably legal
character?--They might, but they indisputably have no such commerce
except in the smallest degree possible. There was some little palm-oil
trade carried on by Mr. Canôt. I believe Mr. Canôt’s evidence was not
taken upon the question, but Mr. Canot made no secret of the purposes to
which that cargo would have been applied by him.

6933. Mr. _Forster_.] Supposing arsenic to be conveyed from London to
Manchester, and there made an illegal use of, would you consider the
carrier responsible in that case?--No, but I think that supposed case
applies to the carriage of goods from England to the Havannah, and not
from the Havannah to a slave factory in Africa. If you suppose the case
of the person at the place to which the arsenic was sent, and the person
who sends it, both being employed in poisoning people, I should think in
that case the carrier would be culpable, supposing him to be aware of
the fact.

6934. Do you consider it illegal for an English vessel to convey a cargo
of merchandise from the Havannah to a person engaged in the slave trade
on the coast of Africa?--Supposing they are sent by a person engaged in
the slave trade.

6935. Do you consider it illegal for an English vessel to convey a cargo
of goods to a notorious slave dealer at the Havannah?--No, I do not.

6936. On what ground do you draw the distinction between the two
cases?--I think the one is more directly aiding and abetting the slave
trade than the other; the other is in a much more remote degree. I have
before stated that I thought it was morally wrong.

6937. Mr. _Milnes_.] Do you recollect whether the fitting up of the
vessel was such that it could have taken back a cargo of slaves,
supposing Mr. Canôt had still been concerned in the slave trade?--She
would only have had to get a few casks and a few planks, and she might
have taken back 700 or 800 slaves with the greatest ease Any vessel can
be fitted up as a slaver.

6938. Then your impression is that that vessel arrived there expecting
to find Mr. Canôt engaged in the slave trade, and was disappointed at
finding that he had abandoned it?--Undoubtedly, they still supposed him
to be engaged in the slave trade; but how far the disappointment went I
cannot say. The goods were landed to him still, although there was a
supercargo on board, which is a strong reason to suppose that Mr. Canôt
was not robbing his employers, as was suggested.

6939. Mr. _Forster_.] Was it not the fact, that it was not till after
they had been landed that the goods were removed to Cape Mount?--But
they had been promised to be removed before. The promise was given that
his goods should be removed to Cape Mount, under the protection of the
British flag, because it was well understood that the natives would
resist the removal of Mr. Canôt; they wanted to have a slave dealer.

6940. What back cargo could the Echo have taken from Mr. Canôt, except
slaves?--She could have taken nothing approaching to a cargo; there were
a few casks of palm oil, but wholly insufficient for the cargo of such a
vessel.

6941. _Chairman._] Could she not have taken money?--She could have taken
money or bills, but nothing in the shape of cargo.

6942. Is not the greater part of the slave trade on the coast of Africa
carried on upon the principle of one vessel bringing a cargo and taking
back money, and another vessel being employed to take away slaves?--It
is. In most of those cases, the principal slave dealer is resident at
the Havannah; and in all cases almost the freight of the former is paid
for in the Havannah. There is no money or goods taken out in the vessel
intended to carry back slaves.

6943. There is nothing, in the course of the slave trade on the coast of
Africa, which leads you to imagine that a vessel which carries goods to
the coast must necessarily intend to carry slaves back?--No; there is
only one instance which I know, when I was upon the coast during the
last two years, of such an attempt. With respect to Mr. Canôt, there is
one fact with regard to his conduct which is highly in his favour. Some
time after the slaves were delivered up, the natives got some goods from
him, and tried to endeavour to induce him to resume the slave trade.
They went and bought 50 slaves with those goods. He gave information on
the subject, and through him the slaves were delivered up to Lieutenant
Seagram. Throughout his whole conduct I have the strongest reason to
suppose that he is most perfectly honest in his intention of abandoning
the slave trade. He has always given me the fullest information with
regard also to the resumption of the slave trade at New Cestos.

6944. _Chairman._] You had a good deal of intercourse with Mr. Canôt?--A
good deal. I used to receive communications from him, giving me
information with respect to the slave trade.

6945. What appears to have been the moving cause to induce him to
abandon the slave trade?--I have reason to believe that he had for some
time contemplated it; but the immediate cause was, that under the
blockade he found that he could not follow out the commerce; that he
could not get the slaves away.

6946. Mr. _Forster_.] Was the captain cognizant of Mr. Canôt having
abandoned the slave trade previously to the landing of the cargo?--He
states it himself in his complaint. He states that it was so; that he
saw the English flag flying.

6947. Do not you consider that strong proof, that the captain of the
Echo was no party to the slave trading transactions going on between the
shipper and the consignee?--I can only suppose that the property was Mr.
Canôt’s, and that he as an honest man felt himself bound to give it to
him. Had it been Pedro Blanco’s own property, sent by him for Mr. Canôt
to buy slaves with, I think the property would not have been allowed to
be landed.

6948. If the captain had been in the secret as to the transactions
between the house at the Havannah and Mr. Canôt, the captain, to protect
the house in the Havannah, finding that Mr. Canôt had abandoned the
slave trade, would not have delivered the goods?--He was paid for his
freight. I suppose he did not care what became of the goods. Had he not
landed the goods, he would have had to carry them back; he would have
been unable to take freight back.

6949. Mr. _Milnes_.] Was none of the freight landed?--I believe all that
was consigned to Mr. Canôt was landed after I sailed.

6950. How would Mr. Canôt have paid for it?--I have no idea how it was
paid for. There are three theories to choose amongst; one is, that he
robbed his employer’s goods without any set-off; another is, that his
employers owed him something equivalent at least to the value of the
goods; and the third is, that they were his own property. I refused to
enter into the subject with him at all; I had nothing to do with his
slave transactions; had it been amenable to seizure I should have seized
it.

6951. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Does the slave trade increase or decrease, at
the time of the senior officer on the station being changed?--It has
generally been observed in the printed correspondence of the
commissioners, and also from the observations of the officers on the
coast, that the senior officers not having a practical knowledge of the
coast, upon their first arrival there the cruizing is much less
efficient for a certain time. It requires a long time for an officer to
understand the duties of the coast.

6952. You have understood that frequently changing the officers is
injurious to the suppression of the slave trade?--Such is my opinion; I
think that three years is the proper time for an officer to be employed
there. I think the service would suffer if they were removed more
frequently.

6953. How long, speaking generally, does it take for an officer to
acquire a tolerably competent knowledge of the duties on that
coast?--Several months, certainly.

6954. Are the cruizers now obliged to leave their stations frequently,
to get provisions?--They are obliged to leave their stations generally
once in three or four months for that purpose, and during that period,
of course, the slavers frequently escape. The period is longer or
shorter, according to the distance of the depôts.

6955. Do not the slave traders generally obtain accurate information of
the periods at which the cruizers will probably be absent?--They
frequently do so by reasoning, and by observing the time at which the
cruizers have received their supplies.

6956. Does the present state of the Bounty Acts afford due encouragement
to exertions for the prevention of the slave trade, or might an
alteration be made which would do more justice to those who are affected
by those Acts?--In my opinion the present system of bounties is upon an
extremely bad footing. It affords a great premium upon the capture of
full vessels over empty vessels; whereas I believe the slave trade is to
be stopped by the prevention of embarkation.

6957. How could the Act be altered, in your opinion, so as to make less
difference between full vessels and empty vessels?--My opinion is, that
there should be no difference whatever between them; that they should be
paid upon the tonnage a bounty, calculated upon the average between the
profit of a full vessel and an empty vessel of the same tonnage; that
there should be no more head-money whatever; that the proceeds should
not go to the captors; that the proceeds should go to the Government;
that the reward of the captors should be only upon the tonnage.

6958. Abolishing head-money altogether?--Abolishing head-money
altogether.

6959. _Chairman._] Do you conceive that Sierra Leone is well situated as
a place for adjudication, under the present circumstances of the slave
trade?--I think that it is the best place, under the present
circumstances of the slave trade.

6960. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Can you suggest any improvement in the rigging
of the ships employed on the coast, or in the boats with which they are
furnished?--The cruizers employed upon the coast have the same masts and
sails precisely in them as they would have in the North Sea, their
duties lying altogether in the Tropics. In my opinion, with the same
masts, a large increase of canvass, by making the sails squarer, would
be of the utmost advantage.

6961. Are the boats now used the best adapted for that particular
service?--I think every vessel, capable of carrying them, ought to carry
two long six-oared galleys at her quarters, and that those that carry
boats amidship should have as large boats as they can stow, and that
they should be built so lightly as to be able to keep pace with the
galleys. A much larger proportion have been captured by boats than by
cruizing.


_Lunæ, 27º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Mr. W. Hamilton.
  Mr. Milnes.

  VISCOUNT SANDON in the chair.

  Captain the Honourable _Joseph Denman_, R. N., called in; and further
  examined.

6962. _Chairman._] Can you give the Committee any information with
regard to the Kroo Coast; first as to the extent of the Kroo Coast?--The
Kroo Coast, I conceive, begins at the river Cestros, the place known as
St. George’s, where Mr. Spence had established a factory several years
ago, which has been recently abandoned. The Kroomen occupy only five
towns upon the coast at different places between the river Cestros and
the Grand Cestros; to the northward of that the Bassa people lie
intermixed with the Fishmen, and, occupying all the coast to the
southward of the Grand Cestros, are the Fishmen, a different people from
the Kroomen; they are often confounded with them, but there is a broad
distinction between them. Intermixed with the five Kroo towns are many
Fish places. The Kroomen occupy the interior of the country more than
the Fishmen; the Fishmen are entirely upon the coast. Below Grand
Cestros they are all Fish towns. The Fish people are much more numerous
than the Kroomen. At a place called by the Fishmen Saucy Town, the
natives from the interior fought their way down to the beach.

6963. What were they?--We have no means of knowing; they are quite
different from any other races that we know of; at this the Fishmen are
exceedingly angry, as they consider that they have a title to all the
trade upon the coast. They have prohibited all trade with this place,
and have committed many outrages against British vessels and others who
have traded there in spite of their prohibition. The Fishmen are perfect
pests to the trade upon the coast; they require keeping in order very
much.

6964. Are they principally Kroomen or Fishmen who enter on board Her
Majesty’s ships?--More Fishmen than Kroomen; we cannot employ them
together.

6965. Is it the same with reference to mercantile vessels?--I am not
aware, but I think the Fishmen are generally preferred, as they are more
at home with boats and more accustomed to live on the water than the
Kroomen.

6966. Do you call those principally Kroomen or Fishmen that live at
Sierra Leone?--Both classes exist there, but I am not aware in what
proportions; the Kroomen are preferred for domestic purposes; they are
much more capable of attachment to white people.

6967. Have you any idea what the population is, whether of Fishmen or of
Kroomen?--The population of the coast of Fishmen is much greater than
that of Kroomen, but I always understood that the Kroomen ran a long way
into the interior, and were an agricultural race; indeed if it was not
so, I do not see how they could possibly exist against the hostility of
the Fishmen, as their numbers on the sea-coast are very inferior; they
are almost always at war.

6968. Are both Fishmen and Kroomen exempt from becoming slaves?--They
are exempt from becoming slaves; at the only slave factories upon the
coast, between Sierra Leone and Cape Palmas, Gallinas, and New Cestos,
the work was entirely carried on by Fishmen, but they have a great
objection to being slaves themselves; they are in the habit of
sacrificing their enemies taken in war to the Fetish tree.

6969. Are you speaking of Fishmen or of Kroomen now?--Both; I have had
opportunities of knowing that that is the fact.

6970. Do those parties bring slaves from distant parts in the interior,
or is it upon neighbouring tribes that they make inroads in order to
procure slaves?--I do not think the Fishmen or Kroomen are in the habit
of collecting slaves at all; but they are very willing to lend
themselves out to slave factories, to assist them in carrying on the
traffic in every way.

6971. And to allow their territory to be made a place of embarkation
for slaves?--I believe not; indeed there is no embarkation of slaves in
their territory; nor nearer than Young Cestos.

6972. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Their willingness to hire themselves out to
slavers is merely as a means of active employment?--Exactly so.

6973. Not from any preference to that employment?--They prefer it, I
believe, because they are better paid for that than any thing else.

6974. _Chairman._] Have you had any opportunity of knowing the domestic
condition of the Kroomen or the Fishmen; whether they are under the
obligations of slavery to any parties?--No, there is no slavery in the
Kroo or Fish country, although the system of every headman having his
boys under him approaches something to it. The headman receives all the
wages of all the boys under him; whether that is from family connexion,
or from political institution, I do not know, but the headman receives
all the pay of all the boys. A headman on board a man-of-war, for
instance, will have 20 men under him, and he receives the whole of their
wages.

6975. Do you always take on board a headman, for every number of Kroomen
or Fishmen that you engage?--It is absolutely necessary to have a
headman to keep them in order; he generally chooses all the people, we
leave it to him to choose them. If Fishmen and Kroomen happen to be
mixed up in the same party there are always quarrels and disturbances,
indeed there is no getting on with them, so strong is the antipathy.

6976. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you think, from what you know of those
people, that they would be disposed to engage themselves as labourers in
the West Indies, if proper means were taken to acquaint them with the
nature of the service?--If proper means were taken, I have not the least
doubt they might get thousands of them; the thing necessary is to
produce confidence in their minds, and that would best be done by some
man-of-war upon the coast taking over some of the headmen, upon a
promise that they should be returned by the same ship.

6977. _Chairman._] You believe that they have confidence in a
man-of-war?--I believe they have the greatest confidence in a
man-of-war, and also in the English people; but they might fancy that
abuses might take place, and that they might be made slaves of, unless
they had the evidence of some of their own people.

6978. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you think it would be possible for a
man-of-war to discharge the duty of securing against any possible abuse
in their embarkation?--I do not think it would be at all necessary to
have a man-of-war for that purpose. I think you might safely leave them
to take care of themselves. The only purpose for which a man-of-war need
interfere, would be to give them a feeling of confidence in the first
instance. They might object to go over in any thing but a man-of-war. I
think the first impression is all that a man-of-war would be required
for.

6979. Do you think these people might not take others with them against
their will?--I think not; I do not think they hold slaves in any way;
the mark of the race is so very distinct, that other races could not be
mixed with them as emigrants without detection.

6980. _Chairman._] You think that the connexion between the chiefs and
those companies of boys is rather a voluntary connexion, for the purpose
of protection, than one of compulsion?--It is a voluntary connexion,
because it exists equally strongly at Sierra Leone as any where else.

6981. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Have you any doubt that the commanders of one
of Her Majesty’s ships could effectually prevent any embarkation of the
natives against their will?--I do not think there would be the smallest
necessity for a man-of-war to superintend the coast, except at first.

6982. Supposing no landing were allowed in the West Indies without a
certificate of one of Her Majesty’s officers, would it be easy for the
officer, before he gave such a certificate, to take effectual security
against being imposed upon by the delivery of a person without his full
consent?--It would be very easy to ascertain the fact; but the Kroo and
Fish race are so distinct from all others, that I do not think there is
the smallest apprehension of its taking the form of slavery.

6983. You mean so far as regards any embarkation from that part of the
coast?--Yes, in British ships.

6984. Would it be equally safe on other parts of the coast?--It would be
impossible in other parts, without perpetuating the slave trade, in my
opinion.

6985. _Chairman._] What would be the difference between the two
cases?--There are no other races upon the coast who leave their country
voluntarily to labour. The only way in which it could possibly be
expected that the natives would be obtained from any other part of the
coast would be upon compulsion and upon sale, upon positive sale and
nominal manumission afterwards, before embarkation; but that would hold
out the same inducements to internal slave trade in Africa as the slave
trade to Brazils or Cuba.

6986. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] You think it would be impossible to guard
against fraud in that case?--It would be impossible to establish such a
plan without perpetuating the slave trade.

6987. _Chairman._] On the Fish Coast, and on the Kroo Coast, you would
not apprehend that the advantage given by any little presents to the
chiefs on the departure of any of their people for the West Indies,
might induce them to bring negroes from other parts of the country for
the purpose of emigration?--I think negroes from other parts of the
country would be immediately distinguished from the Kroomen.

6988. The security, then, you think would consist in the external marks
of the Kroo and Fish people?--Yes. Moreover, the Kroomen and the
Fishmen, on landing in the West Indies, would be always able to tell
their own story; to speak English enough to make their case known.

6989. You do not mean that the Kroomen living inland speak English?--I
suppose not; but all that I have ever seen have managed to make
themselves understood; indeed I think it is possible they might have
some idea of the English language inland, it is so universal amongst all
that I have seen. It would be very easy to follow the plan supposed, to
have a man-of-war stationed in that quarter, and known to be at a
certain place; it would be very easy to require every emigrant ship to
visit her, and receive a certificate from the captain before she sailed
for the West Indies.

6990. Would you feel any difficulty in ascertaining certainly, against
possibility of fraud, that those people were _bonâ fide_
volunteers?--There would not be the smallest difficulty.

6991. _Chairman._] You would call up the men and be able to ask them,
either directly in English, or through interpreters, the circumstances
under which they embarked?--Yes.

6992. And ascertain their knowledge of the object of the
embarkation?--Yes; nothing would be more easy or more certain.

6993. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Supposing any man embarked were to say that
he did not wish to go, what would you do with him?--He must give his
presents back that he has received and go back himself.

6994. If he had been sent on board by compulsion, would he not run some
risk on his landing?--I think it altogether repugnant to the customs of
the country to force people on board; I do not think it is a thing at
all to be apprehended.

6995. Mr. _Aldam_.] You think there would be no more difficulty in
emigration from the Kroo Coast to the West Indies than in emigration
from England to Canada?--There would be scarcely more difficulty; I
should feel quite confident, that with the commonest care upon the part
of the Governments in the West India islands, such a thing could not be
abused.

6996. You think the one is as liable to abuse as the other?--Yes: I
think the emigration from the coast of Africa would require a little
more looking after.

6997. But the captain of a man-of-war might perform every duty that the
emigration agent now performs in an English port?--Yes; I think a
man-of-war stationed in the neighbourhood might do so.

6998. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you think the Kroomen would be willing to
leave their families?--I think they would be perfectly willing to remove
without their families; you could not get them to take their families.

6999. For what length of time?--For three or four years; they have the
greatest objection to remove their women; indeed it is impossible for
any race to be more obstinately attached to their own habits and
prejudices than the Kroo and the Fish races.

7000. Therefore their engagement would be of a temporary nature?--There
is scarcely such a thing known as a Krooman to be absent from his
country more than seven years.

7001. Mr. _Aldam_.] Would their absence in the West Indies, and the
habits they would be likely to acquire there, tend to improve the
manners of the people at home, upon their return?--I think it would have
that effect to some small extent.

7002. And to introduce civilization?--To a very small extent; I do not
think that much could be expected without other means.

7003. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Have they any means of education?--None
whatever.

7004. _Chairman._] They have no contact with any white men, except some
that come for the purpose of trading upon the coast?--And at the
settlements of Sierra Leone and Liberia.

7005. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do they take opportunities of acquiring
instruction on board ships?--No, I think not, except what they must
learn to do their duties.

7006. Do they show any disposition to learn to read and write?--Not at
all.

7007. Do you think that having learned the cultivation of sugar in the
West Indies, they would be likely to introduce the same cultivation in
their own country?--I think that at present they are not sufficiently
enlightened to make it very probable.

7008. _Chairman._] Would the effect of considerable emigration from the
Kroo Coast be to raise the rate of wages of the Kroomen employed in the
navy, and on board merchant ships?--I should think very probably it
might have that effect, but the wages now paid on board ships of war are
much higher than are paid anywhere else.

7056. _Chairman._] Have you considered the subject of the removal of the
Mixed Commission Court from Sierra Leone?--I have. I have heard that the
places named as preferable are Fernando Po, Accra, and Ascension. The
first is a foreign possession, and not to be purchased, therefore
utterly out of the question. The second has dangerous anchorage; no
harbour or place for breaking up ships, no territory for location, no
market for goods, and no community of which liberated Africans could
become a part. The third is a desert, the 150 persons now living there
being victualled, as at sea, on salt provisions. Since 1839, at the
latter end of which we were for the first time enabled really to attack
the slave trade, the number of Africans liberated by the Mixed
Commission Court has been extremely small; and this diminution may be
regarded as a test of success, the grand object being to guard the coast
and prevent the embarkation of slaves. In 1840 the number emancipated at
Sierra Leone amounted to but 732, and in the first half of 1841 to but
291, and of these not one-sixth died between capture and emancipation.
Sierra Leone is far preferable to any other place for the location of
liberated Africans, there being already a large and prosperous
community, comprising natives of every African race, who receive among
them their newly-emancipated countrymen, and regard them with the utmost
sympathy, assisting them in every way, and instructing them in the
language and customs of the colony. It frequently happens that near
relations are again united, and the transports of joy on such occasions
well vindicate the African from the charge so often repeated. The marked
inferiority of the liberated Africans who have been sent to the Gambia
is owing to their small numbers, in a community having no sympathies
with them, and from whom they are as much separated as from the white
inhabitants; and I would ask whether intercourse with the Fantees of the
Gold Coast would civilize or improve them to a greater extent?

7057. What is your opinion as to the advantage of transporting the
slaves as soon as they are emancipated, from Sierra Leone to the West
Indies?--The treaties embodied in the Act of the 5th of Geo. 4, provide
that slaves shall be located in the territory of the nation of the
capturing cruizer. This provision is fulfilled, when slaves captured by
a British cruizer are emancipated at Sierra Leone. When slaves so
captured are emancipated at Havannah, they should be removed to
whichever of the British West India islands it is honestly believed they
will be best placed for their own welfare and happiness. I utterly deny
the right to consult the interests of any other parties whatever in
their location. It has been argued that it would be beneficial to Sierra
Leone to send negroes after emancipation in the West Indies, and that
the Act in question authorises the Government to compel slaves
emancipated under its provisions to serve in the Army or Navy, or to
send them where it pleases. But to carry this provision out to its full
extent would be but to perpetuate their slavery, contrary to the whole
spirit of the Act; nor could the forcible removal of these poor
creatures from an asylum containing thousands of their countrymen, and
possibly many of their near kindred, be rendered justifiable by any
consideration whatever. I have seen a cargo of slaves, after the
completion of one voyage across the Atlantic, condemned to another for
their own supposed benefit; and I can bear witness to the horror of the
victims, when they found themselves once more on the “middle passage.”

7058. What circumstance do you allude to?--The vessel which I stated
before, that I took from Rio Janeiro to Sierra Leone, a slave ship, with
a cargo of slaves which had arrived there, and had been there seized.
Further I would say, let the subject be considered with regard to
foreign governments. The Dutch government not long ago purchased slaves
at Elmina, who, after nominal enfranchisement, were forcibly transported
to the island of Java. It is undoubted, that a vessel employed in
carrying them would be subject to capture by a British cruizer, and
condemnation at Sierra Leone. Had such a case occurred, and the negroes
after emancipation been immediately transported to Trinidad, or to
Demerara without their own consent, how could such a transaction be
vindicated in the eyes of Europe? Voluntary emigration from Sierra Leone
may very properly be encouraged by all fair means. The number of
emigrants cannot, however, amount to any considerable extent, compared
with the wants of the West Indies.

7059. Mr. _Forster_.] Are you well acquainted with the land in the
neighbourhood of Accra?--No; I have not been to Accra. I only know that
the British settlement is confined to the walls of the fort.

7060. Are you aware of any difficulty that would arise in acquiring
territory in the neighbourhood of Accra?--I believe there would be no
difficulty; but it is the fact that we have no territory now.

7061. But if it were deemed advisable to establish the Mixed Commission
Court there, are you aware of any difficulty in acquiring territory for
the purpose of locating the liberated Africans?--No; I believe that
territory might be obtained if it were desirable in other respects. But
I believe it is not desirable in other respects.

7062. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Have any liberated Africans been employed at
Ascension; and if so, how have they conducted themselves?--I have a
letter from a gentleman who was adjutant in the Island of Ascension,
under whom those Africans were employed, Lieutenant Wade. I beg leave to
state that in this letter, as regards the first party to which he
alludes, from my own knowledge I can say that he has very much
understated the difficulty that existed with them. They were very
troublesome in every way. He expressed to me verbally, in the strongest
terms, the contrast between the people who had not received the benefit
of residence at Sierra Leone, and those who had.

  [_The letter was delivered in, and read as follows_:]

  Sir,

  London, 23 June, 1842.

  I have the honour to address to you the following facts relative to
  the liberated Africans employed by Government on the Island of
  Ascension, and which you may be pleased to lay before the African
  Committee for their information.

  The liberated Africans attached to the establishment are 33 in number,
  and are relieved every three years if they wish it; they are paid in
  three classes. The first class receive 6_d._ and the lowest 4_d._,
  according to their merits; they receive a full ration of provisions,
  but no spirits, except the head man, who is paid and victualled as the
  marines.

  I was three years on the island, the last two as adjutant, and as such
  these people were more immediately under my control; and therefore I
  am enabled to speak confidently as to their general conduct.

  I found them easily managed, especially the last party which arrived
  in December 1840, who being residents at Sierra Leone for many years,
  were most useful and intelligent men; most of them had learned to read
  and write, and several had been brought up to trades and were
  industrious; whereas the former party, who were sent direct from the
  slave-yard (as it is commonly termed), were difficult to instruct,
  owing to their ignorance of the English language.

  Each man is permitted to bring his wife.

  I have, &c.

  To Captain the Honourable   (signed)    _Jno. Wade_, Lieut. R.N.
  Joseph Denman, R.N.

7063. Mr. _Forster_.] As you appear to consider Sierra Leone as a
desirable place for landing and locating the liberated Africans, how do
you account for so little progress having hitherto been made in
agricultural improvement and in carrying civilization into the interior
from that part, up to the present time?--I consider that the liberated
Africans of Sierra Leone have made a wonderful advance, comparing them
with their condition when landed from the slave ships.

7064. Is it not the fact that no progress has been made in cultivation
or in planting in the neighbourhood of Sierra Leone?--No advance has
been made because there has been no inducement held out to them; but the
people have made wonderful strides, in my opinion, in civilization, and
the condition of the liberated Africans is quite extraordinary,
comparing them with the state in which they were landed, considering the
very short time that has elapsed since the first Africans were liberated
there from the slave ships.

7065. Is it not upwards of twenty years that the system has been going
on there, and would not that afford ample time for greater improvement
than is perceived there at this moment?--Considering the great numbers
that during the twenty years have been landed from the slave ships, and
their condition, I think the advance is more than could have been
expected, considering that no inducement has been held out to
agricultural pursuits.

7066. Are you acquainted with the banks of the Gambia and the land in
the neighbourhood of our settlement there?--I have been in the Gambia a
good deal; I cannot say that I have any perfect knowledge of the banks
of the river.

7067. Would you think that the Gambia affords a more desirable location
than Sierra Leone for cultivation?--I think, perhaps, for that
particular object it may, but I am not at all sure of that.

7068. _Chairman._] Sierra Leone furnishes very little exportable produce
of its own?--I am not aware that it exports any thing of its own, but
the country we are about to purchase affords means of raising produce,
if it is encouraged; I mean the Quia country.

7069. You think it desirable that the limits of the colony of Sierra
Leone should be extended?--I think undoubtedly, both up the river and
coastwise; I consider that the plans of General Turner were in the
utmost degree wise and enlightened, and it is very much to be regretted
that they were not followed up.

7070. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] When you say coastwise, do you mean north or
south?--I think south to Cape Mount, where a settlement is already
established, I would purchase the sovereignty, and establish one or two
settlements between Cape Mount and Sierra Leone.

7071. Including the Sherboro’?--Including the Sherboro’; Boom Kittam
General Turner already had. With regard to the Gambia I should wish to
observe, that to bring forth the resources of that colony a steamer on
the river is indispensably necessary, and in my opinion she would pay
her own expenses, if she were allowed to carry light goods up and down
for the merchants, as a sort of packet.

7072. _Chairman._] Would there be any difficulty in manning a steamer
almost entirely with blacks, so as to expose very little, if any, white
life to the risks attending the navigation of the river?--For the
services of colonial steamers, I believe they might be entirely manned
with black people, and in the course of a few years, even with black
engineers.

7073. Mr. _Forster_.] Are you aware that the French have two or three
steam boats generally on the Senegal?--I am aware that the French have
steamers, that they are exercising the utmost rivalry against British
commerce upon the coast, and that they derive the greatest possible
advantages over British commerce by the use of those steamers.

7074. _Chairman._] Is there any thing at present to prevent the
establishment of mercantile steamers, either at Sierra Leone or at the
Gambia, as a private venture?--As a private venture, certainly not; but
it would not be worth the while of any individuals to make the
speculation.

7075. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Are the French steamers government
steamers?--They are government steamers attached to the colony of
Senegal.

7076. _Chairman._] What sized steamers would be required for the purpose
that you contemplate?--I should say very small steamers for the Gambia
itself; as small as the London boats that run above bridge; but their
services would be required entirely for that river, and perhaps for the
Casamanza.

7077. Mr. _Forster_.] Would not a steamer on the Gambia be very
important for the Government communication with Macarthy’s Island, and
generally up the river?--It is the only way that settlements up the
river can be supported or protected in my opinion; it would have the
effect of quadrupling the force there now, and it is the only means by
which we can, in my opinion, bring out the resources of the upper parts
of the river, which are so great.

7078. _Chairman._] Is the force of the current generally so strong as to
render it extremely difficult to navigate up the stream with sailing
vessels?--It frequently takes a week or 10 days to get a good-sized
vessel up to Macarthy’s Island, where now our highest settlement is; but
we should have one still higher.

7079. You conceive that there are immense resources up the river?--I do;
I believe that a supply of gum might be obtained at the Gambia equal to
that which we have been deprived of by the French at Portendique, if
proper measures were taken. At Portendique, for the last two years,
there has been no trade at all.

7080. Mr. _Forster_.] In your former evidence, in answer to question
6674, in reference to the importance of British settlements for the
suppression of the slave trade, you say “I spoke more particularly of
Sierra Leone, at the same time the connection of the Gambia trade with
the slave trade is a fact that there is no doubt about;” are the
Committee to understand that you mean that Sierra Leone and the Gambia
are on the same footing in that respect?--I think they have assisted the
slave trade in very different ways; one way in which they have both
assisted, is by the sale of vessels to the slave dealers; but the trade
in the Gambia goes hand in hand with the slave trade of Bissao, as I
before stated; at Sierra Leone it has been more directly by the sale of
vessels, and some few goods passing down through their hands to the
Gallinas and elsewhere.

7081. Will you have the goodness to explain to the Committee your
meaning in saying that “the connection of the Gambia trade with the
slave trade is a fact that there is no doubt about”?--I should have said
the external trade of the Gambia; the trade up the river is another
thing. As regards the external trade of the Gambia, the greater part of
the trade is through the hands of notorious slave dealers, who sell
produce, and give money to the Gambia merchants, and who in return
receive goods from the Gambia; and those goods are the means again of
purchasing slaves and produce; that is a connection which I consider is
a very direct one.

7082. _Chairman._] You do not mean, that merchants trading at the Gambia
are themselves personally interested in any slave trade adventures, or
have any share in the profit or loss of such transactions?--No; I have
no reason to suppose that such is the case directly.

7083. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you mean to say that the goods so
furnished to the slave dealer are essential to the maintenance of the
slave traffic?--I believe they might get goods elsewhere, if those were
not supplied by the Gambia merchants.

7084. But still goods from some part are essential to the maintenance of
the slave traffic?--Indispensable; all their slaves are bought with
British goods.

7085. _Chairman._] Could they not obtain their slaves solely with
money?--I think not.

7086. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] What is the state of civilization of the
people upon the Gambia?--The banks of the Gambia have been disturbed for
several years by a man of the name of Kemingtang, and a great deal too
much forbearance has been used towards him. I do not think the people in
general upon the banks are in an advanced state of civilization, by any
means.

7087. Its progress has been interrupted by this man’s disturbance?--This
man has occasioned mischief, but I do not think it was making progress
to any extent.

7088. Mr. _Forster_.] You appear to distinguish between legitimate and
illegitimate trade by the mode of payment; that is to say, according to
whether the payment is in money or in produce?--I have already said
that, strictly speaking, in the strict sense of the term, “legitimate
trade,” that is, trade which has no communication with the slave trade
in any way whatever, is that in which goods are exchanged for produce.

7089. Would you recommend or expect that a trader on the coast of Africa
should refuse dollars in payment of his goods to any body?--In cases
where he knew that no use could be made of those goods but to purchase
slaves, I think he would be bound to do so; and I think if he did not he
should be subjected to the penalties of the Act.

7090. Supposing the British traders of Bissao were to refuse money from
the Spaniards, would you recommend that they should refuse money also
from the natives in exchange for their goods?--I have stated that I do
not recommend that they should refuse money from any body, except in
cases where the trade must necessarily be going on to supply the slave
trade exclusively. In cases where slave trade and produce trade exist
together, I do not think it would be possible, and I do not think it
would be desirable to endeavour to prevent the trade from going on; I
have stated that fully in the former part of my evidence.

7091. _Chairman._] You would, if possible, devise some means by which
English trade, although in lawful goods, with settlements purely
confined to slave trading, such as the Gallinas, should be
prevented?--Precisely; that is my view.

7092. As long as the prize vessels are sold at Sierra Leone, will there
not be great practical difficulty in preventing those vessels getting
ultimately into the hands of the slave dealers, whether you can prevent
it at the first hand or not?--I think the longer the interval that
elapsed before they got into the hands of the slave dealers, the better.
I think that British subjects selling vessels adapted only for the slave
trade into the hands of notorious slave dealers, should be rendered
subject to penalties; but I admit the difficulty of preventing the
eventual return of such vessels into the hands of slave dealers.

7093. You think it very desirable, if possible, that the system of
breaking up vessels should be further extended?--I think it should be
applied universally to slave ships.

7094. Is there any English law which you would wish to see amended in
that respect?--Under the Act 5 Geo. 4, under which a vessel in British
waters would be condemned for carrying on the slave trade, there is no
provision for breaking up the vessel; and consequently vessels condemned
under that Act are sold to the highest bidder. I certainly think it is
desirable that a clause should be inserted in the act for the purpose.

7095. Mr. _Forster_.] You have stated in your former evidence that the
public auctioneer is obliged to knock down the vessel to the highest
bidder. Would you recommend that the public auctioneer should be subject
to penalties for selling a vessel to the agent of a slave dealer?--I
have before stated that he is not subject to penalties; he is a
Government agent employed according to law.

7096. Captain _Fitzroy_.] You have stated that the cruizers should be
withdrawn from the western coast of the Atlantic, their efforts against
the slave trade there being comparatively ineffectual. Can you give any
further reason for that opinion than the one you have expressed?--The
cruizers upon the coast of Cuba or Brazil, cruize under much greater
disadvantages than they formerly did upon the coast of Africa, before
the Equipment articles came into force; and moreover, the immense number
of merchant vessels always in sight about those parts of the coast is, I
think, another reason against attempting to suppress the slave trade
upon that side of the Atlantic. And there is besides another subject of
greatly increased importance, the inconvenience that would arise from
the exercise of the right of search in that quarter.

7097. _Chairman._] You mean to say, that in consequence of coming into
contact with a much greater number of vessels of different descriptions,
the right of search, if exercised there, would be more obnoxious, and
lead to greater difficulties with the countries upon whose vessels we
should exercise it?--It could never be fully exercised with regard to
the vessels that were there, and the exercise of it would involve 50
searches for one upon the coast of Africa.

7098. In the one case you only have to search the African trade, in the
other case you have to search the whole trade of those countries on the
American coast?--Yes.

7099. Captain _Fitzroy_.] You have stated the disproportion between the
emolument derived by the captains of cruizers from the capture of
slavers after the embarkation of the slaves, compared with that derived
from the capture of empty vessels, to be very great, and altogether
unjust; can you give the Committee any further information upon this
subject?--I have here an account of two vessels, captured under the
Equipment articles by me, one measuring 57 tons and the other 43 tons;
the aggregate of the proceeds of both these vessels for distribution to
the captors was 576_l._ 6_s._ 5_d._ Another vessel of 48 tons was
captured by me, with slaves on board; the proceeds for distribution upon
this single vessel amounted to 1,654_l._ 19_s._ 5_d._, nearly three
times as much as the two empty ships, measuring together 100 tons.

7100. _Chairman._] Can you state how many slaves could have been carried
by the two empty ships, in case they had been allowed to have been
filled?--There might have been 700 slaves in those two ships.

7101. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] How many were there in the
other?--Forty-eight tons and 350 slaves. With regard to the capture of
these vessels, the empty vessels were captured upon the principle of
blockade, a service of the most harassing, tiresome, and arduous
description. The full vessel was, as it must be in most cases, captured
by chance.

7102. How would you propose to arrange it?--I would take the whole of
the sums payable upon captured vessels during any given year, and upon
that I would calculate what it amounted to per ton, and I would give
that bounty for the future upon every vessel, as a substitute for the
head-money, for the payments now made.

7103. Captain _Fitzroy_.] You have stated in your former evidence, that,
six weeks after you were at New Cestos destroying the slave factory, a
slaver was there again; can you offer any explanation of that
circumstance?--The slave factory at New Cestos was abandoned in December
1840. The factories were left standing, to form a palm-oil factory, at
the request of some British traders. I however understood that the
prince was endeavouring to get a slave-dealer to re-establish himself in
this factory, and I therefore, in the middle of April, burned down the
buildings. On the 8th of June a new factor arrived from the Havannah and
landed his goods, but no slaves were taken away till October. Three or
four days after the slaves were carried off the blockade was
re-established, and there could be no more.

7104. It has been stated, in answer to question 5968, that you thought
you had put an effectual stop to the slave trade at the Gallinas by the
destruction of the factories; was that your own opinion?--I beg to refer
the Committee to the third paragraph from the bottom of a letter in the
correspondence relative to the Gallinas, at page 9, in which I state
that “I believe they will endeavour still to prosecute the slave trade.”

7105. Mr. _Forster_.] Is it your opinion that the British traders on the
coast of Africa, and those connected with them, are more deeply
interested in the suppression of the slave trade than any other class of
British subjects?--In general they are; but there are some instances in
which particular merchants derive great advantages from the connexion.
There can be no question that it is for the interests of commerce that
the slave trade should be put down; but there may be particular
instances where British merchants derive great profits from their
connexion with it.

7106. But generally, you are of opinion that the British merchants are
decidedly interested in the trade being put down?--I have no doubt of it
at all.

7107. _Chairman._] You believe that wherever the trade in slaves is put
down, a more profitable trade might be carried on in its place in the
form of manufactures in exchange for produce?--Undoubtedly more
profitable, both to the natives and to the persons trading with them.

7108. When you speak of individuals being interested, you mean that
there are individuals incidentally benefited by the commerce which the
slave trade gives rise to in that country?--Precisely; that is what I
mean. For instance, supposing the slave traders at the Gallinas had been
supplied by a British commercial house, that probably would have been
more profitable to them than any prospect of produce trade after the
slave trade of the Gallinas was destroyed.


_Lunæ, 25º die Julii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Viscount Ebrington.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Sir R. H. Inglis.
  Mr. Wilson Patten.
  Mr. G. W. Wood.

  VISCOUNT SANDON in the chair.

  Captain the Honourable _Joseph Denman_, R. N. called in; and further
  examined.

10646. _Chairman._] What evidence had you of those parties being British
subjects whom you brought back to Sierra Leone?--I found them in the
barracoons mixed with other slaves for exportation; I took them to
Sierra Leone; they were examined, both speaking English, by the Governor
of Sierra Leone in my presence; the opinion of the Governor of Sierra
Leone was, that it was most undoubtedly the fact that they were British
subjects; one was a liberated African and the other a Creole, born in
Sierra Leone.

10647. Mr. _Forster_.] Do you consider them, under those circumstances,
as fairly and properly entitled to the appellation of British
subjects?--As completely as any person in this room.

10648. Was the circumstance of your finding them at the Gallinas the
ground upon which you took your proceedings there and burnt the
place?--It was the principal ground of those proceedings; the grounds
have been already stated in my former evidence; I think that was the
most important ground.


  EVIDENCE OF PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN., ESQ.
  TAKEN BEFORE
  THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WEST COAST OF AFRICA.


_Veneris, 22º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Foster.
  Mr. W. Hamilton.
  Sir R. H. Inglis.
  Mr. Milnes.
  Mr. Wilson Patten.
  Lord Stanley.
  Mr. G. W. Wood.

  VISCOUNT SANDON, in the chair.

  _Pedro de Zulueta_, Jun. Esq. called in; and examined.

10370. _Chairman._] You have seen some statements that have been made to
this Committee upon the subject of a transaction in which your house was
engaged; have you any observations to offer upon it?--I received from
the Clerk of the Committee a letter accompanying a copy of certain
evidences, which are Mr. Macaulay’s evidence of the 10th of June, the
14th of June, and the 15th of June; and Captain Hill’s evidence of the
29th of June, the 4th of July, and the 6th of July. I would beg, first
of all, to refer to the letter which I had the honour to address to the
Chairman. My reason for wishing to be examined before this Committee
was, that the statements contained in the evidence which I have
mentioned are all of them more or less incorrect, some of them totally
so. I will begin by stating what has been the nature of our, I will not
say trade, for we have not had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion
with the shipment of goods to the coast of Africa. We have been
established as merchants for upwards of 70 years in Spain, for nearly 20
years in this country, and we have had connexions to a large extent in
Spain, and in the Havannah, and in South America, and several other
places; among them we have had connexions or commercial intercourse with
the house of Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and with Blanco &
Cavallo of Havannah. With them we have carried on a regular business in
consignments of sugars and of cochineal, which they have made to us; and
in specie received by the packets from Mexico and other places. We have
several times acted for them here in this country, buying raw cotton for
instance at Liverpool, and re-selling it very largely; that has been
principally with Pedro Martinez & Co.

10371. They are general merchants?--They are general merchants, and
their transactions with us have been of that nature. As general
merchants we have bought stock here for them rather largely; and in the
course of those transactions we have received orders from Don Pedro
Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez of Cadiz, to
ship goods for the coast of Africa; never from Pedro Blanco, and never
from Blanco & Cavallo.

10372. Have you received orders from Pedro Martinez for shipments for
the coast of Africa?--Yes; in the course of business we have received
orders to ship goods upon the funds in our hands belonging to them; and
we have shipped the goods described in the letter, and sent the bills of
lading to Pedro Martinez; but beyond that we have never had any returns
from the coast of Africa, nor any control of any kind from the moment
the cargoes left the ports of this country.

10373. You have had no interest in the result of the venture?--No, nor
any notice, nor any acquaintance, nor any correspondence with any one
upon the coast; we have never had any kind of knowledge, either
subsequently or previously, of the shipments, except the mere fact of
buying the goods and shipping them.

10374. Your whole interest was a commission upon the
transaction--Entirely. The extent of those transactions has been so
limited in the course of nearly 20 years that we have been in this
country, that the amount of the invoices that we have sent out has been
something like 20,000_l._ or 22,000_l._ in the course of all that time.
That is one part of the operations we have performed. The other
operations are the acceptance of bills drawn by people on the coast;
among them Pedro Blanco when he was there, upon ourselves, on account of
Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which Blanco & Cavallo had in
our hands: for instance, the people at the Havannah, or in Spain, open a
credit with us, and we accept the bills of the parties on that credit
with us, just the same as we should do with any other correspondent in
any other part.

10375. You would have funds in your hands, arising from some commercial
transactions between you and the Havannah merchant or the Cadiz
merchant; and Pedro Blanco, upon the coast of Africa, would draw upon
the credit of those funds, being authorised by the Cadiz or the Havannah
merchant?--Yes; and if Pedro Blanco had drawn 5_s._ beyond that, we
should have protested, and in some instances we have protested. With
regard to the vessel alluded to in this Report, the Augusta, our part in
that concern has been simply that which appears from one of the letters:
that is to say, Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, had made choice of Jennings to
buy the vessel, and lent him money to buy the vessel; because Pedro
Martinez wanted him to have a vessel in the trade, for the purpose of
taking his goods to their destination. I have now described the three
kinds of operations in which we have been concerned, and our knowledge
of all of them terminated with the execution of the orders of our
correspondents. We had nothing more to do than to follow the orders of
the purchaser in shipping the goods. With regard to the purchase of the
vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a man who has been employed some time by
Martinez; he has served Martinez as a chartered captain, and Martinez
having been satisfied with his services, agreed to lend him that money
on the security of the vessel, provided it did not exceed a certain
amount; which was all the interference we had with it, just to see that
a certain amount was not exceeded, 500_l._ or whatever it was.

10376. Then you were to furnish Captain Jennings with money for the
purchase within a limited amount, say 500_l._, credit being given to him
upon you by Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz?--That is just the point.

10377. Captain _Fitzroy_.] The Augusta being purchased by money advanced
by your house for Martinez & Company of Cadiz; and she then became the
property of Pedro Martinez?--No, she became the property of Jennings;
the money was lent to Jennings, and he bound himself by giving security
on the vessel to answer for the amount. It is a mercantile operation
which is not unusual.

10378. Mr. _Forster_.] You advanced the money to Captain Jennings for
the purchase of the vessel, Jennings transferring the vessel to you as a
security for the amount so advanced?--That is just the description of
operation, which is a very general one in business.

10379. _Chairman._] What is the object of such an operation?--I know
very little or almost next to nothing of the operations in those parts
of the world; but the object of such an operation I apprehend to be
this: a vessel chartered with a stranger must be governed by the
different clauses of the charter-party; the charterer must be limited to
time and to places; and by Martinez having the vessel owned by a man
with whom he could have a better understanding than with others, he
might always send more advantageously articles from the Havannah to the
Gallinas, and from here to the Gallinas. When I say articles, I mean
legal articles.

10379*. What advantage would there be in Mr. Jennings taking the
articles rather as the owner than as captain under Martinez; was not he
commander of the vessel as well as owner of the vessel?--Yes.

10380. He is made the owner, instead of being captain?--He is the owner
as well as the captain of the vessel; he stands indebted to Martinez,
and gives a bottomry bond for the vessel.

10380*. Does Mr. Jennings upon this transaction make all the freight to
his own profit?--Certainly, whatever he does is to his own profit.

10381. He is not, then, an agent for Martinez?--No, he is a person to
whom Martinez lends the money to buy the vessel; whatever profit he
derives is his own. Martinez has this advantage, which to a mercantile
man is very perceptible, that he has got a charter with a man who stands
in that relation towards him which gives him a sort of control over the
vessel. If I as a stranger charter a vessel for Martinez, and he has
spent one, two, or five days more in landing goods than the
charter-party allows, I should make a claim for it; I should say, “You
must keep to the charter.” Now, when Jennings is indebted to him for the
favour of a loan for the vessel, he is not upon a similar footing.

10382. So that he gets the vessel more under his own control?--Yes; in
saying this I am putting an hypothetical case, but I do not know the
mind of Martinez himself.

10383. Mr. _Forster_.] You acted in this transaction merely as agent in
the usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in any part of
the world?--Exactly; if Martinez had told me, “You have got 500_l._ in
your hands, pay that to Captain Jennings,” I should have known nothing
more of the transaction; I should have paid the money. But Martinez did
not wish to go beyond a certain amount; and he says, “You exercise
control, do not allow the man to pay more than 500_l._ for the vessel.”

10384. But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of the
goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions were
entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?--Most assuredly; except
with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any
thing with him in any way.

10385. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Though the process of hypothecating a vessel
may be usual between British merchants, is it usual to cover a
transaction of Spanish slave trade with the British flag, by means of
such an arrangement as that described to have taken place in the case of
the Augusta?--In order to answer that question, it seems to me that it
is fair that I should ask where is the transaction of covering, and
where is the slave trade transaction? I know positively of my own
knowledge, that there is no such thing at all connected with the
Augusta. If I had an opportunity, I could make my affidavit of that.

10386. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you mean that you know that the Augusta
was not engaged in any slaving transactions during the voyage upon which
she left Liverpool?--Most assuredly not; in fact my testimony is hardly
required of that, because every thing proves that. When she was
detained, it was never said that she was upon a slaving operation at
all. Before she left this port, after she was bought, she was completely
rendered useless for that purpose.

10387. _Chairman._] The charge is, that she was engaged in carrying
goods to a person engaged in the slave trade; not that she was engaged
in the slave trade herself?--I most certainly say that I do not know
whether the person is so engaged or not.

10388. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Is it usual to cover a transaction of Spanish
trade with the English flag?--I am not aware that a Spanish merchant is
prohibited chartering an English vessel.

10389. But is it lawful to employ the British flag to cover a vessel
that is not owned by a British subject?--I say that that vessel is owned
by a British subject.

10390. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] By whom?--By Captain Jennings.

10391. Was not the money with which she was purchased, the money of
Pedro Martinez?--It seems to me that English captains and English
subjects are not prohibited from borrowing money from Spaniards; she was
bought with money lent by Pedro Martinez to Captain Jennings for the
purpose.

10392. Do you mean that the money was a loan to Captain Jennings, at
the time he paid it for the vessel?--It was a loan to Captain Jennings.

10393. Do you mean that the ship was then Captain Jennings’s
property?--It was.

10394. Was it in his power to sell that ship at any port he
pleased?--There was a mortgage upon the vessel.

10395. Mr. W. _Patten_.] You have stated that yours is an agency
trade?--It is so; and in the multitude of business, any one can
understand that 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years, can only be a mere trifle
in the business of any merchant, without laying claim to a large
business; and in following that business, we have executed shipping
orders.

10396. To what part of the coast of Africa has that business been
chiefly conducted?--I believe, almost exclusively to the Gallinas.

10397. Have the goods that Mr. Martinez has ordered to be sent to the
Gallinas, been all sent to the same individual?--No, to different
individuals; sometimes to Pedro Blanco, who was for a certain time an
agent of Pedro Martinez on the coast, and sometimes we have sent a bill
of lading drawn in this way to order; we have sent it to Pedro Martinez
as a voucher against his account.

10398. Do you know the nature of the trade of Pedro Martinez at the
Gallinas?--I know from general report that Don Pedro Martinez himself is
supposed to deal in slaves, and I believe it is so.

10399. Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer in slaves?--I do not
know, but I believe so; I do not know why it should not be known at the
Havannah, if it is known in other parts.

10400. _Chairman._] Is a ship which is hypothecated, liable to be
foreclosed at any moment, at the discretion of the mortgagee?--It
depends altogether upon the terms of the mortgage; if the mortgagee
says, “You must give me the money when I ask for it,” of course he must
sell the vessel if he has not got any thing else; he would always have
to deduct whatever freight had been earned. When the security may be
called upon to be effective, depends upon the nature of the transaction
between the parties.

10401. Mr. _Forster_.] Your house had nothing to do with any letters
that might be put on board the Augusta after she sailed from this
country?--Nothing whatever.

10402. The Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa, on the charge of
slave trading?--I believe that was the case.

10403. Did you not appeal against that condemnation?--Yes, there is an
appeal by the owner.

10404. Before the Privy Council?--Yes.

10405. That appeal is not yet decided?--I believe not.

10406. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] You stated that your transactions with
Africa for Martinez have amounted to about 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years.
What has been the amount of your whole transactions with Blanco &
Martinez of the Havannah during that period?--Perhaps 100,000_l._ or a
larger sum. For instance, we have received more than 40 or 50 cargoes of
sugar from the Havannah, consigned to us, and cigars; and we have
received bills of lading of specie shipped at Mexico to be sold here,
and bar gold, and things of that sort.

10407. Mr. _Wood_.] Have you reason to suppose that the whole of that
large commerce is subservient to the carrying on of the slave trade by
the house of Blanco & Martinez at the Havannah?--I do not know; I know
that they have large transactions in general business. I know that a
short time ago I got 40,000_l._ or 50,000_l._ of Spanish bonds in the
market for Martinez. I know that he is a large speculator in Spanish
bonds and in securities of state.

10408. Is that speculating in Spanish bonds on account of the house at
Cadiz, or the house at Havannah?--Speaking technically, I should say it
was on account of the Cadiz house.

10409. The question related to the commerce of the Havannah
house?--Pedro Martinez is a Havannah merchant. But with regard to
Havannah merchants, we have received large consignments of sugar,
cochineal, and sometimes Mexican goods, brought to Havannah and shipped
to us here.

10410. In what course of business have the proceeds of those
consignments been disposed of; have they gone in sending supplies to the
coast of Africa?--Out of that large amount of money 22,000_l._ is the
amount of all the goods that we have sent to the coast of Africa in 20
years.

10411. Of all descriptions?--Of all sorts and kinds; I have gone through
the invoice-book and found them out.

10412. Have the proceeds generally been disposed of by drafts from the
parties themselves to your house?--By the parties at Havannah, when the
exchange turns to their advantage.

10413. Have you reason to suppose that a large portion of the trade that
they carry on at the Havannah is the slave trade?--I had no reason to
know any thing of the kind; I have known more of their transactions with
the slave trade since these things have been mooted than I ever knew
before; I have had more knowledge of these things lately than I ever had
in my life before; and when I say “I,” I beg to state that I ought to
state “we,” for all my partners are in the same situation.

10414. Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah to ship
manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for the
African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of the
same kind as those that were in the “Augusta;” cotton goods and other
things of that sort.

10415. Has that been recently?--In the course of our operations.

10416. How many years ago?--In the course of these 15 or 20 years that
we have been engaged in business with them; all that I could see in a
moment by my books.

10417. Have you sent any goods of that description to the Havannah
recently?--Not very recently; I think not for some years.

10418. Have you sent any goods of that description since you first began
to send goods out direct to the coast of Africa?--They have been mixed;
I cannot draw a distinction between the two destinations; some have gone
to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.

10419. Have those supplies of English manufactured goods, which
heretofore went to the Havannah, to be used there for promoting the
slave trade, been more recently sent direct from this country to the
coast of Africa?--No, I do not think that is the case; I should think
the contrary is more likely to be the case, but I think we have shipped
in some months, or in some years, partly to the Havannah, and partly to
the Gallinas.

10420. If the coast of Africa be their ultimate destination, will not
they go out at a cheaper cost to the owner if they go direct from this
country, than if they go circuitously first to Havannah, and then to the
coast of Africa?--I think that is very doubtful indeed, because the
freights to Havannah are so miserably low that I believe they can be
taken for almost nothing; in Liverpool, English vessels loading for
Havannah, load for any thing you will choose to give them.

10421. Has the trade of Pedro Martinez increased or diminished the last
few years in that particular kind of goods?--I think it is neither more
nor less: I think it is just about the same. I believe for the last
three or four years it has been less altogether to both places, but it
has diminished equally; I cannot say when it is increased in the one
part or diminished in the other.

10422. How long have you conducted the trade upon the coast of
Africa?--As I said before, I do not think we have conducted any trade on
the coast of Africa, either legal or illegal.

10423. How long have you acted as agents for Martinez, on the coast of
Africa?--As long as we have had any connexions with Martinez; it is part
and parcel of other operations; that is to say, in the multitude of
other operations that have intervened we have shipped goods as I have
said.

10424. Did that part of your operations for him spring up after your
first connexion with Martinez had commenced?--No, it is part of a mass
of business all mixed up together.

10425. Mr. _Forster_.] In the extensive transactions of your house,
these shipments, whether to Havannah or the coast of Africa, form a very
trifling proportion?--I can only leave the Committee to judge for
themselves as to that, after what I have stated.

10426. Mr. _Wood_.] What is the firm of the house at Havannah?--Pedro
Martinez & Co.; the Cadiz house is Pedro Martinez only, without the
company. Blanco & Carvalho was the firm some time ago: it is now Blanco
& Co.

10427. Are the answers which you have given in relation to one of these
houses equally applicable to both of them?--There is some difference
between them: but in regard to the general business of both of them,
what applies to the one applies to the other. I have the same general
business with both, and the smallest part of the business has been the
shipment of goods, whether to Havannah or to the coast of Africa. The
shipments apply to Martinez only.

10428. Have you shipped English manufactured goods direct to the coast
of Africa, on behalf of both those houses?--Such goods as were in the
Augusta I have shipped for one party only. With regard to the house of
Blanco & Carvalho, and the house of Pedro Martinez & Co., with both of
them I have carried on a general large business. But to Blanco &
Carvalho I never shipped a single piece of goods of any kind, except
some sugar mills to the Havannah; and with regard to the house of Pedro
Martinez, we have shipped such goods as those by the Augusta.

10429. From your general knowledge of the trade of the house of Pedro
Martinez & Co., is it your opinion that the goods which you so shipped
to the coast of Africa were destined to be employed in the slave
trade?--I do not know; they may be, for any thing that I know.

10430. Has it come within your knowledge that the house of Martinez &
Co. are exporters from Africa of the native produce of Africa?--No,
because I never tried to get any knowledge of their transactions there
of any sort.

10431. Have you ever received consignments from them, or on their
behalf, of palm-oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the coast of
Africa?--Never; we never have received any thing from the coast of
Africa whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will perhaps
appear strange to the Committee that I should not know more of the coast
of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had shipped to the
amount of 100,000_l._ to the coast of Africa, or carried on any
considerable trade there, we should certainly have known more about the
coast of Africa; but in transactions of a very large amount, an invoice
occasionally of about 2,000_l._ or 3,000_l._ of goods was a thing that
we sent as a matter of course, and did not trouble our heads about,
especially as the remuneration we got was a mere trifle, not of itself
worth pursuing, if it had not been for the general business we had.

10432. _Chairman._] Is there any other part of the evidence which has
been given that you wish to observe upon?--It is asked here, in Question
5086, “Who was he?” the answer is, “The name is mentioned in the
Parliamentary Papers as being connected with the purchase of a slave
vessel, Mr. Kidd; and it is mentioned in connexion with that of Mr.
Zulueta of London.” Now, as to Mr. Kidd, the very first thing I ever
knew or ever heard of his name was to see it here. I never heard of his
name at all. I never had a letter from him or through him, or knew any
thing of the man whatever. That is with regard to myself. With regard to
my partners, I can say the same; I have been making inquiries about it.
My father knew there was such a man upon the coast, but I did not know
even that, though I have managed all this business. Our house never had
a letter from the man, or knew any thing about him.

10433. You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in any way?--No, nor any
knowledge of him. Then in the next answer it is said “Zulueta the
gentleman in London to whom the vessel was sent, and who sold her again
to her former Spanish owner, is a name well known on the coast in
connexion with the slave trade.” Now what is known on the coast I really
cannot pretend to say; but I believe that not many persons can say that
which I can say, that neither myself, nor my father, nor my grandfather,
nor any body in our firm, has ever had any kind of interest of any sort,
or derived any emolument or connexion from the slave trade. My father
had at one time an interest in a bankrupt’s estate at the Havannah, upon
which he was a creditor. There were some slaves on the estate, and they
formed part of the property assignable to the creditors, and my father
got the slaves assigned to him; because the other gentlemen and the
creditors were not of the same opinion, he got them assigned to him, and
made them free; and that is all the connexion we have ever had with any
slaves in the world. I do not know how far that may be considered
irrelevant to the point, but I state it because we are here mentioned
three or four times as connected with slave dealers, as a name well
known in connexion with the slave trade. That sort of statement is
rather a difficult thing to deal with.

10434. If it is meant to insinuate by these observations that you ever
had any other connexion with the slave trade, than being the shipping
agent of goods which were sent to a man who was a dealer in slaves, you
entirely deny it?--I assure the Committee, that although I have a
general notion as to what interest Blanco and Martinez have in slaves,
yet, if I was put upon my oath to make any particular statement, I
really could not, because I do not know it. Of course I believe it; but
my personal knowledge amounts only to that which the knowledge of what
we read in a newspaper amounts to.

10435. There was nothing upon the face of the transactions which you had
with those parties which spoke of a connexion with traffic in
slaves?--Nothing whatever. It is well known, that, fifty years ago, it
was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz to insure operations in
slave trading. My house at that time were underwriters, and it was
notorious that a policy of that kind would never enter the doors of our
house; and nobody would come to offer such a thing to us upon any terms.
It is notorious, both here and in Spain, that we set our faces
distinctly against having any interest of any kind in the slave trade.

10436. It is further stated, “It appears that it is a regular thing
sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England
to him he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again to the Havannah
and come again into the trade.” Have you any observation to make upon
that?--It is all untrue, the whole of it; I never received a vessel from
those gentlemen; there has been nothing of the kind.

10437. Have you any thing further to state upon the subject?--There are
several things I have marked; for instance, such as this, “You are not
bound to suppose that a man will make a bad use of that which he
purchases.” If I wished to put my statement upon that footing, I should
have done with it in a moment, for I knew nothing of the use they were
put to. I bought goods, but as to what use was made of them I knew
nothing whatever. But that is not the position which I wish to assume.
It is said here that we sent goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco. To that I
say, that we never sent either goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco. In
answer to Question 5474 it is said by Mr. Macaulay, “I stated ‘that it
appears that it is a regular thing sending vessels to him, that is to
Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England to him he sends them to Cadiz, and
they get out again to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ My
answer was intended to describe only the course of that particular
transaction and not to apply to any other case.” I never received a
single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor any body for us.

10438. Mr. _Forster_.] Then that statement is entirely untrue?--Totally,
from beginning to end; we never did so, and nobody for us; and nobody to
our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in the most distinct
manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay is asked, “Have you any
thing further to say with regard to the connexion of Zulueta with the
slave trade?” The answer is, “I would refer to his connexion with the
Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case it appeared that the
vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from London.” That is the same
vessel as the Augusta, which I have already explained; it formerly bore
the name of Gollupchik.

10439. _Chairman._] Have you been concerned in the purchase of vessels
frequently for Pedro Martinez or Pedro Blanco?--We have sometimes bought
such vessels here as we could resell at the Havannah, such as the
Arrogante, which we have bought.

10440. Upon orders?--Partly on orders, and sometimes on our own account
on speculation.

10441. Mr. _Wood_.] For what particular trade were they calculated when
they reached the Havannah?--I think for the same trade which they were
calculated for when they were sold here.

10442. For the conveyance of merchandise?--As well as any thing else.
They were sold here publicly.

10443. Mr. _Forster_.] If it was legal for them to be sold here, you
considered that it was legal for you to buy them?--I never had any doubt
of the legality of buying here, or of selling them again afterwards.

10444. Mr. _Wood_.] But the questions appertaining to the carrying on of
the slave trade do not confine themselves within strictly legal grounds,
but they have other more important considerations attaching to them?--As
to that point, there may be a difference of opinion; I would be very
sorry indeed, for the sake of catching the approval of other persons, to
make a disclaimer of any particular set of opinions whatever; but I
believe the only point with which the Committee have to do, is the legal
point. As to the moral point, it seems to me, that I am to judge of
that; upon that point, I think I have stated quite enough, having stated
distinctly that I never had any connexion, nor derived any profit from
the slave trade whatever.

10445. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] You have stated in your letter, that your
principle is, that of “not wishing to derive profit or advantage from
the sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable or unavoidable,” and you
have acted upon that principle?--That is the principle upon which we
have acted.

10446. And you do not find that acting upon that principle has
interfered with the fair success of your commerce?--I do not think it
would; if it would, we should not care much about that, because we are
in a position which is well known to many persons here, as well as to
persons abroad. In 5495, Mr. Macaulay is asked, “What evidence have we
that Zulueta knew that in dealing with Pedro Blanco, the goods he sold
would be used for the barter of slaves.” I have said, that I had nothing
to do with him; I never sold any goods to Pedro Blanco. The answer here
is, “Any body engaged in the Spanish trade would be aware that Pedro
Blanco was the largest slave trader in the world.” It may be so, that he
is the largest in the world; but I can only say that the largest is very
little, if that is the case, for I have spoken of 22,000_l._ as being
the amount of the bills we have paid for him, which I have here
(_producing the same_), to the order of several houses established in
Sierra Leone, for goods, I suppose bought for him, amounting to about
22,100_l._ I only mention this with reference to the notoriety of his
being such a large slave dealer, that it was impossible to shut your
eyes to it. Then with respect to what is said in answer 5502, I only
wish to remark upon this, that what I have answered already I believe
applies to this. It is said, “I think that a man who viewed the slave
trade in a proper light, would have considered it improper to be so
engaged.” I have observed already upon that, that the propriety or
impropriety of our conduct is a different thing from the question
whether we have been legally or illegally engaged, although the question
with which I am now concerned is a general disclaimer of any
participation in the slave trade.

10447. You agree with Mr. Macaulay’s opinion, “That a man who viewed the
slave trade in a proper light, would have considered it improper to be
so engaged”?--I do not know whether my opinions would agree with Mr.
Macaulay’s upon this subject, but I think that a man who in any way
tried to elude the laws of his country, would be acting against his
conscience in the highest degree; that is my impression of it, and that
is what I mean to say; and with regard to the slave trade, I mean to
carry out that which I have stated in my letter, that I look upon it as
an evil, and I would wish to add nothing to that evil in any way, but to
diminish what I could of it. As to the moral criminality of all the
parties, I suppose that depends upon other considerations. Then in the
Evidence of Captain Hill, in answer to question 7161, it is stated here,
“the Custom-house officers in Liverpool may be totally ignorant of the
trade carried on at the Gallinas, and also totally ignorant of the trade
carried on by Pedro Martinez & Co. at the Havannah.” All our shipments
have been made through the Custom-house, giving the destinations of the
vessels and every thing, and what we did was illegal; we should consider
ourselves not justly treated altogether, in being allowed to do that
which we say we are going to do, and then after it is done being told it
is illegal, although before it is done we have the very sanction of the
parties to do it, because we have no concern in it beyond the shipment,
and the shipment is publicly made. In answer to Question 7165, it is
said, “I have never met a vessel belonging to Messrs. Zulueta & Co. on
the coast of Africa.” Of course, we never had one, and therefore he
never could meet with one. Then in answer to Question 7958*, Mr. Hill
states that he found a letter, dated London, 20th of August 1840,
stating, “We cannot exceed 500_l._ for the vessel in question, such as
described in your letter; if you cannot therefore succeed at those
limits, we must give up the purchase.” But he says, “there is a note to
the letter, which says, ‘According to our Liverpool mode, note, you will
go on shore to the Salthouse Dock.’” Now I have been looking at our
letter-book, and I am quite willing to suppose that the person who has
stated this might not wish, of course, to state any thing that was
incorrect; but this is altogether unintelligible to me. The Salthouse
Dock is well known to every person acquainted with Liverpool; it is one
of the docks in which vessels go and unload, and that is all. Our house
might say that our custom was to send our vessels there; we generally
do; but I do not understand this at all.

10448. _Chairman._ You do not understand what bearing it has upon the
question?--I think the words must be badly copied; there is no such
thing in our letter-book as it appears here; it is quite unintelligible
to me.

10449. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Is the other part of the letter correct,
which is stated as bearing date the 26th of September 1840?--Yes.

10450. Have you referred to your own copy of the letter?--Yes, and it is
not in our copy; but I can conceive our saying to the captain of the
vessel, go into the Salthouse Dock, because we generally send our
vessels there.

10451. Had you ever employed Jennings before?--Jennings had had charge
of vessels before, chartered by Martinez, and hence the connexion
between Martinez and Jennings. There are some captains in all trades,
that make a great deal of difficulty about every thing, and others that
do not; of course, merchants like to deal with those that do not, more
than those that do.

10452. _Chairman._] It would appear from Question 5087, that your name
is supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper, as
connected with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page 38, in
Class B. Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred to in the
answer, and see if there is any trace of your name in that
transaction?--I do not find my own name there; I only find an allusion
at the bottom to the name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in no way
connected with me, and stating a circumstance which I never knew. In
Question 7965*, it is stated, “The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her
way out from England?” The answer is, “Yes, and landed part of her cargo
at Cadiz, although it was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.” Now
Captain Hill, who has given this answer, must have known why she touched
at Cadiz, and why she discharged part of her cargo, for it must be in
the log-book of the vessel. It was because she was nearly wrecked in her
passage; she put into Cadiz in distress, and there she landed a part of
her cargo, which was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the benefit
of the underwriters. Now that has not been stated here, but I think
Captain Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of the
vessel which he took.

10453. _Chairman._] And the log-book he must have read?--I should think
so; because if he has not done that he has done nothing. All I mean to
say is that it is, an _ex parte_ statement.

10454. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] It was not intended when she left England,
that she should put into Cadiz?--Most certainly not; all the facts of
the case show that she went there because she was obliged. I have not
seen the log-book, but it must be there; because in the log-book the
captain is bound to enter those things, and whoever captured the vessel
must have seen the log-book of course. In answer to Question 7967*, it
is said, “Messrs. Zulueta must be aware that it is contrary to law to
act as agents or otherwise for the shipment of goods that are to be
employed in the slave trade; they were bound to do nothing illegal; they
are merchants residing in England, and they must conform themselves to
the laws of England, and they cannot by the laws of England plead
ignorance of those laws.” Now I and my partners are British subjects,
and therefore we are bound by the law, and we must obey the law; and I
say that to endeavour to elude the law is criminal in my estimation of
things. In the answer to Question 7970*, it is stated, “I have
endeavoured to be particular in making it appear that this vessel was
chartered to a place where there were no constituted authorities.” I
think that in the Gallinas there are constituted authorities. It is the
first time that I ever heard that it is illegal for any merchant to ship
goods for any places without ascertaining beforehand whether there are
constituted authorities there. I believe that if they like to send goods
to any place, they may do it; and as to the fact of there being
constituted authorities in the place or not, I do not see what that has
to do with the question; besides, there have been such things as
treaties made with persons at the Gallinas, so that there must be some
constituted authorities there. But I do not know why I should be called
upon to know whether there are constituted authorities at the port or
not. Then it is stated, in answer to Question 7971*, “As far as I am
able to give my own opinion, I believe that Messrs. Zulueta were
perfectly criminal, at least they had a knowledge of what they were
doing. I think I am borne out in that by the secrecy they have
endeavoured to pursue in putting in a false owner.” I have answered all
that before. I state again, that all the secrecy and mystery of the
thing lies in supposing other things different from what appear. Then it
is said, “In fact there can be no want of evidence to show that Messrs.
Zulueta had for a length of time been agents to slave dealers.” Mr.
Blanco and Mr. Martinez may have been engaged, as I have stated, in
slave operations; and I have stated that we conducted their general
business here.

10455. Mr. _Forster_.] Is not Pedro Blanco a partner in a commercial
house at the Havannah who are general merchants?--Yes, I have stated
that before.

10456. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Have you ever discounted any bill drawn by
Pedro Blanco on Pedro Martinez &. Co. for goods delivered for them on
the African coast at the Gallinas?--I have accepted bills drawn by Pedro
Blanco and others from the Gallinas upon our house, and paid them to the
order of several houses in Sierra Leone and houses in London. I have
paid them in money that I had in my hands resulting from the general
transactions of business, which I have explained. But discounting would
be this, if I had paid those acceptances before they were due, and
received some consideration for them; that I never did, but I might have
done it in the case of these bills.

10457. Were those bills negociated through your hands in payment of
goods delivered at the Gallinas?--No; they were drawn generally with the
advice attached to them, saying, I have drawn a thousand pounds upon
you for account of Blanco and Carvalho, or Blanco &, Co., at the
Havannah.

10458. Mr. _Wood_.] By whose orders were you desired to honour it; was
it by the order of Pedro Blanco at the Gallinas?--No; by the house at
the Havannah or by the house at Cadiz; sometimes the one and sometimes
the other. Blanco had a house some time ago in Malaga, as a general
merchant, occupied in shipping the fruits of the country and oil to the
United States, &c. &c. In answer to Question 7961*, the following is
stated:--“In one of these letters, dated Cadiz, 30th of November 1840,
is a paragraph to the following effect: ‘In a letter, dated London, the
21st instant, which I have just received from Messrs. Zulueta & Co.,
merchants in London, I had the pleasure of receiving a bill drawn by you
on them for 250_l._, which I this day place to their credit, waiting
your advice of the same.’” There is here certainly a mistranslation of
some kind, because it says that this man receives a bill upon us, and
credits it to us, which is of course contradictory in the very terms of
it, because if the bill was remitted to this man upon us, he would have
debited it to us, and not credited it. But altogether there is some
confusion about it; I suppose arising from the mistranslation of the
documents, because the fact is this, the bill is one of the bills I have
already mentioned, drawn from the Gallinas upon ourselves, to the order
of a third party. It is a bill drawn at the Gallinas upon ourselves, on
account of the credit, and therefore it could never have been received
by the person in Cadiz. It must have been presented to us here, and in
fact so it was; the bill is here. I wish to show that that letter is
perfectly inaccurate.

10459. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Can you give the Committee any information
upon this: “The other letters,” nine of them, “were all on slave
business: not a word of any innocent trade, but the whole directing how
slaves were to be shipped on board various vessels.” How do you account
for this vessel carrying letters upon slave business?--I account for it
in this way: first of all, it is impossible for us to answer here what
letters will be put on board a vessel at Cadiz; but there is very seldom
any communication between Cadiz and the Gallinas; whatever letters there
were must have gone by such random occasions as arose. As to the fact
that whoever wrote those letters is engaged in the slave trade, the
letters will speak for themselves.

10460. _Chairman._] Those letters were not prepared in the expectation
of the arrival of this vessel, because this vessel was not destined to
that port, and was only driven there by stress of weather?--Most
certainly. I will add one circumstance in proof of that. The vessel was
supposed to have been lost, from the circumstance of a boat having been
found upon the coast with the name of T. Jennings upon it, and it was
supposed that it was a boat belonging to the vessel; it was, in fact, a
boat from the vessel, but the vessel had not been lost; therefore the
vessel was quite unexpected in Cadiz by every soul. It went there from
stress of weather, and nothing more. Then it is said, in answer to
Question 7972*, “I think the papers are quite conclusive to the mind of
any man that Zulueta was cognizant of what he was doing; but as far as
it is an illegal transaction, it is not for me to judge; but the Judge
of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone did think it illegal, and
condemned the vessel; and moreover, the man who is put forward as
captain and owner did not defend the vessel on her trial.” Now, as to
the statement of his being a false owner, I have already stated that he
was not. But then, again, with regard to the other part of the business,
the man did not defend it, because he was prevented from defending it.

10461. How was he prevented from defending it?--He had not money to
defend himself. It appears from the protest that the vessel was
condemned without allowing Thomas Jennings to say any thing in her
defence. I will deliver in the protest, which shows that that was the
fact. (_The same was delivered in._) As to his not having money, it is
said that he might have raised money upon the cargo; but there is no one
can entertain any doubt as to the palpable contradiction of such a
statement, because to raise money upon a cargo, which was seized, over
which he had no control, is to me quite unintelligible.

10462. Mr. _Wood_.] You have spoken of some bills drawn upon your house
by Pedro Blanco, and you were understood to say that they were drawn
some of them, in favour of Sierra Leone houses. Can you inform the
Committee the names of the houses at Sierra Leone in whose favour they
were drawn?--I have no objection to do so, but I feel loath to mention
names. I could have mentioned many names; we are not the only
correspondents in London of Blanco and Martinez. With regard to those
houses at Sierra Leone, I should be sorry to introduce names, because I
know the pain I have had from mine being introduced here, but still
there is no secret in the thing.

10463. You have given the committee the names of parties drawing the
bills, and on whose account they were drawn, and you speak of their
being drawn in favour of Sierra Leone houses; have you any objection to
furnish the names of the houses in whose favour they were drawn?--I say
that I have no objection, except that I should not like to introduce
names unnecessarily; but the bills are in my hands, and any gentleman
can look at them who chooses; they are at the disposal of any body who
likes to look at them.

  [_The Witness produced the bills._]


_Sabbati, 23º die Julii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

  Sir T. D. Acland.
  Mr. Aldam.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Viscount Ebrington.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Mr. Forster.
  Mr. Milnes.
  Mr. Wilson Patten.
  Mr. G. W. Wood.

  VISCOUNT SANDON, in the chair.

  _Pedro de Zulueta_, jun. Esq. called in; and further examined.

10464. _Chairman._] The Committee understand that you have some further
observations to make upon the evidence which has been given with
reference to your house?--With reference to the destination of the
Augusta, from Liverpool to Gallinas, and the fact of its having put into
Cadiz unforeseen, and unpremeditated altogether, in consequence of
stress of weather, I omitted to mention a circumstance which will put
the thing beyond doubt, and it is this: an insurance was made at
Lloyd’s, from Liverpool to the Gallinas, and it is well known that, of
course, we should have forfeited the insurance by going to any other
port except from the peril of the sea, and the British consul at Cadiz
is well aware of the circumstance, because he is Lloyd’s agent there;
and therefore he had to interfere in the whole proceeding; without his
sanction nothing could have been done. We have called upon the
underwriters upon that account, and it has been paid, and which would
not have been paid without its being proved. I stated yesterday that the
transactions of my house with Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, with
Blanco & Carvalho of the Havannah, and with Pedro Martinez of Cadiz, had
amounted in the 20 years to 100,000_l._ I was afraid of overrating the
amount; but on reference to the books of the house, I find that our
transactions with them in 20 years have amounted to 400,000_l._ out of
which the 22,000_l._ that was mentioned is the whole amount of goods
that have been shipped by their order for the coast of Africa.

10465. Can you state how much of the 22,000_l._ has accrued within any
given period; is it distributed equally over the whole 20 years, or has
it grown up in the last four or five years?--In the last few years it
has decreased, but otherwise it is spread over the whole number of
years. In such a length of time it forms to our minds a mere speck. In
the last six months our transactions with the house of Pedro Martinez of
Cadiz amount to already 30,000_l._, and with Pedro Martinez of the
Havannah to nearly the same amount. With the house of Pedro Blanco & Co.
of the Havannah, the amount has been 15,000_l._ for what has passed in
the last six months, and with the houses generally at Cuba, throughout
the island, it amounts to 100,000_l._ altogether, arising entirely from
cargoes of sugar, and from tobacco, and remittances of bills from there
in carrying on banking operations, upon which they draw again, which are
negotiated in the Havannah and sent to houses in London to cash, and
remittances of drafts on the Spanish treasury at the Havannah, and bills
of lading of specie and bullion, and such things, from Mexico. I state
these things only to show the nature of our trade, and I have been
particular, because as these are large amounts I wish to show what they
arise from. Another fact escaped my attention yesterday, and it is this,
that Don Pedro Martinez is owner of several large vessels of 300 tons
and 400 tons, which are in the trade of sugar, tobacco, and such things,
with us, in England and with Cadiz.

10466. Have you bought other vessels for him than those which have been
employed in the slave trade?--Yes, decidedly so; there was the Star,
Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent from here to the Gallinas,
precisely the same as the Augusta has been sent. She delivered her
cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I believe, and from there to
Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she came back to Spain, and she
was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not Martinez, or any body
connected with him; in fact, she was sold for very little. The object of
that vessel was just the same as the Augusta, to maintain a legal trade
with Gallinas; that is, within my own knowledge.

10467. Mr. _Aldam_.] What is the description of legal trade that was
carried on?--Sending out goods to be sold at those places, and to go to
other ports, not to carry any cargo from there to the Havannah.

10468. There has been a good deal of evidence, in which it has been
stated that no legal trade is carried on with Gallinas?--I could not say
what trade there is at the Gallinas of a legal nature, but I know that
those vessels would have taken nothing if there was nothing legal to
take, from that place to the Havannah, or to any other place; I am aware
that my answers upon this point must be deficient, because I am really
very ignorant of the trade of the West Coast of Africa.

10469. Do you suppose that the vessels would be used to carry on a legal
trade?--Most certainly I do; because persons find it worth while to send
goods there constantly. The Committee will observe, that what the
application of the goods is afterwards I cannot say, but I speak of the
fact of the vessels having gone there with the intention of returning to
the Havannah to bring a cargo of some description here, to pay a
freight, and then to go again with the same kind of goods to Africa.

10470. _Chairman._] You have stated before, that you have cleared out
for the Gallinas from Liverpool?--Yes.

10471. In carrying on operations of that kind, should you have ever
thought it necessary to exercise any disguise as to what part of Africa
you were clearing out for?--Not at all.

10472. You did not imagine, that in being the instrument of sending
lawful goods to any part of Africa you were doing any thing which
required concealment?--Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof of
that is, that in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body could see our
names as consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our names of
every thing.

10473. Is not there a document officially published daily in London and
at Liverpool, stating the daily entries at the Custom-house of all goods
shipped, with the description of the goods, and the name of the port and
of the shipper?--Yes, there is.

10474. Is not this printed from time to time in the public papers?--It
is in general circulation; there is hardly any merchant in Liverpool or
in London who is not possessed of one. The Liverpool entries are
reprinted in London, Liverpool being such an important place of
business. The bill printed in London contains also Liverpool, Hull, and
Bristol.

10475. So that every such transaction is perfectly notorious to every
one?--Notorious to every one who chooses to read the public papers.
There is another thing which escaped me till I came into the room this
morning. As I have been in the business from my childhood, I know every
thing that is going on in it. The Arrogante, after we sold her at the
Havannah, was sent to Vera Cruz with a cargo of Spanish paper, spirits,
raisins, &c. &c., such as is sent for the South American trade, for the
purpose of breaking the blockade of Vera Cruz, which she did break and
went in. It was asked in question 7147, whether the Augusta was equipped
for the slave trade the second time; the answer was, “She was not.” I
wish to state, that before any goods were put on board of her, it was
our express wish and order that every thing in her that was fit for that
trade should be taken down, and the vessel put in the same condition as
any other merchant vessel; and we should not have loaded any thing in
her if that had not been done. It is stated in the evidence that the
Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave dealers; now we had never
in our lives heard of the name of any one of the parties to whom she was
consigned.

10476. You mean that the first time you heard their names was when the
order to ship those goods was given to you?--Yes, and the circumstance
of three consignees is a regular thing with distant consignments, such
as South America and Africa. There is such an uncertainty attending the
residence of parties in those places, that we invariably put a second
and a third consignee in addition, in case the first should not be in
the way.

10477. Mr. _Forster_.] Some bills were referred to in your former
evidence drawn by Mr. Pedro Blanco upon your house; have you any
objection to put those bills before the Committee?--Not any. And I ought
to state now, as I have been looking at the bills more closely, that
they are not all drawn to the orders of Sierra Leone houses, but to the
orders of other Spaniards, and those people endorsed them to the Sierra
Leone houses. This does not alter the case materially, but for the sake
of accuracy I mention it.

10478. You will put them in for the inspection of the
Committee?--Certainly.--(_The same were delivered in._)

10479. You only hesitated in giving the names yesterday from motives of
delicacy, not from any motive of concealment?--Yes, I do not wish to
withhold any thing, but I am indisposed to introduce any name. I have no
wish to conceal any thing whatever. I have been consulting with my
partners upon this subject, and I have a request to make to the
Committee. Our position is one which is certainly an unpleasant one. I
think that what I have stated will have proved to the satisfaction of
the Committee that we have not in any way intended to elude the law. Now
our situation is this, with reference to any future transactions we have
no valid reason to give our correspondents for not executing an order.
The Committee will have to make their report, and several gentlemen have
given their opinions as to how the law is to be altered. I, for my part,
am not competent to give any advice upon the subject, but I would only
wish that whatever law is made, it should be clear and distinct as to
what a man might to do, and what he is not to do. The trade that we have
carried on with the Gallinas, at least the shipments we have made, are
perfectly unimportant to us in itself, as is evident from the amount;
but at the same time, with regard to the correspondents that we have
accounts with, we are placed in this dilemma, that we must refuse
fulfilling their orders without giving them any valid reason, unless we
should be able to say, Sir, we cannot fulfil your order because the law
of this country prohibits that we should ship any goods that are liable
to be applied to that purpose, to persons who may at any time have had
any dealings, or are suspected of having had any dealings of that
description. To us it is indifferent which way the legislation turns
upon this subject, so long as we know what it is. But supposing it legal
for a man to ship goods to a port, are you then to be liable to have the
vessels captured, and what to us is worst of all, to be brought into a
kind of notoriety as being engaged in slave dealing, which is
exceedingly unpleasant to our feelings. That is a consideration which I
hope the Committee will look to.

10480. You wish that the law should be made clear for your guidance, to
enable you to understand what course you are to pursue with your
correspondents?--Yes, in what I have to do with them. I do not mean to
say that if a man ships goods knowingly to slave dealers, for the
purpose of being exchanged for slaves, I do not mean to say that the law
does not reach him now. My own impression is, that it might do so; at
all events the morality of the thing would be very questionable; but we
want something more than that; that is not enough. Here is my case,
which, if true, proves that we have not done any such thing, and yet we
are liable to all this unpleasantness.

10481. You want something also to plead with your correspondents, as a
reason for not complying with any order they may send?--Exactly.

10482. You feel that at the present moment the law is in an
unsatisfactory state, that doubts have been raised upon the subject,
which as merchants you are desirous of seeing quieted by some
declaration, one way or another?--I do; for instance, I may on going
home find an order; and I assure the Committee that after all that has
occurred, after all this unpleasantness upon the subject, I should be in
an awkward position. I might have to throw up my correspondents without
any valid reason, because of course goods may be shipped to them by
other parties, which I should refuse to do; and they may do it legally,
because they may send those goods to the Havannah or to any other such
place, and then my correspondents could not say that I had any valid
reason to refuse.

10483. If there were any obstruction interposed in the way of export
from this country directly to the coast of Africa, you would rather
desire that it should be at the English Custom-house, before the goods
went out, than that it should be left in uncertainty, to be decided upon
the coast of Africa?--Exactly; that is my impression. At the same time I
am not stating that that would be wise or expedient, or proper, or any
thing of the kind; but I say this simply because I do not wish it to be
brought into question that we elude the law; not that we break it,
because that would be a question before a court of justice; but before
men of honour, I do not wish to be open to the imputation of eluding the
law.


  REPORT
  FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE
  ON THE
  WEST COAST OF AFRICA.


_Martis, 22º die Martii, 1842._

_Ordered_, THAT a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the
State of the British Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, more
especially with reference to their present Relations with the
neighbouring Native Tribes.


_Mercurii, 6º die Aprilis, 1842._

A Committee was nominated of,--

  Lord Stanley.
  Viscount Sandon.
  Lord John Russell.
  Sir Robert Harry Inglis.
  Mr. E. Denison.
  Mr. Forster.
  Sir Thomas Acland.
  Mr. Milnes.
  Mr. Charles Buller.
  Mr. Hutt.
  Captain Fitzroy.
  Earl of March.
  Viscount Ebrington.
  Viscount Courtenay.
  Mr. George William Wood.

_Ordered_, THAT the Committee have power to send for Persons, Papers,
and Records.

_Ordered_, THAT Five be the Quorum of the Committee.


_Mercurii, 11º die Maii, 1842._

_Ordered_, THAT Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Evans, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr.
Aldam, Mr. William Hamilton, and Mr. Metcalfe, be added to the
Committee.


REPORT.

  THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to Inquire into the State of the
  BRITISH POSSESSIONS on the WEST COAST OF AFRICA, more especially with
  reference to their present Relations with the neighbouring Native
  Tribes, and who were empowered to Report their Observations, together
  with the MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before them, to The House;----HAVE
  considered the Matters to them referred, and have agreed to the
  following REPORT:

  YOUR COMMITTEE, previous to reporting the result of their Inquiries
  into the subject which has been submitted to them by Your Honourable
  House, think it desirable to state the circumstances which led to
  their appointment. In the course of the Year 1839 information was
  communicated to the Marquis of Normanby, then Secretary of State for
  the Colonies, that a Spanish Slaver, the Dos Amigos, had, a short time
  previous to seizure, been allowed to trade freely at Cape Coast, a
  British Settlement on the Gold Coast, and had been supplied there by a
  British Merchant, a Magistrate, with some of the Goods, not
  Equipments, requisite for carrying on her unlawful Traffic. This
  information led to further inquiry, in the course of which it appeared
  that such practices were not unusual, and that Captain Maclean, the
  Governor, appointed by the Committee of Merchants in London, on whom
  the charge of the Settlements of the Gold Coast had been devolved by
  Parliament, in the Year 1828, did not consider himself entitled to
  interfere with the Traffic of any Vessel of a friendly Nation,
  whatever her purpose, coming to purchase Goods, in themselves lawful,
  within the waters of a British Settlement. In consequence of this
  information, Lord John Russell, then Secretary of State for the
  Colonies, concurring with his predecessor, gave strong Instructions
  for the discontinuance of this practice, and for the punishment of it
  as illegal, expressed his opinion that it was desirable the Government
  of these Settlements should be resumed by the Crown, and instructed
  Dr. Madden, a gentleman who had formerly been employed as a
  Stipendiary Magistrate in the West Indies, and subsequently in the
  Mixed Commission at Havana, to proceed as Commissioner to the Gold
  Coast, and the other British Settlements on the West Coast of Africa,
  for the purpose of investigating these and other matters connected
  with the administration and condition of these Settlements. He was at
  the same time instructed to inquire into, and report upon, the
  Prospects of Emigration from Sierra Leone to the British West India
  Colonies.

  The Reports which were the result of this gentleman’s inquiries,
  involving materially the interests of Humanity and of Commerce, and
  impeaching gravely the character of individuals engaged in the British
  Trade with Africa, in a manner which seemed to call for further
  investigation before any conclusion could be fairly come to upon the
  questions at issue, have been laid before Your Committee, have in fact
  formed the basis of their proceedings, and are published with this
  Report; but in publishing them, Your Committee beg to state, that
  while they do full justice to the value of much of the information
  contained in them, and to the zeal and diligence of Dr. Madden, they
  do not concur in all his conclusions, or intend to warrant the
  accuracy of his statements. His inquiries were conducted over a vast
  surface of Coast in a short period, and under circumstances of
  considerable interruption from health disordered by the climate, and
  in many instances he apparently found himself compelled to take his
  information from third parties, the accuracy of whose statements and
  the correctness of whose opinions he had not the opportunity of
  testing.

  In many of his recommendations they concur; on some, and those of no
  slight importance, they have come to an opposite opinion; but thinking
  it would be more convenient that they should give their own
  conclusions upon the whole subject submitted to them in a consecutive
  form, rather than in the shape of a commentary upon his Reports, they
  beg to submit the following statement and recommendations to The
  House, as the conclusions at which they have themselves arrived.


GOLD COAST.

  In the first place, then, we recommend that the Government of the
  British Forts upon the Gold Coast be resumed by the Crown, and that
  all dependance on the Government of Sierra Leone should cease.

  We fully admit the merits of that Administration, whether we look to
  the Officer employed, Captain Maclean, or to the Committee under whom
  he has acted, which, with the miserable pittance of between 3,500_l._
  and 4,000_l._ a year, has exercised, from the four ill-provided Forts
  of Dixcove, Cape Coast, Annamaboe, and British Accra, manned by a few
  ill-paid black soldiers, a very wholesome influence over a Coast not
  much less than 150 miles in extent, and to a considerable distance
  inland; preventing within that range external Slave Trade, maintaining
  Peace and Security, and exercising a useful though irregular
  Jurisdiction, among the neighbouring Tribes, and much mitigating and
  in some cases extinguishing some of the most atrocious practices which
  had prevailed among them unchecked before. We would give full weight
  to the doubts which Captain Maclean entertained as to his authority,
  until specifically so instructed, to prevent vessels, suspected of
  being intended for the Slave Trade, but not having Slaves on board,
  from trafficking in lawful goods within his jurisdiction; and we do
  not infer from that circumstance, that the Government of these Forts
  had any partiality for an abominable Traffic, which, on the contrary,
  they have done much to check; but we think it desirable, for the sake
  of enlarging the sphere of usefulness of these Settlements, and of
  giving greater confidence in the character and impartiality of their
  Government, that it should be rendered completely independent of all
  connexion with Commerce, by a direct emanation of authority from the
  Crown, and that it should be placed, with increased resources, in
  direct and immediate communication with the general Government of the
  Empire.

  We recommend, further, the reoccupation of several of the Forts, such
  as Apollonia, Winnebah, and Whydah, abandoned in 1828, when the
  Government was handed over to the Committee of Merchants, and the
  reconstruction of others, on however small a scale, on other similar
  points. In some cases the climate will be found to be not worse, in
  others better, than on other parts of the coast of Africa; but this
  evil may be very much mitigated, if not entirely removed, by the
  employment of such Europeans only as are already inured to a tropical
  climate, and of British Subjects of African descent, who, we believe,
  may now be found, either within our African Settlements or our West
  India Colonies, fitted for almost every branch and grade of
  service[4]; and we look upon such Establishments as of high
  importance, not for the extension of Territory, but of that control
  over the Slave Trade, and wholesome moral influence over the
  neighbouring Chiefs, which we have described as having been exercised
  by the existing Forts, and which is much needed at those places to
  which we have particularly alluded, as well as others.

  The Judicial Authority at present existing in the Forts is not
  altogether in a satisfactory condition; it resides in the Governor and
  Council, who act as Magistrates, and whose instructions limit them to
  the administration of British Law, and that, as far as the Natives are
  concerned, strictly and exclusively within the Forts themselves; but
  practically, and necessarily, and usefully, these directions having
  been disregarded, a kind of irregular jurisdiction has grown up,
  extending itself far beyond the limits of the Forts by the voluntary
  submission of the Natives themselves, whether Chiefs or Traders, to
  British Equity; and its decisions, owing to the moral influence,
  partly of our acknowledged power, and partly of the respect which has
  been inspired by the fairness with which it has been exercised by
  Captain Maclean and the Magistrates at the other Forts, have
  generally, we might almost say, uniformly, been carried into effect
  without the interposition of force. The value of this interposition of
  an enlightened, though irregular, authority, (which has extended, in
  some cases and with advantage to humanity, even to an interference in
  capital cases,) is borne witness to, not only by parties connected
  with the Government of the Settlements, who might be suspected of a
  bias in its favour, but also by the Wesleyan Missionaries, and even by
  Dr. Madden, who, objecting to its undefined extent, and to the manner
  in which, in some respects, it has been carried out, yet still bears
  high testimony to its practical value, to its acknowledged equity, and
  to its superiority over the barbarous customs which it tends to
  supersede. Even the duration of imprisonment, of which he complains,
  has been usually adjudged to offences which would have incurred a
  severer penalty in most civilised countries, and would certainly, if
  left to the arbitrary decision of native chiefs, or to the “wild
  justice” of private revenge, have been punished by death, and that
  frequently of the most cruel kind. Still, however, it is desirable
  that this jurisdiction should be better defined and understood, and
  that a Judicial Officer should be placed at the disposal of the
  Governor, to assist, or supersede, partially or entirely, his judicial
  functions, and those now exercised by the Council and the several
  Commandants in their magisterial capacity; but we would recommend,
  that while he follows in his decisions the general principles, he be
  not restricted to the technicalities of British Law, and that
  altogether he should be allowed a large discretion.

  [4] The gentleman lately Acting Governor of Sierra Leone, and the
  Queen’s Advocate there, are both gentlemen of colour: and it appears
  that an Akoo, lately a liberated African, is now on his way to
  England, to be ordained a clergyman of the Church of England, having
  been instructed in Greek under the care of the Church Missionary
  Society established in the same colony.

  It is to be remembered that our compulsory authority is strictly
  limited, both by our title and by the instructions of the Colonial
  Office to the British Forts, within which no one but the Governor, his
  Suite, and the Garrison reside; and that the Magistrates are strictly
  prohibited from exercising jurisdiction even over the Natives and
  Districts immediately under the influence and protection of the Forts.
  All jurisdiction over the Natives beyond that point must, therefore,
  be considered as optional, and should be made the subject of distinct
  agreement, as to its nature and limits, with the Native Chiefs, and it
  should be accommodated to the condition of the several Tribes, and to
  the completeness of the control over them, which by vicinage or
  otherwise we are enabled to exercise. Their relation to the English
  Crown should be, not the allegiance of subjects, to which we have no
  right to pretend, and which it would entail an inconvenient
  responsibility to possess, but the deference of weaker powers to a
  stronger and more enlightened neighbour, whose protection and counsel
  they seek, and to whom they are bound by certain definite obligations.

  These obligations should be varied and extended from time to time, and
  should always at least include (as many of the Treaties now in
  existence on that Coast already do) the abolition of the external
  Slave Trade, the prohibition of human sacrifices, and other barbarous
  customs, such as kidnapping, under the name of “panyarring,” and
  should keep in view the gradual introduction of further improvements,
  as the people become more fitted to admit them.

  In this arrangement we should find the solution of our difficulty in
  regard to Domestic Slavery, and a modification of it under the name of
  “pawns,” which has prevailed within these settlements, not actually
  within the Forts, but within their influence, and even in the hands of
  British subjects. To them indeed they have been already prohibited;
  but although the system of pawns, which is properly an engagement of
  service voluntarily entered into for debt, and terminable at any time
  by the payment of the debt, is one which “does not seem abstractedly
  unjust or unreasonable[5],” yet as liable to much abuse, and much
  resembling slavery, it should be the object of our policy to get rid
  of it, even among the Natives; and in the places more immediately
  within the influence of British authority, we believe there will be no
  difficulty in limiting it at once, both in extent and duration, and
  probably, ere long, in abolishing it, by arrangements such as we have
  above suggested. Some caution, however, must be exercised in this
  matter on account of the close intermixture of Dutch and Danish with
  the British settlements, though perhaps it might be possible to induce
  them to co-operate in such arrangements as might be thought desirable
  for the improvement of the neighbouring Tribes; and great facility and
  advantage would certainly arise from such co-operation, if it could be
  secured.

  [5] Despatch of Sir G. Grey, 4. Dec. 1837.

  With regard to the judicial arrangements, a plan has been suggested by
  which a Supreme Judicial Officer might be placed at Ascension, at
  Fernando Po, where no authority of any kind exists, and one is much
  needed, or at some other Island off the Coast, visiting, with the aid
  of a steamer, the various Settlements on the Gold Coast periodically,
  as well as the Trading Stations in the Bights of Benin and Biafra, and
  exercising in the latter a very wholesome influence in the adjustment
  of disputes with the Natives, which, for want of such interposition,
  occasionally lead to consequences injurious to the British character
  and to the interests of Commerce. But Your Committee are aware that
  difficulties might arise in carrying out this suggestion, more
  especially on account of the necessity for prompt decision in most
  cases in which the Natives are concerned; and therefore are not
  prepared at present to do more than call attention to the suggestion.

  We would here acknowledge the great services rendered to religion and
  civilisation on this Coast by the Wesleyan body; they have even
  established a friendly communication with the barbarous court of
  Ashantee, which promises results important in every way; and, indeed,
  little in the way of religious instruction would have been done
  without them. But we should recommend that further provision should be
  made for these objects, by the appointment of a Colonial Chaplain, and
  by encouragement to schools of a higher class than any which are found
  there at present; to which, among others, the neighbouring Chiefs
  should be invited to send their sons to receive an education which
  might fit them to be of benefit to their own people directly, if they
  returned to their families, or indirectly, if they remained, by
  entering into connection with British interests. Some officer also
  should be appointed, whose duty should be to take care of the effects
  of intestate persons, to verify the character of vessels entering the
  ports, and to attend generally to the fiscal regulations of the
  Settlements.

  We beg also to call attention to the suggestion, that we should
  endeavour to secure the co-operation of our Dutch and Danish
  neighbours, in licensing the canoes which ply along that coast, as
  they seem to afford considerable facilities to such Slave Trade as
  still exists along the Leeward Coast.

  The Military also should be somewhat increased in number; and their
  condition, as recommended by Dr. Madden, should be improved.

  A scheme for an establishment such as we have been proposing, will be
  found in the evidence of Mr. Hutton, one of the Council of the
  Committee of African Merchants, who now govern these settlements. To
  the details we do not pretend to give our sanction; but we beg to call
  attention to it, as showing that all the objects which we have been
  recommending may be attained at an expense far short of that which was
  incurred for these settlements when they protected instead of, as now,
  controlling the Slave Trade, or even when they were last under the
  direct management of the Crown. Indeed in itself it is of but trifling
  amount when compared with the objects to be attained, and we are
  confident that the increased expense will be well repaid, both
  directly by the diminished necessity for naval force upon the Leeward
  Station, and indirectly by the increase of commerce, which will be the
  certain consequence of extended influence over very important nations,
  including the kingdoms of Dahomey and Ashantee, of an improving
  population, and of the continued and still more complete suppression
  of the Slave Trade on that Coast, once infamous as the principal scene
  of its operations.


GAMBIA.

  For the purposes of trade and useful communication of every kind with
  the interior of Africa, the Settlement in the Gambia seems to possess
  advantages far beyond those of any other British Settlement on the
  Coast of Africa. It has that which in all countries, but more
  especially in Africa, where no means of land carriage exist, save the
  backs of slaves, is of the highest value, the command of a noble
  river, navigable for vessels of considerable tonnage for several
  hundred miles into the interior; and it would appear as if a little
  fiscal encouragement to its products and those of its
  vicinity,--together with the employment of Steamers, which we would
  earnestly recommend, both for the suppression of the Slave Trade at
  the mouths of the neighbouring Rivers and for keeping up
  communication, both commercial and official, with the Settlement of
  Macarthy’s Island, (which is itself nearly 200 miles up the river) and
  with the countries still higher up,--would draw out untold resources
  for a useful and honourable commerce, and even restore to us some
  portion of the gum trade which we have lately lost.

  As in the case of the Gold Coast, we recommend the entire separation
  of this Government from that of Sierra Leone. The dependence, which
  has hitherto existed, has been the cause of great inconvenience, and
  seems to possess no advantage. The Laws of the Settlement have been
  enacted by those who are little acquainted with its concerns. Their
  Gaol has depended for clearance on the uncertain arrival of a Chief
  Justice from a distance of 500 miles, and by a voyage of above 20
  days; and in the case of the death of one Chief Justice, two years
  elapsed before a criminal, confined under a charge of murder could be
  brought to trial, and then, owing to the delay, the witnesses had
  returned to Europe, and no evidence could be found. Even if a regular
  Steam Communication were established, though the amount of the evil
  would undoubtedly be thus diminished, yet still the uncertainty of
  life in such a climate should not be forgotten; and we would recommend
  the appointment of a distinct Judicial Officer in each Settlement, who
  should have authority to act in case of vacancy in either.

  The Governor should have the assistance of a Council; but under the
  circumstances of the Settlement, we recommend that he should have full
  power to act on his own responsibility, and even contrary to their
  advice; every Member of the Council, including the Governor, in such
  cases, as in India, recording the reasons of his opinion for the
  information of the Government at home.

  We would earnestly recommend to consideration the propriety of
  reestablishing the former British Settlement on the Island of Bulama.
  Its climate is certainly unhealthy; but we are not aware that it is
  more so than that of Sierra Leone or of some other places on the
  Coast. It might be principally, if not entirely occupied, by British
  subjects of Negro race; and its position, both for checking the Slave
  Trade of Bissao and its neighbourhood, and for drawing out the
  legitimate resources of several noble rivers, would be invaluable.

  We would also suggest the erection of small Blockhouses, whether up
  the Gambia itself, or along the Coast, as at Cestos and the Gallinas,
  on points where British commerce is superseding the Slave Trade, as
  they would protect the lawful trade, and prevent the re-appearance of
  the Slave Trade where it has been extinguished, or is dying away.


SIERRA LEONE.

  In regard to the machinery by which this Colony is governed, Your
  Committee have no specific recommendation to offer.

  In the course of their investigations, questions have arisen connected
  with its past management and administration, more especially on the
  subject of the party spirit of a peculiar nature, which is alleged to
  have acted injuriously in regard to it both on the Colonial Office at
  home and on the internal transactions of the Colony itself; questions
  mixed up with topics of a personal nature, and which, in spite of the
  facilities for a full investigation which were offered by the Colonial
  Office, Your Committee would have found it impossible, within their
  limited time, even if it had been their proper province, to follow
  out. On these points, therefore, not having the means either of
  forming themselves a satisfactory opinion, or furnishing The House
  with the means of forming one, they have thought it due, not less to
  the questions themselves than to the individuals concerned, not to
  report the Evidence; and they are the more induced to pursue this
  course, in that they are thus not prejudging any inquiry into this
  subject, if in a future Session it should be the pleasure of The House
  to engage in it.

  In regard to the future, much will depend on the decision which shall
  be come to as to several points which have been under our
  consideration; such as the continuance at Sierra Leone of the Courts
  for Adjudication of Prizes taken in the Slave Trade, the disposal of
  the rescued Slaves, and the question of Emigration from Africa
  generally.

  Now it is hardly necessary to remind the House of The Resolution come
  to by a Committee which sat upon this subject in 1830, which
  distinctly condemned the location of the Mixed Commission Court at
  Sierra Leone as highly inconvenient for the purpose, on the ground of
  its situation, not only at so great a distance as 800 or 1,000 miles
  from the places where the Slaves to be adjudicated were then
  principally captured, but also so far to windward, that captured ships
  were sometimes eight or nine weeks, and on an average upwards of five
  weeks, on their passage from the place of capture to Sierra Leone,
  occasioning a loss of the captured Slaves amounting to from one-sixth
  to half of the whole number, whilst the survivors were generally
  landed in a miserable state of weakness and disease. Such undoubtedly
  was the case then, and had been the case then for many years, and has
  been still the case, though in a somewhat less degree, since the
  Report of that Committee. We regret that means should not have been
  taken earlier to remedy this crying evil. As the Slave Trade however
  now exists, that evil is no doubt much diminished. By the provision
  introduced into our more recent Slave Trade Treaties, the Cruizers of
  the contracting parties are authorised to seize Vessels merely on the
  evidence of their equipment, without making it necessary to wait till
  Slaves are actually on board, and thus a much smaller number of Slaves
  is brought for adjudication and exposed to this kind of middle
  passage. Moreover the exertions and improved quality and system of our
  Cruizers, the depressed condition of the sugar-planters of Cuba and
  Brazil, the extension of legitimate traffic, and other causes, have
  succeeded in diminishing altogether the amount of Slave Trade; and the
  scene of its greatest activity, North of the Line, lies now within a
  moderate distance of Sierra Leone, or to the windward of it. The
  reasons, therefore, for removing the Courts of Adjudication from that
  Colony are not what they were. If, however, one place of adjudication
  only is still to be assigned, and only one place of release, to the
  wretched victims of the Slave Dealer, we believe that Ascension, or
  one of the Portuguese Islands, would on the whole be best adapted for
  that purpose, as being more convenient than Sierra Leone to the Bights
  of Benin and Biafra, and to the Portuguese Settlements South of the
  Line, now the principal seats of the existing Slave Trade, and (owing
  to the set of winds and currents in that direction) as being easy of
  access even from the farthest extremities of the Windward Coast, where
  any Slave Trade is carried on. We are aware, however, that these are
  arrangements which can only be made in conjunction with Foreign
  Powers, and that they involve many considerations which have not been
  fully before us. They are, however, of high importance to the
  interests of humanity, and we cannot do less than invite the best
  attention of Her Majesty’s Government to the subject.

  The next point we have alluded to, that of the place and manner of
  locating the Africans who are liberated from the captured Slave Ships,
  is so closely connected with the question of Emigration from Africa
  generally, that this seems to be the proper opportunity for discussing
  that important subject. Before, however, they go further, Your
  Committee desire to say a few words as to the point of view from which
  they have felt it their special duty to look at it. On another
  Committee has been devolved the charge of examining it in its bearings
  on the prosperity of the West Indies: we consider it our peculiar duty
  to look at it as affecting the interests of Africa only, whether of
  its Natives generally, or specially of those who come into our hands
  and under our protection in the course of our attempts to put down the
  Slave Trade. Now, the investigation alluded to as devolved upon
  another Committee of Your honourable House, is no doubt one of the
  highest importance, even to the interests of the African himself;
  inasmuch as we have it on the highest authority, that the diminished
  supply of Sugar from our West India Colonies, consequent on
  Emancipation, gave an extraordinary stimulus to the Slave Trade for
  the supply of Cuba and Brazil; and the best aid for its
  discouragement, and the best chance for its total extinction, would
  undoubtedly be the diminution of inducement to carry it on, which
  would arise from the production of Sugar by Free Labour in the British
  Colonies on lower terms. But, as more immediately within our province,
  we have thought it our duty to confine our inquiries upon this subject
  to three points: 1st. Whether, indeed, there are any considerable
  materials for a free Emigration from Africa to the West Indies; 2dly.
  Whether it would be desirable for the African to make the change; and,
  3rdly. Whether it could be carried on, and how, without reasonable
  apprehension, or even a possibility of creating or encouraging a new
  Slave Trade.

  Now, as to the first point, we may briefly say, that on the Gold Coast
  few materials for a perfectly free Emigration, or for Emigration of
  any kind, appear to exist. The devastations of the Slave Trade, and of
  the wars connected with it, though it has now ceased there entirely
  for nine or ten years, are yet too recent to allow of the existence of
  any very crowded Population, or any adventurous habits; and all, save
  the Chiefs and a few dwellers on the coasts, who have engaged in the
  various pursuits of commerce under the protection of the British, the
  Dutch, and Danish settlements, are Slaves, though their Slavery, like
  that of Africa generally, is not, as to labour, of a very grievous
  kind. As we proceed up the Coast, we fall in, between Cape Palmas and
  Cape Mount, with a very singular race of men, consisting of many small
  tribes, known commonly by the collective name of Kroomen, scattered
  along a considerable range of shore; much given, though not
  exclusively, to maritime pursuits; forming part of the crew of every
  English man-of-war and merchantman on the coast; known by a
  distinctive external mark, and neither taken as Slaves themselves, nor
  making Slaves of others. Their numbers are uncertain, but are
  undoubtedly considerable, and seem to be increasing, and their
  confidence in the English character is ascertained. But it seems
  doubtful whether permission for large numbers to leave their shores
  could be obtained without some present to their Chiefs; and their
  attachment to their own country, and their present habits of migrating
  only for a period, and without their families, make it also doubtful
  whether they would ever become permanent settlers elsewhere, or indeed
  remain away from home for a longer period than two or three years.
  Upon this point we would refer, in addition to other Evidence, to that
  which was given before us by two or three of these men themselves.

  Passing by Sierra Leone for the moment, we come to the British
  Settlement of the Gambia, and here we find about 1,500 Liberated
  Africans, whom the British Government has removed thither from Sierra
  Leone, from whom of course not much emigration could be expected,
  though some, for they have little employment there. But we find there
  a periodical Migration from a considerable distance up the River in
  two tribes of Serawoolies and Tilliebunkas, who come in numbers to do
  all the severe labour of the Settlement, and having saved their
  earnings return to their homes, apparently free to come and go without
  restraint or obligation of any kind. Their case may be considered as
  somewhat resembling that of the Kroomen, and as offering materials for
  a temporary Emigration in the first instance, though possibly
  hereafter, on further experience, for one of a more permanent
  character. We now return to Sierra Leone, and here we find the
  Liberated Africans and their descendants, in number from 40,000 to
  50,000, a body of Kroomen, in numbers which are variously stated from
  1,000 to 5,000, who, like the Serawoolies in the Gambia, do all the
  hard labour of the Colony, and between 1,000 and 2,000 of a mixed
  population, who, like the Kroomen, have come into the Colony of their
  own accord. We have also to deal here with those who may hereafter be
  the subjects of adjudication on their release from Slave Ships, or who
  may hereafter come into the Colony, if it should be permitted, for the
  purpose of Emigration. These are the materials for Emigration to the
  West Indies which have presented themselves, and progressively, if it
  were permitted, encouraged, and successful, they would probably prove
  to be considerable.

  The next question is, whether it would be a desirable change for these
  people to be in the West Indies rather than in Africa. Now for this
  object we desired that statements might be prepared for us, founded
  principally on Official Documents, acquainting us with the state of
  things, the condition of society, the temporal, the moral and
  religious advantages which would be enjoyed in three of our principal
  Colonies, to which we beg to refer in our Appendix, but from which we
  insert here a few Extracts, as sufficient for the present occasion.


JAMAICA.

  “Of the actual condition of the labouring population of Jamaica, and
  consequently the condition which would be accessible to the African
  immigrants, Sir C. Metcalfe gives the following description, in his
  dispatch to Lord Stanley of the 1st November, 1841:

  “With respect to the labouring population, formerly slaves, but now
  perfectly free, and more independent than the same class in other
  free countries, I venture to say, that in no country in the world can
  the labouring population be more abundantly provided with the
  necessaries and comforts of life, more at their ease, or more secure
  from oppression than in Jamaica; and I may add, that ministers of the
  Gospel for their religious instruction, and schools for the education
  of their children, are established in all parts of the island, with a
  tendency to constant increase, although the present reduction of the
  Mico schools is a temporary drawback.”

  “Of the means afforded for the religious and moral instruction of the
  population of Jamaica, Sir C. Metcalfe, in this dispatch, makes the
  following statement:

  “I turn from the cheerless prospects of proprietors to a more pleasing
  feature in the present order of things. The thriving condition of the
  peasantry is very striking and gratifying. I do not suppose that any
  peasantry in the world have so many comforts, or so much independence
  and enjoyment. Their behaviour is peaceable, and in some respects
  admirable. They are fond of attending Divine service, and are to be
  seen on the Lord’s day thronging to their respective churches and
  chapels, dressed in good clothes, and many of them riding on
  horseback. They send their children to school and pay for their
  schooling. They subscribe for the erection of churches and chapels;
  and in the Baptist communities they not only provide the whole expense
  of the religious establishment, but by the amount of their
  contributions afford to their ministers a very respectable support.
  Marriage is general among the people. Their morals are, I understand,
  much improved, and their sobriety is remarkable.

  “For these very gratifying circumstances we are indebted to the
  Ministers of Religion in the Island of all denominations. Church of
  England, Church of Scotland, Moravians, Wesleyans, Baptists, Bishop,
  Clergy, and Missionaries, all exert themselves, and vie with each
  other in amicable rivalry to do good to their fellow-creatures. The
  number of Churches, Chapels, and Schools built and being built in
  every part of the Island, affords a most pleasing and encouraging
  sight. In this respect the prospects of the Island are very cheering,
  and the liberal support afforded to useful Institutions, and the
  encouragement given to Religious Teachers, without any bigoted
  exclusions, are creditable to the Island Legislature, and every part
  of the Community.”

  The Reports of the Magistrates[6], which will be found in the
  Parliamentary Paper 1842, concur in representing the great efforts
  which are made in promoting Religious Instruction.

  [6] Statement given in by W. Burge, Esq., Agent for Jamaica.

  “The annual charge defrayed by the Colony of Jamaica, for the support
  of the Ministers and Schools of the Church of England, was, in 1836,
  53,260_l._ 14_s._ 5_d._ currency, or 31,956_l._ 8_s._ 8_d._ sterling
  money, as will appear by a Paper laid before Parliament in 1837, and
  which will be found referred to in Evidence before the Committee of
  The House on the West India Colonies. Since the Year 1836 an increase
  has been made; and in the Years 1839 and 1840, an addition of
  14,000_l._ sterling per annum was made to the charge. The total
  annual charge, therefore, defrayed by the Colony for that part of the
  Ecclesiastical and School Establishment, connected with the Church of
  England, exceeds 45,000_l._ sterling money. But this Establishment is
  still further extended by occasional Grants by the Assembly of
  Jamaica, by Parliamentary Grants, and by certain Religious Societies
  in England, and by individuals there and in Jamaica. In addition to
  this Establishment, very extensive means of Religious Instruction are
  afforded by the Presbyterian, Moravian, Wesleyan, and Baptist
  Missions, established in Jamaica, and those schools and places of
  worship are thickly spread over the Colony, and large contributions
  for supporting and extending these Schools are derived from
  Parliamentary Grants, from Grants by the Assembly of Jamaica, by
  charitable institutions, and by private individuals here and at
  Jamaica.”


BRITISH GUIANA.

  “If I were not convinced that the unhappy Africans are benefited by
  the transfer to this colony, I should not so urgently press the
  continuance of the countenance of Her Majesty’s Government to that
  effect. I have, in my residence on this coast, seen that the Africans
  from Sierra Leone are far from being in the civilised state I should
  have anticipated; that their condition must, therefore, here be
  improved; how much more so then must the pure savage be raised by
  being brought amongst his own colour, who are in a high progressive
  state of civilisation[7].”

  [7] Extract from the Dispatch of Governor Light to Secretary of State,
  dated 21 Sept. 1841, Parl. Paper, 1842, p. 85.

  “Religious instruction administered at 57 places of public worship.
  Each parish has at least two parochial schools under the
  superintendence of the minister. Each missionary has a school attached
  to his domicile, and nearly all the principal plantations in the
  colony, if at a distance from the schools, maintain a school for the
  instruction of their labourers’ children, free of expense.

  “An annual grant has been made by the colony in aid of the education
  of children of the labouring population in the rural districts,
  amounting to 13,333 dollars.”

  “The average rate of wages for agricultural labourers is about 5-12ths
  of a dollar per task; a day’s task is understood to be seven hours,
  but is generally performed in four or five hours by an industrious
  man; any extra time or labour is paid for additional.”

  “House-room, garden ground, medicine, and medical attendance, have
  hitherto been granted free; all other requisites are provided by the
  labourers themselves[8].”

  [8] Parl. Paper, 1842, p. 120. Extract from Report of Committee on
  Emigration.


TRINIDAD.

  “By Mr. Latrobe’s Report in 1839, it appears there were 35 Day and
  Evening Schools, and 14 Sunday, of all denominations; whereas, by the
  Return of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, the
  Established Church alone has now 28 Schools, and it is calculated that
  the present number in all is not less than from 50 to 60. As regards
  Churches and Chapels, there are no less than 18 connected with the
  Established Church, 11 Roman-catholic, 4 Wesleyan, and 1 Presbyterian,
  together 34, for a population of from 50,000 to 60,000 souls; this
  would give a School for every 1,000 souls, and a Church for every
  2,000.

  “In the Colonial Estimate for this year, there is a provision of
  1,660_l._ for the Established Church, and for the Roman-catholic
  3,236_l._, as fixed expenditure, besides 5,865_l._ towards building
  Churches, and 1,937_l._ towards Education.”

  “The soil of Trinidad is a rich marl that requires no manuring
  whatever, and of such soil there are fully one million of acres in
  brushwood and forest. Were there only a sufficiency of labour every
  British market might be amply supplied with Sugar from this one
  Island; hence, Foreign Sugars would be excluded, and the Slave Trade,
  as it refers to Great Britain at least, would be practically
  discouraged.

  “In Trinidad too, Christian Ministers can live and labour with far
  less risk of health and loss of time. Government is also extremely
  willing to give half the amount required for the erection of Chapels,
  School-houses, Teachers’ Salaries, &c. in any part of the Island where
  we may have even a small Society of Emigrants.

  “It is therefore my deliberate conviction that the people would gain
  an accession to their religious privileges by quitting any part of
  Western Africa for the Island of Trinidad.

  “But again I think that the worldly circumstances of the Emigrants
  would be considerably advanced. The labourers may very easily earn
  half a dollar per day on their arrival here, and in a couple of weeks,
  that is, as soon as they fully understand the nature of the work, the
  able-bodied may make a dollar. A house and garden are given to every
  labourer. On these particulars Mr. David and the labourers who have
  returned with him will be able to satisfy you[9].”

  [9] Extract from Letter addressed by Rev. J. Blackwell, Wesleyan
  Minister in Trinidad, to Wesleyan Ministers at Sierra Leone.

  Now after looking at such a picture, drawn from the most unsuspected
  sources, we cannot doubt that, whether for the homeless Negro just
  rescued from the hold of a Slave Ship, or for the ignorant and
  uncivilised African who comes down to our Settlements to pick up a
  small pittance by the hardest labour, and to return with it to his
  barbarous home, it would be of the highest advantage, it would be the
  greatest blessing, to make such an exchange. But how is it with the
  Liberated African of Sierra Leone, who has been enjoying perhaps for
  years the fostering care of the British Government? Now to that
  Government, beyond his rescue from the Slave Ship, and emancipation
  from future Slavery, and a temporary sustenance, and his being placed
  within the reach of Missionary efforts, to which it has not
  contributed, the Liberated African cannot fairly be said to owe much.
  To the invaluable exertions of the Church Missionary Society more
  especially, and also to a considerable extent, as in all our African
  Settlements, to the Wesleyan body, the highest praise is due. The
  former expend nearly 7,000_l._, the latter nearly 2,000_l._ annually
  upon the Religious Instruction of the Colony. By their efforts nearly
  one-fifth of the whole population, a most unusually high proportion in
  any country, are at school, and the effects are visible in
  considerable intellectual, moral, and religious improvement,--very
  considerable under the peculiar circumstances of such a Colony. But a
  few ill-supported Schools and one Chaplain is all that has been
  contributed by the Government to the religious and moral improvement
  of those of whom she has undertaken the protection, and their social
  improvement has been unattempted. No Model Farm has been established,
  no instruction in Agriculture has been afforded. The rate of wages,
  when any are earned, which is chiefly by a few in the neighbourhood of
  the towns, is 4_d._ to 7_d._ a day, and with this and a little
  cultivation a sufficient subsistence, though nothing more, is gained.
  The extent of good soil is limited; the inhabitants wander out of the
  Colony for the subsistence which they cannot find within it. There is
  little industry, there are small facilities for trade, as the Colony
  itself produces little to export save a little arrow-root and ginger,
  and the River which it commands is only navigable for 30 or 40 miles
  to any useful purpose, and supplies no article but timber and camwood.
  With such a climate, therefore, and thus circumstanced, the Colony can
  never invite the residence of planters or of merchants of considerable
  capital, or become a favourite with officers, either civil or
  military, of a higher order. What elements of prosperity, therefore,
  can it have? The Government has not done much, but under any
  circumstances the Colony must be an artificial creation. The
  Government ought to have established a Model Farm, or in some way
  communicated agricultural knowledge; and we would recommend that it
  should be attempted even now. But, after all, what is that to the
  magnificent Model Farms which would surround the African in the West
  Indies?

  We need hardly add more to prove that it would be well for the
  African, in every point of view, to find himself a Free Labourer in
  the free British West India Colonies, enjoying there, as he would,
  higher advantages of every kind, than have fallen to the lot of the
  Negro race in any other portion of the globe.

  We pass the question, though not absolutely to be lost sight of, that,
  in Sierra Leone, the newly liberated African is a burden to the
  British Government as well as to himself; and that, in the West
  Indies, not only would his own condition be improved, but he would
  become a source of wealth and prosperity to the Empire. But we must
  not omit the advantage to Africa, of the probable return to her soil
  of many of her own sons, enriched with civil and religious knowledge,
  and bringing back with them wealth, and the means of wealth and
  civilisation; “that reflux of the West upon the East, in moderate
  numbers, and managed with caution,” in the words of Sir John Jeremie,
  “to which we must look for the civilisation of the East.”

  But Your Committee had next to consider, whether, in achieving this
  object, any danger existed of creating a real, or plausible suspicion
  of a real, Slave Trade under another name.--Under proper regulations,
  they think there is not. A free passage may be offered to the African
  already settled within the colony, and to the Free Settler or other
  Native, who shall have remained long enough in the Colony to give the
  authorities sufficient time to ascertain the circumstances under which
  he came, and to assure themselves that they were entirely free from
  all suspicion of fraud or force. To such as thus leave their homes, a
  free passage back at the end of a certain period, say three or four
  years, might be promised, with full permission to them to return at
  any time at their own expense. To the homeless African, newly
  liberated, the option should be given of settling at once in the West
  Indies, if he please, with permission to return hereafter at his own
  cost, or of removing from Sierra Leone, or of remaining in it on the
  first adjudication, if he undertake for his own maintenance, or can
  find friends or relations who will undertake it for him.

  With regard to the Kroomen, however desirable they may be as
  labourers, and however advantageous the object may be to themselves,
  we are not prepared in the first instance to recommend other
  facilities for emigration than those which we have suggested to be
  offered to other Natives who might desire to make use of a British
  Settlement as a point of departure[10]. If they should desire, as it
  appears that it is not improbable they may, to make a Migration across
  the Atlantic, with their habits they will find no difficulty in making
  their way, for the purpose, to Sierra Leone, where some hundreds or
  even thousands of their brethren habitually reside, some of whom have
  already emigrated to Guiana, and seem to be as active in the field, as
  we have long found them to be on the sea, and to be well pleased with
  the experiment.

  [10] On this point, however, we beg to refer to the important evidence
of Capt. Denman, who thinks that on account of the peculiar character of
the Kroomen, emigration, with common precaution, might be conducted from
their coast without risk of abuse. _See_ Q. 6995, _et preced._

  If it should hereafter be thought desirable to form any Settlement on
  the Kroo Coast, however small, it might facilitate arrangements
  similar to those which we have recommended for the other Settlements.
  Or they might possibly hereafter be embarked from the Coast itself
  under the superintendence of a man-of-war. (_See_ Capt. Denman.)

  The same door might be opened, under the same precautions, from the
  Gambia; but with regard to the Gold Coast, the supply of labour there
  not appearing to be more than necessary for the wants of the country,
  we would not recommend any peculiar facilities to be afforded.

  The expense of the Emigration would of course be defrayed by the
  Colony to which each successive band of Emigrants was directed.

  All this of course cannot be secured from abuse without the strictest
  superintendence of some Government authority; which we believe,
  dealing as it would do only with British Settlements, would be
  substantially effective. But we would earnestly recommend, that it
  should rather be undertaken altogether by the Government itself. In
  that way only can perfect security be given and felt against the
  abuses which might arise from the competition of the Agents of rival
  Colonies; in that way only can perfect confidence be given, whether to
  the African himself, or to the public opinion of England and the
  civilised world, that nothing shall be done which shall even bring
  suspicion upon a reputation, of which we are justly jealous, of which
  we can still be proud, and which it is of the highest importance that
  we should sustain. But under these sanctions, whether we look to the
  effect of the prosperity of our Free Colonies in discouraging the
  Slave Trade, or to the advantage of placing the African in that
  position where he will be most likely to raise himself in the moral
  and social scale, and to react beneficially upon the destinies of his
  Mother Country[11], Your Committee cannot but strongly urge upon
  Parliament not only not to prohibit the Emigration of Free Blacks from
  our African Settlements to our West India Colonies, but to encourage
  and promote it by the authority of Government, under the sanctions and
  regulations above suggested, or such other as further consideration
  may supply.

  [11] To prove that this expectation is not altogether even now
unsupported by facts, we beg to quote a passage from a letter in the
Appendix, from Messrs. Anderson & Co.: “Demerara, 30 April, 1842. The
Superior is off to day for Sierra Leone; 68 people have gone in her,
including children, and with the exception of three or four, who are old
soldiers, the whole of them are people who came seven or eight years ago
from the Bahamas, (liberated Africans?) and they return to their native
country with a good deal of money; three of them have not less than
5,000 dollars each.”

  As we have said before, the way in which this question is disposed of
  will affect materially other questions connected with the internal
  administration of the Colony.

  If Emigration should go on to any great extent from the settled
  Population of Sierra Leone, which we believe it might without in any
  way injuring the condition of the Colony, but rather the reverse, (for
  the rate of Wages would probably rise, and it appears that it is not
  the successful and thriving who are inclined to go), it will probably
  be possible to dispense with some of the Establishment which is now
  requisite for watching over the interests of the Liberated Africans.
  If, on adjudication, they are mostly located in the West Indies, the
  much-discussed question of the best means of disposing of them, of the
  necessity of maintaining them, as now, for six months, or the
  expediency of leaving them at once to their own resources and the
  charity of their countrymen; the question of the best means of
  disposing of the Children, and the ever-new devices of successive
  Governors for escaping from the inevitable evils of apprenticing them
  to persons on whose character no dependence can be placed, will be got
  rid of; and the British Government will be relieved from the necessity
  of attempting to overcome the obstacles which nature seems herself to
  have interposed at Sierra Leone, in the way of ensuring a prosperous
  condition to the objects of its humane care.

We now come to the question which has of late excited so much interest
and feeling, that of the facilities which British Commerce is charged
with having furnished to the Slave Trade, and to the extent and nature
of the connexion which exists between them; a question which must be
considered dispassionately and soberly, rather with a view to what is
best for the object upon the whole, and to what is practicable, than to
what might at first appear to be desirable, and what might be perhaps a
partial good, producing possibly, in other ways, a greater evil. _Now,
in the first place, it is fair to state that we have no evidence, or
reason to believe, that any British Merchant concerned in the trade with
the West Coast of Africa, either owns or equips any vessel engaged in
the Slave Trade, or has any share in the risks or profits of any Slave
Trade venture. The charge is this, and it must be admitted, that whether
by selling condemned Slave Vessels back to Slave Dealers, which is the
rarer case, or, which is the more common, by selling to Slave Dealers
lawful goods, which are afterwards employed in barter for Slaves
(whether circuitously by sale to Merchants in Cuba and Brazil, or
directly on the Coast of Africa), the British Merchant and Manufacturer
does, in common with the Merchants of other nations, furnish very
considerable facilities for the Slave Trade._

It must further be admitted, that owing to the equipment article in our
recent Treaties, which has prevented the actual Slaver from hovering on
the Coast in safety, a large portion of the goods necessary for the
Slave Trade is driven into Vessels innocent in their apparent character,
but subserving the purposes of the Slaver; and that, in consequence, a
somewhat larger portion of this kind of traffic may possibly now pass
directly from the English or other Merchant to the Coast of Africa, than
heretofore, when those supplies went round by Cuba and Brazil in the
Slavers themselves, without risk of capture.

Now an opinion has prevailed, and that in very influential quarters, and
it runs through Dr. Madden’s Report, that at least such direct dealing
is illegal, and punishable under the Statute of the 5 Geo. IV, c. 5; and
if not so already, the same parties would urge on Parliament to make it
so by new enactment; and some even would extend it to all connexion,
however indirect, in which a guilty knowledge of the destination of the
goods or of the Vessel could be presumed. Now this view of the Act is
not unnatural, owing to the general and comprehensive nature of its
language, and to the desire which must naturally exist to understand it
in as comprehensive a sense as possible for the obstruction of so odious
and detestable a traffic as the Slave Trade. But looking closely at the
language of the Act itself, and to the interpretation put upon it by the
Law Officers of the Crown, as alluded to by the Under Secretary of the
Colonies, in his letter to Dr. Madden, April 1842, and to the opinion of
the Attorney General in the case inserted in the Evidence, _we cannot
affirm it to be illegal now_, and we shall presently state to The House
why, however reluctantly we may come to the conclusion, _we are not
prepared to recommend that it should be made so_.

Now in the first place, it is difficult to consider or to make that
illegal, which is and has been done at Sierra Leone for years, by a
Court of Judicature, (in doing so, acting under Treaties and under the
sanction of an Act of Parliament, namely,) selling publicly, and to the
highest bidder, Prize Vessels and Prize Goods condemned for Slave
Dealing, indiscriminately, and without precaution or restriction, to
persons of all descriptions, including Slave Dealers themselves, and
which, in regard to vessels at least, had been practised in that Colony
by persons of high character and station unreproved. But if it should be
made illegal hereafter to sell a Vessel to a party concerned in the
traffic in Slaves, the next question, and one that a Legislative body
must consider, is, in what manner shall such a prohibition be enforced?
A bond that the Vessel shall not be disposed of to a Slave Dealer has
been proposed; but how shall the Vessel be prevented from passing very
shortly from hand to hand till it reaches an unlawful owner? and is it
not unwise for the Law to attempt that which it has so little means of
effectually enforcing? There seems no remedy for this, which at Sierra
Leone, in the heart of the Slave Trade, and where the Vessel is often
sold for half its value, is an evil substantially as well as in feeling,
but that of extending the provisions of those Treaties which direct that
a Slave Vessel shall be broken up, not sold, and altering our own
Municipal Law to the same effect.

But in regard to goods and merchandise, should the Committee advise The
House to make such dealing illegal? Now all the witnesses, even those
who advocate this view most strongly, admit that legitimate trade, by
which is meant the exchange of merchandise for produce, is most
beneficial to Africa, and co-operates materially with the cruizer in his
operations, whether directly by the assistance and information with
which the British trader supplies him, or indirectly by diminishing the
necessity of a trade in Slaves, as the means of procuring European or
other goods; they admit that nothing therefore would be more injurious
to the interests of Africa, than to interfere materially with the
operations of lawful commerce. It appears, moreover, that in every place
on the Coast North of the Line, (to which limits our inquiries have
mainly been confined,) with the exception of perhaps two or three
points, a lawful trade of more or less extent is or has been carried on
contemporaneously with, and often, nay generally, by the same persons
as, the Slave Trade: they have told us that the same goods, such as
cottons, rum, tobacco, guns and gunpowder, are employed in both trades;
and that, although those employed in the Slave Trade are often of an
inferior description, yet that quality alone will not furnish the means
of distinguishing between one and the other, and that, practically,
there are no means of making such a distinction; they have told us that
any restriction on traffic which they would recommend, must therefore be
confined to places or persons _solely_ or _principally_ concerned in the
Slave Trade, and that the law should not attempt to interfere with any
other. The question still remains, how this is to be carried out?

With regard to those places, where the Slave Trade has been
extinguished, no difficulty will arise; but with regard to those places,
not few in number nor of slight importance, where, as in Bissao now, and
as it has been and may be again, in the Brass and Bonny Rivers, the most
important marts for lawful trade upon the Coast of Africa, a trade in
produce and slaves is carried on together and by the same persons; or
where, as in Whydah and Popo, a trade in produce has been gradually
growing up and gaining upon the Slave Trade in proportion as the
enterprise of the British merchant pushes on the one and the vigilance
of the British cruizer checks and cripples the other, how should the
Legislature deal with them? Shall they be lawful or unlawful ports or
persons? What is to legalise the traffic in such cases? What proportion,
or what positive amount, of lawful traffic? But, indeed, how is the
lawful traffic to spring up at all under such circumstances of
exclusion?

  Some witnesses have argued, that this question of degree need not be
  defined but may be left to be solved by the practical sense of a jury.
  By what jury? In England or at Sierra Leone? Under what uncertainties
  and obstructions would the most scrupulous trader deal with the Coast
  of Africa, if, for the misinterpretation of such instructions, as the
  nature of such a case will admit, by a supercargo, his vessel and
  goods are liable to be brought some hundreds or thousands of miles out
  of their course, to have the question decided by a jury, whether some
  person or some factory dealt with was _principally_ or not engaged in
  the Slave Trade, it being unlawful if _principally_, lawful if
  _partially_, in some unknown and varying proportion, so engaged.

  The question for the Legislature to consider is, whether it is worth
  while to do all this, to infuse so much risk and uncertainty into a
  trade which it wishes to encourage, which it looks to as one of the
  main instruments for the civilisation of Africa, for the sake of
  interfering with so small a proportion of the facilities which
  commerce, permitted at all with Africa, under her present
  circumstances, must of necessity afford more or less to the Trade in
  Slaves. For unless all other countries can be persuaded to take the
  same view, it must indeed be a small proportion, and little indeed
  will have been done towards the object; an obstruction will merely
  have been raised for such length of time as may be required for
  conveying the same goods from England or from foreign countries
  through other channels. It would be merely a transfer, and a transfer
  to parties less friendly to the object, and less under control. We
  have had ample evidence, that foreign vessels already carry on this
  trade to a considerable extent; nor is there any right by existing
  treaty with foreign nations, nor can it be expected, that we should
  obtain it, to interrupt foreign vessels engaged in such a traffic.
  But indeed, how would it be carried out? The right of search, in any
  shape, is one, as we know by experience, that requires the greatest
  delicacy in carrying out with the ships of friendly nations. But what
  kind of search must that be, which would seek to ascertain, on board
  of an apparently innocent vessel, innocent in her build and in her
  equipment, and freighted with innocent goods, whether the destination
  of such goods was not made unlawful by some document hidden in the
  most obscure recesses of the vessel? How prolonged, how minute,
  consequently how irritating at all times, how vexatious, if
  unsuccessful; how likely to be unsuccessful, if not guided by more
  obvious indications; how likely consequently to lead to disputes and
  collisions among nations, most injurious, if not fatal to that
  harmonious co-operation for the common object which is so absolutely
  essential to success. It must not be lost sight of how large a share
  of these evils must be inflicted on those who are engaged in our own
  lawful commerce, if such a search be applied to them.

  Now if we were bound by a rigid principle to do this, these arguments
  must be rejected, as not affecting a case of conscience; but in this
  case we are not trying the value of a rigid principle. The principle
  would be intelligible which dictated the absolute interdiction of all
  commerce with every place from which a single Slave was exported; or,
  further still, with every place from which a Slave Trade was carried
  on, such as Cuba and Brazil; or if it dictated a prohibition to send
  goods where there was a probability that they might be exchanged for
  Slaves. But this arbitrary and uncertain limitation, so little capable
  of being referred to strict principle, and yet so injurious to lawful
  commerce, can only rest on the ground of its expediency, of its
  tendency to attain or promote the object; must submit to be tried by
  that test, and so tried will be found wanting. It is no doubt galling
  to a zealous and gallant officer, engaged in the service of his
  country and humanity in watching anxiously a well-known slaver’s
  haunt, to see foreign vessels, still more vessels bearing his own
  country’s flag, passing inwards and supplying those goods, though
  innocent in themselves, which are the medium of an atrocious traffic;
  it is not surprising that under such circumstances that feeling should
  have arisen which appears in Dr. Madden’s Report, and in the Evidence
  of several, especially the naval, Witnesses. It is a feeling natural
  and honourable in itself; and we hope that the English merchant,
  animated as he is by the same feelings of horror for the Slave Trade,
  will endeavour to extend the influence of those feelings through the
  whole circle of his transactions. But we cannot recommend that a
  provision so difficult to be carried out, so vexatious and yet so
  ineffectual for its object, should be made the subject of Legislation.

  Happily in this great work we need not despair. The measures lately
  adopted have done much. The evidence of all the Naval Officers as well
  as Commanders of Merchant Ships, concurs in stating, that North of the
  Line, over a coast of many thousand miles, the Slave Trade, with the
  exception of a few points in the neighbourhood of Sierra Leone and the
  Gambia, is virtually extinct. And the continuance of these measures,
  well guarded and considered in all their details, as well as extended,
  together with such as we have recommended in different parts of our
  Report, give fair ground for hoping for ultimate success. Under this
  head we would venture to recommend that none but the swiftest vessels
  should be employed; that some of the best Prizes should be converted
  to the purposes of the service; that Steamers should be engaged in
  watching the intricacies of Islands, and the mouths of Rivers; that
  the system of paying by Head-money, so unjust to gallant men[12], or,
  perhaps, by Bounty at all, should be reconsidered, and possibly
  replaced by higher pay and the prospect of promotion. Encouragement
  and ample protection, at the same time, should be given to lawful
  trade in every shape[13]; and the Settlements which we hold, or which
  we may form, upon the coast, should be kept open indifferently to all
  nations as to ourselves, that they may see, and be compelled to
  acknowledge, that in all we are attempting for Africa, we are only
  endeavouring to provide a feast of which all may equally partake; and
  seeking, as the reward of our exertions, no advantage to ourselves
  save that which may fairly fall to our lot from a proportionate share
  of a more abundant table, spread out for the common benefit of all.

  [12] As an instance of the injustice of this system, we beg to refer to
a case cited by Captain Denman (Q. 7099), in which it appears that the
capture of two vessels, of the aggregate capacity of 80 tons, which
would have held 700 slaves, was remunerated with no more than 576_l._,
because they were empty; while that of a single vessel, of little more
than half that tonnage, brought in 1,654_l._, because she was full. Thus
the least laborious and dangerous, as well as the least effective
service, receives the highest reward.

  [13] Perhaps one or two vessels might have this specific duty assigned
to them, apart from the general operations of the Cruizers connected
with the Slave Trade.


  IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
  REGINA _v._ ZULUETA.

  _Counsel for the Prosecution._

  MR. SERJEANT BOMPAS.
  MR. SERJEANT TALFOURD.
  MR. PAYNE.

  _Counsel for the Defence._

  MR. FITZ-ROY KELLY.
  MR. CLARKSON.
  MR. BODKIN.

_Attorney for the Prosecution._

  SIR GEORGE STEPHEN.

_Attornies for the Defence._

  E. J. & H. S. LAWFORD.


  PROCEEDINGS
  INSTITUTED AGAINST
  PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN., ESQ.

From the moment I left the Committee of the House of Commons, on the 23d
of July, 1842, I never again heard of this matter until Wednesday the
23d of August, 1843.

On that day, between two and three o’clock in the afternoon, I was
sitting at my desk in the private room of Zulueta & Co.’s office, 22,
Moorgate Street, in the City of London, when a clerk came into the room
to announce that a gentleman of the name of _Scoble_ wished to see me.
“Do you know him? He says that he is not known to you.” Upon this I went
out into the clerks’ office and found the individual, thus calling
himself, standing outside the counter. I asked him his business, and he
replied that _he did not call upon his own business_. He asked me, in a
pointed and distinct manner, if my name was Pedro de Zulueta, which of
course I instantly acknowledged. “_I do not call on my own business, but
to introduce a person who wishes to speak with you. Shall he see you
here, or at your house?_” “I should like to know first who he is; what
is his name?” “_You do not know him, his name is Brown._” “I do not
recollect any person of that name,” I replied. “_He is below, if you
like to see him._” The first impression on my mind was that the whole
was some ridiculous mystery about some great trifle, and I thought I
could not dispose of it better or more quickly than by seeing the man,
so suiting the action to the word, I said, “I will go and see who he
is,” and opened the door which leads from the office into the
landing-place at the top of the stairs. No sooner was I outside the door
than the individual, calling himself _Scoble_, addressed me in a tone
different from the insinuating manner in which he had done before--not
rude, but solemn--“The fact is, Sir, that a true bill has been found by
the Grand Jury against you for felony, and there is an officer below to
take you into custody. I did not like to state this before the clerks.”

The first impression I received at hearing these words I cannot give any
account of, but it certainly struck me as the whole thing being a trick.
“What do you say, Sir?” I asked; and the assertion was repeated, adding
that the charge was slave trading. Then I was still more confirmed that
there was some trick in the case. I asked the policeman, who was within
the house and apparently in the act of ascending the stairs, to be
called up, which Mr. Scoble did, and both were shown by me into the
private through the public office. My father was sitting in the next
room, and when I tried to make him understand the case, seeing the
policeman and Mr. Scoble, he received the same impression of the whole
being a trick, which raised his indignation at the audacity, and made
him address Mr. Scoble very angrily. Mr. Scoble was evidently anxious to
leave the room; and the policeman, to whom he gave strict directions
about what was to be done with me, having assured me that the thing was
in earnest, that I must go with him, I opened the private door for Mr.
Scoble, who left the office repeating his injunctions to the officer,
that I must be taken directly to the station-house, where Sir George
Stephen would immediately go.

We had never before heard Sir George Stephen’s name, and my father
thought he might be a magistrate. He tried to ascertain from the
policeman by whose authority he was acting, but we could not obtain from
him any thing that we could understand. He waited until Mr. John
Lawford, of the firm of Messrs. Lawford, of Drapers Hall, our
solicitors, arrived, and then we proceeded to the Garlick Hill Police
Station-house. There Sir George Stephen appeared: he did not know me,
and asked which was Pedro de Zulueta. When my name was mentioned, I
answered to it, and then he preferred the charge as will be found in the
succeeding page.

Mr. Lawford spoke aside with Sir George Stephen, for the immediate and
pressing question was the bail. Sir George expressed a firm
determination _to resist bail to any amount_. Then the dreadful thought
was, what was to become of my family, since it never has happened, that
I have been absent without their being acquainted with all the
circumstances; and I do not think I have slept one night out of my house
while in town. The late hour made it quite unlikely that with opposition
to the bail, and as counsel must be heard, that I could escape passing
the night in Newgate. Mr. John Lawford, with the greatest kindness and
feeling, expressed to me that such was his fear. My reply was, that they
might do what they pleased with me, only that my wife should be seen to,
for I was quite sure of the result of her hearing suddenly of such an
occurrence, together with my not going home. Sir George coldly remarked,
that “it must already be known at home, for he had sent there to take
me, in case I had not been taken at the office.” The agony, which such a
statement caused, was perceptible, and one of the officers in the room
remarked, that I needed not apprehend any thing, as all the officers
could do, would be to watch the house.

I was conveyed very late to the Court at the Old Bailey, where I sat
until nearly nine o’clock in suspense as to what would be the result of
the application for bail, and next whether the persons approved of could
be found at so late an hour. It was not until late, that the former was
granted; and after considerable difficulty, and the impossibility of
finding one of the two bail offered, the other was accepted as
sufficient by the Court, together with my own recognizance. I then went
home at about half-past nine o’clock at night to my afflicted family in
a condition, which, as I believe it unprecedented when all the
circumstances of my case are considered, so I hope and trust may never
fall again to the lot of any man who lives in that happy and
undescribable feeling of habitual security, which in this country we so
dearly value as the precious privilege and the certain possession of
every man who has not contemplated and is not aware of a breach of the
law. Thus will it have been reserved to me, in the British dominions, to
experience this peculiar method of receiving a wound in the heart,
which, although time and the sympathy which has been so kindly expressed
may allay, I alone can know how unlikely it is that any lapse of time
can altogether cure.

As I would not state a fact with any greater appearance of certainty
than what I really possess, I ought to add, since I _now_ have seen the
name of Mr. _John Scoble_ mentioned as that of the Secretary of the
Anti-Slavery Society, that as I never saw before or have seen since,
that I am aware of, _the Scoble_, who acted in this to me ever memorable
occasion, I cannot tell whether they are both one and the same person.


_Extract from the Book kept at the Station-house on Garlick Hill,
containing the Entries of Charges made on Wednesday, August 23, 1843._

Hour 3. 50.--PEDRO DE ZULUETA (32), 22, Moorgate Street, brought in by
P. C.[14] 489, ---- Tye, charged by Sir George Stephen, 17, King’s Arms
Yard, Coleman Street, with Felony (_Slave Trading_); also with
Conspiracy, a true Bill having been found against him at the C. C. Court
on both of the above charges.

  (signature of person charging)

  “GEORGE STEPHEN.”

  [14] P. C. means Police Constable.


  (_From the Anti-Slavery Reporter._)
  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
  WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1843.
  (Before the Recorder.)
  EXTRAORDINARY AFFAIR.

The Grand Jury having, in the course of the day, returned true bills
against Pedro de Zulueta the younger, of the parish of St. Mary-le-Bow,
merchant, Thomas Jennings, and Thomas Bernardos, late of the same place,
mariners, for felony,

Mr. _Clarkson_ applied to his Lordship under, as he said, circumstances
of a rather peculiar character. Two bills had been found against Mr. de
Zulueta for felony and misdemeanor. He was a highly respectable merchant
of the City of London, and he was charged with conspiring, with other
persons, to fit out a ship for the purpose of trading in slaves. The
proceedings before the Grand Jury were of course entirely _ex parte_,
and no application had been made to any magistrate. The first intimation
which Mr. de Zulueta had of the fact was his being taken into custody,
and he knew nothing of the nature of the charge beyond what was entered
in the police-sheet.

The _Recorder_ asked, was the defendant present?

Mr. _Clarkson_ said he was in custody, and was on his way to the Court.

The _Recorder_ asked, what was the application which Mr. Clarkson wished
to make?

Mr. _Clarkson_ said he wanted the defendant to be allowed to give bail.

Sir _G. Stephen_, who, it appeared, was the solicitor for the
prosecution, stated that the charge against Mr. Zulueta was founded upon
the Act of the 5th of Geo. IV, which declared the offence imputed to the
prisoner to be felony. In answer to the Court, he added that the charge
was framed under that section of the Act which rendered the party
convicted liable to the penalty of transportation for fourteen years.

The _Recorder_ said that if the learned counsel intended to enforce his
application for bail, he apprehended that it would be incumbent upon him
to show more reason for such a course than the mere statement that the
party had been taken by surprise.

Mr. _Clarkson_ trusted that the circumstances he had stated would be
considered sufficient by the Court. The fact of the defendant being so
suddenly arrested and placed in confinement would cause the greatest
distress to his family. He was prepared to put in bail to any amount.

The _Recorder_ inquired if there was any objection to bail being taken?

Sir _G. Stephen_ was understood to say, that in consequence of the
circumstances of Mr. Zulueta, there was some doubt whether he ought to
be admitted to bail.

Mr. _Clarkson_ assured the Court that Mr. de Zulueta had not the
slightest indisposition to take his trial; but, on the contrary, he had
the greatest anxiety to have the matter investigated. His only wish, in
applying to be admitted to bail, was to prevent the misery and
inconvenience to which his family would be subjected by his being
prevented from returning to them. He especially wished to save the
anxiety of the female branches.

The _Recorder_ suggested that the case should be dealt with in the
ordinary manner, and that affidavits should be prepared in support of
the application.

At this stage of the proceedings the prisoner entered the Court, in
custody of an officer.

Mr. _Clarkson_, after some communication with Sir G. Stephen, addressed
the Court, and said that he believed no objection would be offered to
bail in the sum of 5,000_l._

The _Recorder_ said he thought that would be quite sufficient.

Mr. _Clarkson_ said the defendant would enter into his own recognizance
in 3,000_l._, and give two sureties in 1,000_l._ each.

It was then arranged that this amount of bail should be put in upon the
indictment for felony; and with regard to that for misdemeanor, the
defendant should give his own recognizance in 100_l._, and two sureties
in 50_l._ each.

The indictment was then read. It charged the prisoner and the two other
persons with having feloniously equipped and employed a certain vessel,
called the Augusta, for the purpose of trading in slaves. In other
counts the parties were charged with equipping the vessel for the
purchase of slaves, and for the purpose of purchasing persons to be
dealt with as slaves.

Mr. de Zulueta pleaded not guilty to both indictments.

He then, in default of two sureties, entered into his own recognizance
in 6,000_l._, and one surety in 2,000_l._, to appear when called on.


INDICTMENT FOR FELONY.

  THE QUEEN,        }
  _v._              }
  ZULUETA & OTHERS. }

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

~To wit.~--The jurors for Our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present
that PEDRO DE ZULUETA the younger, late of the parish of Saint
Mary-le-Bow, in the City of London, merchant and commission agent;
THOMAS JENNINGS, late of the same place, mariner; and THOMAS BERNARDOS,
late of the same place, mariner, heretofore and after the 1st day of
January, in the year of the reign of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st
day of November, in the 4th year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady
Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and
within the jurisdiction of the said Court, did illegally and feloniously
_man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, and employ a certain ship or
vessel_, to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” in order to
accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of
Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late
Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and
consolidate the laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was
and is declared unlawful, that is to say, _to deal and trade in slaves_,
contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

2. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our
Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the
reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit,
at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, did
illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such
case made and provided, _fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use,
and employ a certain ship or vessel_, called the “Augusta,” in order to
accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament
made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King
George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws
relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared
unlawful, that is to say, _to purchase slaves_, contrary to the form of
the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of Our
Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

3. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord
1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the reign
of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at
London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, did
illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such
case made and provided, _fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use,
and employ a certain ship or vessel_, called the “Augusta,” in order to
accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament
made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King
George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws
relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared
unlawful, that is to say, _to deal and trade in persons intended to be
dealt with as slaves_, contrary to the form of the statute in such case
made and provided, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her
crown and dignity;

4. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord
1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the reign
of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at
London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, did
illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such
case made and provided, _fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use,
and employ a certain ship or vessel_, called the “Augusta,” in order to
accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament
made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King
George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws
relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared
unlawful, that is to say, _to purchase persons intended to be dealt with
as slaves_, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and
dignity;

5. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January, in
the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the
4th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force
and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of
the said Court, did illegally and feloniously, and against the form of
the statute in such case made and provided, _ship on board a certain
ship or vessel_, called the “Augusta,” _divers goods and effects_, to
wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 6 cases of arms, 1 case of
looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise,
1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in
accomplishing a certain object which was in and by a certain Act of
Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late
Majesty King George the 4th, intituled, “An Act to amend and consolidate
the laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” declared
unlawful, that is to say, _to trade and deal in slaves_, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

6. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta, Thomas Jennings, and Thomas
Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January in the year of
our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the 4th year of
the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to
wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court,
did illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the statute in
such case made and provided, _ship on board of a certain ship or
vessel_, to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” _divers goods
and effects_, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, 1 case
of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise,
1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in
accomplishing a certain object, which was and is in and by the said last
mentioned Act of Parliament declared unlawful, that is to say, _to
purchase slaves_, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made
and provided, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and
dignity;

7. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present, that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January, in
the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the
4th year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force
and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of
the said Court, did illegally and feloniously, and against the form of
the statute in such case made and provided, _ship on board a certain
ship or vessel_, to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” _divers
goods and effects_, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, 1
case of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of
merchandise, 1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be
employed in accomplishing a certain object, which was and is in and by
the said last mentioned Act of Parliament declared unlawful, that is to
say, _to deal and trade in persons intended to be dealt with as slaves_,
contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

8. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and
arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the
said Court, did illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the
statute in such case made and provided, _ship on board of a certain ship
or vessel_, to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” _divers goods
and effects_, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, 1 case
of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise,
1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in
accomplishing a certain object, which was and is in and by the said last
mentioned Act of Parliament declared unlawful, that is to say, _to
purchase persons intended to be dealt with as slaves_, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.


INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY.

  THE QUEEN         }
  _v._              }
  ZULUETA & OTHERS. }

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

~To wit.~--The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath, present
that PEDRO DE ZULUETA the younger, late of the parish of St.
Mary-le-Bow, in the City of London, merchant and commission agent;
THOMAS JENNINGS, late of the same place, mariner; and THOMAS BERNARDOS
late of the same place, mariner, heretofore and after the 1st day of
January, in the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of
November, in the 4th year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen
Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within
the jurisdiction of the said Court, _did covinously conspire, combine,
confederate, and agree together illegally and feloniously_, and against
the form of the statute in such case made and provided, _to fit out,
man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, and employ a certain ship or
vessel_, to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” in order to
accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of
Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late
Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and
consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was
and is declared unlawful, that is to say, _to deal and trade in slaves_,
contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

2. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord
1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the reign
of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at
London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, _did
conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together illegally and
feloniously_, and against the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, _to fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, and employ a
certain ship or vessel_, called the “Augusta,” in order to accomplish a
certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament, made and
passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the
Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to
the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is
to say, _to purchase slaves_, contrary to the form of the statute in
such case made and provided, and against the peace of Our Lady the
Queen, her crown and dignity;

3. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord
1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November in the 4th year of the reign of
Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at
London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, _did
conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together illegally and
feloniously_, and against the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, to _fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, and employ a
certain ship or vessel_, called the “Augusta,” in order to accomplish a
certain object which in and by a certain Act of Parliament, made and
passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the
Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to
the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is
to say, _to deal and trade in persons intended to be dealt with as
slaves_, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and
dignity;

4. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord
1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the reign
of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at
London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, _did
conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together illegally and
feloniously_, and against the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, _to fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, and employ a
certain ship or vessel_ called the “Augusta,” in order to accomplish a
certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament, made and
passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the
Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to
the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is
to say, _to purchase persons intended to be dealt with as slaves_,
contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

5. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of Our Lady the now Queen, with force and arms, to
wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court,
_did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together knowingly,
wilfully, and feloniously to ship on board of a certain ship or vessel_,
to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” _divers goods and
effects_, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, one case of
looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise,
1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in
accomplishing a certain object, which was and is and by a certain Act of
Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late
Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and
consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,”
declared unlawful, that is to say, _to trade and deal in slaves_,
contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of Our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her crown and
dignity;

6. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of Our Lady the now Queen, with force and arms, to
wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court,
_did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together knowingly,
wilfully, and feloniously to ship on board of a certain ship or vessel_,
to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” _divers goods and
effects_, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, 1 case of
looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise,
1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in
accomplishing a certain object, which was and is in and by the last
mentioned Act of Parliament declared unlawful, that is to say, _to
purchase slaves_, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made
and provided, and against the peace of Our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her
crown and dignity;

7. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady the now Queen, with force and
arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the
said Court, _did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together
knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously to ship on board of a certain ship
or vessel_, to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” _divers goods
and effects_, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, 1 case
of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise,
1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in
accomplishing a certain object, which was and is in and by the said last
mentioned Act of Parliament declared unlawful, that is to say, _to deal
and trade in persons intended to be dealt with as slaves_, contrary to
the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of Our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

8. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of our Lady the now Queen, with force and arms, to
wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court,
_did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together knowingly,
wilfully, and feloniously to ship on board of a certain ship or vessel_,
to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” _divers goods and
effects_, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, 1 case of
looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise,
1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in
accomplishing a certain object, which was and is in and by the said last
mentioned Act of Parliament declared unlawful, that is to say, _to
purchase persons intended to be dealt with as slaves_, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

9. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord
1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the reign
of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at
London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, _did
conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together feloniously to engage
in the trading and dealing in slaves_, contrary to the form of the
statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our
Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

10. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and Thomas
Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1825,
to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the reign of our
Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at London
aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, _did conspire,
combine, confederate, and agree together feloniously to engage in the
trading and dealing in persons intended to be dealt with as slaves_,
contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;

11. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta, the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our
Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the
reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit,
at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, _did
conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together feloniously to engage
in the purchase of slaves_, contrary to the form of the statute in such
case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her
crown and dignity;

12. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord
1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the reign
of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at
London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, _did
conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together feloniously to engage
in the purchase of persons intended to be dealt with as slaves_,
contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.


_Names of Witnesses endorsed on both the Indictments before the Grand
Jury._

  Sir GEORGE STEPHEN.                                     [_Solicitor._]
  JOHN BROWN.                                [_Clerk of the Admiralty._]
  Lieutenant HENRY WORSLEY HILL, R.N.
  The Honourable Captain JOSEPH DENMAN, R.N.
  Colonel EDWARD NICOLLS.
  EMANUEL EMANUELS.                                   [_Of Portsmouth._]
  WILLIAM THOMAS.     [_A Clerk at Messrs. Glyn & Co., Lombard Street._]
  ABRAHAM DE PINNA.                                   [_Notary Public._]


  (_From the Anti-Slavery Reporter._)
  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
  THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 1843.
  THE CHARGE OF TRADING IN SLAVES.

Mr. _Clarkson_ applied to their Lordships to take the bail for Mr. de
Zulueta, arranged by the Recorder on the previous evening. He explained
that only one of the sureties having been present, and the hour too late
to obtain the other, Mr. de Zulueta had been enlarged upon giving his
own recognizance in 6,000_l._, and one security in 2,000_l._ He was now
in Court with Mr. Glyn, the well-known banker, and Mr. Wilcox, who were
ready to enter into the sureties of 1,000_l._ each, Mr. de Zulueta
himself being ready to give his personal recognizance in 3,000_l._

Mr. _Payne_, who was retained for the prosecution, had no objection.

Mr. _Clarkson_ then applied to have the trial, both for the felony and
the misdemeanor, postponed to the next session.

Mr. _Payne_ consented.

Mr. de Zulueta then entered into the requisite securities.


  AFFIDAVIT
  OF DEFENDANT AND MR. EDWARD LAWFORD
  IN SUPPORT OF
  APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

  REGINA   }
  _v._     } Sworn, 8th Sept. 1843.
  ZULUETA. }

IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH.

PEDRO DE ZULUETA the younger, of the city of London, merchant, and
EDWARD LAWFORD, of Drapers Hall, in the same city, gentleman, attorney
for the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, severally make oath and say,
And first this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta, for himself, saith, that he,
this deponent, is a merchant of London, and has been so for the last
eight years, and as such engaged in large mercantile transactions with
houses in different parts of the world, but particularly at Cadiz, and
the Havannah. And this deponent saith, that he is engaged in such
business in partnership with his this deponent’s father and brother, and
that this deponent’s said father and grandfather were engaged in such
business for seventy years and upwards, and that their said house of
business is and always has been of good repute as honourable merchants,
and that this deponent has always occupied the rank and station of a
gentleman, and has always associated with gentlemen and merchants of the
first respectability. And this deponent further saith, that on
Wednesday, the 22nd day of August last, while this deponent was sitting
in his counting-house in Moorgate street, in the city of London, he was,
about three o’clock in the afternoon, to his great surprise taken into
custody by a policeman, in consequence, as he was then informed, of a
true bill having been then found against him for felony at the sessions
then being held of the Central Criminal Court. And this deponent saith,
that upon being taken to the said Court, and the said indictment being
exhibited to him, he found it to be an indictment against this deponent,
and against one Thomas Jennings, mariner, and one Thomas Bernardos,
mariner, for illegally and feloniously manning, navigating, equipping,
dispatching, using, and employing a certain ship or vessel called the
Augusta, in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a
certain Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign
of His late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend
and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,”
was and is declared unlawful, and for other illegal offences against the
said Act of Parliament. And this deponent saith, that he is not guilty
of the offences charged against him by the said indictment, or of any or
either of them, and that he never did, directly or indirectly, man,
navigate, equip, dispatch, use, or employ the said ship, or any other
ship, to accomplish any of the objects declared by the said Act to be
unlawful, and that he is not, nor ever was, directly or indirectly, in
any way or manner interested in the said ship or her earnings, or the
profits of any voyage made or to be made by her. And this deponent
saith, that when he was so taken into custody he was altogether ignorant
that any proceedings whatever had been, or were about to be, taken
against him in reference to the said ship, or to the offences charged by
the said indictment. And this deponent saith, that there had been no
previous examination or inquiry before any magistrate in reference to
the said charges, and that he was then, as he is now, altogether
ignorant of the evidence upon which such true bill was found, and has no
means whatever of ascertaining, except as appears by the said
indictment, what facts he is charged with. And this deponent saith, that
upon his being so taken into custody and removed to the Central Criminal
Court then sitting, upon a representation of the facts made by his
counsel to the Recorder of London, then presiding as judge of the
Central Criminal Court, it was ordered that he, this deponent, should be
admitted to bail himself in the sum of 3000_l._, with two sureties in
the sum of 1000_l._ each, to take his trial upon the said indictment,
and that he forthwith pleaded Not Guilty to the said indictment; and
that inasmuch as by reason of the lateness of the hour in the evening at
which such order was made, he was unable to procure two sufficient
persons as bail, the Recorder permitted him to enter into his own
recognizance in 6,000_l._, with one surety in 2,000_l._, conditional for
his completing the bail on the following morning pursuant to the said
order, which this deponent accordingly did. And this deponent saith,
that the said indictment now stands for trial at the next session of the
Central Criminal Court. And both these deponents say, that they believe
that this is the first instance of an indictment for felony preferred in
this country under the said statute, and that they believe that
questions upon the true meaning and construction of the said statute,
and other and difficult questions of law will arise upon the trial
thereof. And these deponents say, that in the judgment and belief of
these deponents this is a case which ought to be tried by a special jury
of merchants. And this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, saith,
that he is desirous of having the assistance of the most eminent counsel
upon the trial of this indictment, and that he has retained for that
purpose one of the most eminent of Her Majesty’s counsel learned in the
law, but that he is informed and believes that such counsel will not
attend at the Central Criminal Court. And this deponent saith, that if
he shall be permitted to remove this indictment by _certiorari_ into
this honourable Court he will have the assistance of such counsel, and
he will apply for a special jury, and will take all necessary steps for
having the same tried by a special jury, and for being defended therein
by such eminent counsel as aforesaid, with the least possible delay. And
this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, further saith, that the
facts and circumstances relative to the using and employing the said
ship or vessel called the Augusta, upon the occasion to which the said
indictment has reference, formed one of the subjects of an inquiry in
the year 1842, by a Select Committee of the Honourable House of Commons
appointed to inquire into the state of the British possessions on the
West Coast of Africa, and that three of the witnesses whose names
appeared on the back of this indictment, (that is to say) Captain the
Honourable Joseph Denman, Captain Henry Worsley Hill, and Colonel Edward
Nicolls, were examined before such Committee. And this deponent saith,
that it appears by the printed minutes of the evidence taken before the
said Committee, and this deponent believes the fact to be, that the said
Henry Worsley Hill captured the ship Augusta off the Gallinas, on the
coast of Africa, and that the said Thomas Jennings, then the owner and
master of the said ship, was tried in Her Majesty’s Court of Sierra
Leone upon a charge similar to that now charged against him and against
this deponent, and that the said Thomas Jennings was by such Court on
such trial acquitted. And this deponent saith, that he is one of the
mercantile correspondents in London of the mercantile house of Pedro
Martinez & Co., of Cadiz and the Havannah, and that the nature of his
commercial dealings with the said houses of Pedro Martinez & Co. is
confined to the usual mercantile business of purchasing and selling, in
this country, for the said Pedro Martinez & Co., lawful goods and
merchandise, and usual mercantile banking transactions, and that he has
no sort of connexion with him or with any other house, either here or
abroad, as to any dealings in, or in relation to, slaves or the slave
trade.

  Sworn by both the deponents, Pedro de      }
  Zulueta the younger, and Edward Lawford,   }
  at my Chambers, Rolls Garden, Chancery     } PEDRO DE ZULUETA, Junior.
  Lane, this 8th day of September, 1843,     } EDWARD LAWFORD.
                     Before me,              }
                           T. ERSKINE.       }

  NOTE.--_The learned Judge, to whom the application was made for a Writ
  of Certiorari, did not see fit to grant it._


  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
  MOTION TO POSTPONE THE TRIAL OF THE INDICTMENT.

THE QUEEN _versus_ ZULUETA AND OTHERS.

  Proceedings at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey, before
  the Honourable Mr. Justice ERSKINE and the Honourable Mr. Justice
  CRESSWELL.


  (_Thursday, 21st of September, 1843._)

Mr. _Clarkson_. My Lords, I consider it my duty to take the earliest
opportunity of bringing under your Lordships’ consideration the case of
the Queen _v._ Zulueta.

Mr. _Payne_. My Lords, Mr. Serjeant Bompas leads me for the prosecution
in this case: he is not here now, but will be here in a moment.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. This is an application only.

Mr. _Clarkson_. Yes, my Lord; I will give my learned friend every
advantage I can. We have given him a copy of our affidavit, in answer to
which an affidavit has been sworn, I understand the effect of which is
this, that Captain Hill--

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. What is the ground of your application?

Mr. _Clarkson_. The absence of material witnesses. I do not mean to
trouble your Lordships at any length. My application to your Lordships
is to postpone the trial of these indictments, upon the ground of the
absence of material witnesses from Spain, without whose evidence the
defendant cannot safely go to trial, and that application is founded
upon an affidavit, a copy of which has been supplied to the gentleman on
the other side some days ago. It was supplied immediately upon the
sitting of the Court. One of the witnesses who had been sent for, and
who was not expected to arrive, having arrived within the last two days,
and this indictment having been preferred without any application being
made to a magistrate, or without any notice to the gentleman himself. My
learned friends have made an affidavit in reply; and in order to save
your Lordships hearing two speeches from me, it will be better for your
Lordships to hear what my learned friends have to say in opposition to
this application and then to hear me in reply.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My learned friend seems to assume that the trial
will be put off as a matter of course.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. He has stated the ground of his application,
namely, the absence of material and necessary witnesses, and he leaves
you to state his affidavit, and comment upon it as you please.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My learned friend has not quite correctly stated
his affidavit when he says his application is founded upon the absence
of material witnesses.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. The affidavit had better be read.

Mr. Justice _Cresswell_. Have you got a copy of it?

Mr. _Payne_. Yes, my Lord.

  [_A copy of the affidavit was handed to his Lordship._]

_The affidavit was then read by the Clerk of the Arraigns as follows_:--

In the Central Criminal Court.

  The Queen                                 }
  _v._                                      } ON INDICTMENT
  Pedro de Zulueta the younger, and others. } FOR FELONY.

  The same }
  _v._     } ON INDICTMENT FOR MISDEMEANOR.
  The same }

Pedro de Zulueta the younger, of No. 22, Moorgate Street, in the City of
London, merchant, and John Lawford, of Drapers Hall, in the said city,
gentleman, attorney to the said Pedro de Zulueta, severally make oath
and say,--And first, this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, for
himself saith, that the above mentioned indictments are preferred
against this deponent, and against one Thomas Jennings, mariner, and one
Thomas Bernardos, mariner, the first mentioned of such indictments being
for illegally and feloniously manning, navigating, equipping,
dispatching, using, and employing a certain ship or vessel called the
“Augusta,” in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a
certain Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign
of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend
and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,”
was and is declared unlawful; and the last mentioned of such indictments
for conspiring to do, &c. And this deponent saith, that he was taken
into custody on the 23rd day of August last in consequence of the said
indictments having been found against him. And this deponent saith, that
upon his being so taken into custody and brought to the Central Criminal
Court then sitting, the Recorder of London then presiding as judge of
the said Court, ordered that he this deponent should be admitted to bail
himself in 3,000_l._, with two sureties in the sum of 1,000_l._ each, to
take his trial upon the said indictments; and that he thereupon pleaded
“Not Guilty” to the said indictments, and entered into the said
recognizances. And this deponent further saith, that when he was so
taken into custody he was altogether ignorant that any proceedings
whatever had been or were about to be taken against him in reference to
the said ship, or to the offence charged by the said indictments (there
having been no previous examination or inquiry before any magistrate in
reference to the said charges), and that he was then, as he is now,
altogether ignorant of the evidence upon which such indictments were
found, excepting that this deponent has been informed that the charges
contained in these indictments arise out of transactions in respect of
which this deponent was examined in the year 1842 before a Committee of
the Honourable the House of Commons. And this deponent further saith,
that Joseph Toplis, who was the managing clerk of this deponent’s house
of business at Liverpool at the time of the transactions in question,
was and is a most material witness for this deponent, and most essential
to enable this deponent to prepare his defence to these indictments. And
this deponent saith, that at the time when these indictments were
preferred the said Joseph Toplis was at Gibraltar. And this deponent
saith, that on Saturday the 26th day of August last, being the third day
after the said indictments were preferred, and being the first possible
opportunity which this deponent had of communicating with the said
Joseph Toplis, this deponent’s house of business wrote and sent a letter
to him the said Joseph Toplis, requiring him to repair to England
immediately, as well for the purpose of giving his evidence on the trial
of these indictments as in order that the said Joseph Toplis might
enable this deponent to procure such other necessary evidence for the
defence of this deponent, as the knowledge of the said Joseph Toplis in
relation to the transaction out of which these indictments arise might
enable him to obtain. And this deponent, John Lawford, for himself
saith, that in consequence of the absence of the said Joseph Toplis, and
in consequence of this deponent’s belief that the said Joseph Toplis
could not arrive in time to enable this deponent to prepare for the
trial of these indictments, this deponent, under the advice of counsel,
wrote and sent a letter to Sir George Stephen, the attorney for the
prosecution, in the words and figures following:--

  THE QUEEN _v._ ZULUETA.

  Dear Sir,

  Drapers Hall, 11th September, 1843.

  You will probably not be surprised to hear that it will require
  considerable time to collect and prepare the materials for Mr.
  Zulueta’s defence, and you will therefore be pleased to consider this
  as a notice of our intention to apply to the Court for a postponement
  of the trial. We think it right thus early to inform you of our
  intention, that neither you nor your witnesses may be put to
  unnecessary expense or inconvenience, and we anticipate no objection
  on your part to a proceeding so manifestly reasonable.

  We are, dear Sir,

  Your very obedient servants,

  Sir George Stephen.

  (signed)

  _Ed. Jno. & H. S. Lawford_.

And this deponent saith, that in reply to such letter, this deponent
received a letter from the said Sir George Stephen, in the words and
figures following:--

  THE QUEEN, _v._ ZULUETA.

  Collins, 12th September, 1843.

  Prince’s Risborough.

  My dear Sirs,

  Personally I should have no objection to deferring the trial, and so
  far as your own convenience is involved in the delay, it would give me
  much pleasure to consult it. But this is a case in which I feel
  restrained from exercising the least discretion, and must therefore
  leave the matter to the decision of the Court. My briefs are
  delivered, and, with one exception, my witnesses are subpœnaed; but
  that exception is the most expensive, and therefore to save you that
  expense, I will not subpœna him until Monday, if you will write me
  word that you will consent to the trial being at all events deferred
  till Thursday. I put it thus, because I apprehend that the Court will
  only accede to your application on terms of your paying the costs of
  the day. Have the goodness to address your answer to me here.

  Yours very truly,

  Messrs. Lawford, Drapers Hall.

  _George Stephen_.

  And this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, further saith that
  the said Joseph Toplis, in consequence of the aforesaid requisition on
  the part of this deponent, came away from Gibraltar forthwith, and
  arrived in London on Sunday evening last, the 17th day of September
  instant. And this deponent further saith, that it will be absolutely
  necessary for the said Joseph Toplis to repair to Liverpool for the
  purpose of procuring the attendance of divers persons who are
  necessary witnesses on behalf of this deponent, who are not known to
  this deponent, and whose names this deponent had not the means of
  procuring until he had communicated with the said Joseph Toplis. And
  this deponent saith, that by reason of the shortness of the time since
  the arrival of the said Joseph Toplis, and the necessity of his
  repairing to Liverpool and elsewhere, to seek for and procure the
  necessary evidence in support of the defence of this deponent, it will
  be impossible for this deponent to be prepared with such evidence in
  time for the present session. And this deponent, John Lawford, for
  himself saith, that he has been retained as the attorney of the said
  defendant, and that he has diligently applied himself to the
  preparation of the defendant’s case, and that he is advised by
  counsel, and verily believes that it will be absolutely necessary for
  this deponent to procure the attendance of the witnesses above
  referred to, and of others who he is informed and believes are
  resident at Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow, and also of some of
  the crew of the said ship Augusta. And this deponent saith, that he
  has been informed and believes that the defendant, Thomas Jennings,
  has been already tried for this offence at Sierra Leone, and acquitted
  thereof. And this deponent saith, that he has reason to believe that
  it may be necessary to procure the attendance of witnesses from that
  settlement as well as from Spain, and other distant places. And this
  deponent saith, that by reason of the shortness of the time which has
  elapsed since the said indictments were preferred, and by reason of
  the entire ignorance of this deponent of the evidence against the
  defendant, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, it has been utterly
  impossible for this deponent to complete the preparations for the
  defence in time for the present sessions. And this deponent further
  saith, that from the time of the said bills being found to the present
  time this deponent hath been in constant communication with the said
  other deponent with a view to his defence, and that no time whatever
  has been lost in preparing for such defence; but this deponent saith,
  that by the reason of the circumstances hereinbefore stated this
  deponent hath been wholly unable to prepare the brief for the defence.

  (signed)      _Pedro de Zulueta._
                _John Lawford._

  Sworn in Court, 19th September, 1843.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Your Lordships will probably wish to hear the
affidavit in answer, before I make any observations upon that which has
just been read.

Mr. Justice _Cresswell_. Have you a copy of it?

Mr. _Payne_. Yes, my Lord.

  [_A copy of the affidavit was handed to his Lordship._]

_The affidavit was then read by the Clerk of the Arraigns as follows_:--

  In the Central Criminal Court.

  The Queen,                    }
  _v._                          } FOR FELONY.
  Pedro de Zulueta, and others. }

  The same, }
  _v._      } FOR MISDEMEANOR.
  The same. }

  Henry Worsley Hill, of Great Rider Street, in the parish of St. James,
  Esquire, a Commander in Her Majesty’s Navy, and Sir George Stephen, of
  King’s Arms Yard, in the city of London, the solicitor for the
  prosecution, severally make oath and say,--And first, the said Henry
  Worsley Hill for himself saith, that he is under orders to proceed to
  the Gold Coast on the western coast of Africa, to assume the
  government thereof with the least possible delay, and that
  arrangements are now in progress for this deponent to depart by the
  end of this present month. And this deponent also saith, that the
  public service will sustain considerable inconvenience by any delay on
  the part of this deponent in proceeding to Africa as aforesaid at the
  time now appointed, and that he this deponent has no expectation or
  hope of obtaining further leave of absence. And this deponent, Sir
  George Stephen, for himself saith, that the said Henry Worsley Hill is
  a most material witness on behalf of this prosecution, and that
  without his evidence this deponent cannot safely proceed to trial; and
  this deponent, Sir George Stephen, further saith, that he has perused
  a copy of the affidavit of Pedro de Zulueta the younger, and John
  Lawford, made in these matters, and that in consequence of the
  misdirection of the same, as this deponent believes, he, this
  deponent, did not receive a reply to his letter of the 12th of
  September, 1843, set out in the said affidavit, and therefore
  proceeded in his preparations for trial. And this deponent saith, that
  he is ready to proceed to trial at the present session of this Court.
  And this deponent further saith, that he has caused another witness in
  this matter to come over from Paris, where such witness is permanently
  domiciled, and that such last mentioned witness incurred much
  inconvenience and expense in so coming, and that as he habitually
  resides out of the jurisdiction this deponent has no means of
  compelling him to appear again, should the trial of these indictments
  be deferred. And this deponent saith, that the evidence of such
  last-mentioned witness is most material. And this deponent further
  saith, that he has subpœnaed three other witnesses to come to London
  from a great distance, one of whom is a sailor, and another of whom is
  an officer of rank in Her Majesty’s navy, and that the evidence of all
  the said last mentioned witnesses is most material, and that the said
  indictments cannot be safely tried in their absence, but that from the
  nautical profession of two of them, this deponent believes it to be
  very doubtful if he will again be able to compel their attendance. And
  this deponent further saith, that he has also subpœnaed another
  witness who habitually resides at Seville in Spain, and who is about
  to return to Seville, as this deponent is informed and believes as
  soon as the trial is over, and this deponent is informed and believes
  that the evidence of such last mentioned witness is material. And
  deponent saith, that he has no hope of again collecting together so
  many important witnesses whose professional avocations necessarily
  render their simultaneous presence in this country very uncertain. And
  this deponent further saith, that the said defendant, Pedro de Zulueta
  the younger, cannot have been taken by surprise by these indictments,
  because the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, volunteered, as this
  deponent is informed and believes, to be examined as a witness before
  the Select Committee on the West Coast of Africa, and was so examined
  on the 22nd and 23rd days of July, 1843, when the nature of the case
  upon which this prosecution is founded was stated to the Committee,
  and the said Pedro de Zulueta admitted that he had received copies of
  the evidence given by Captain Hill on the 29th of June, the 4th of
  July, and the 6th of July previously. And this deponent saith, that
  the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, did upon such examination admit
  that the house to which he belongs had been charged with criminality,
  and with having for a length of time been agents to slave dealers, and
  the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger avowed his reason for wishing to
  be examined before the Committee to be, that the statements contained
  in the said evidence were incorrect. And this deponent lastly saith,
  that in another part of such examination, the said Pedro de Zulueta
  the younger, in answer to the question, “Is there any other part of
  the evidence which has been given that you wish to observe upon?”
  after denying all knowledge of a person of the name of Kidd, adds,
  “With regard to my partners, I can say the same. I have been making
  inquiries about it; my father knew there was such a man, but I did not
  know even that, though I have managed all this business.”

  (signed)

  _H. W. Hill._

  _George Stephen._

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My learned friend, Mr. Clarkson, has called upon
me to make some observations upon this affidavit. I should not in
addressing your Lordships at all wish to object to the postponement of
this trial, if it could be considered even by the defendant or his
counsel more advantageous to him that it should be postponed, could I
consent to it without feeling that the trial could not fairly take place
at any other period. I cannot help thinking, while your Lordship is
looking at this affidavit, that it is one such as has been rarely
produced before a Court, in order to found an application for the
postponement of a trial. This indictment was preferred above a month
from this time; that is, four weeks from this time. It is true, as has
been stated, that no inquiry took place before a magistrate, but when
long before that period at which the inquiry could have been instituted,
if such had taken place, this matter had been inquired into before a
Committee of the House of Commons, when Mr. Zulueta appeared before that
Committee, and stated that he had had the management of all the
business, and appeared in order to explain the transaction--

Mr. _Clarkson_. No.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I will refer to the words of the affidavit.

Mr. _Clarkson_. I beg pardon.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. When it appears that that inquiry had taken place
before a Committee of the House of Commons, this proceeding cannot have
been instituted without ample notice of all that is to be now inquired
into, as far as any party, under the circumstances, charged with felony,
can be supposed to know the nature of the evidence to be brought against
him. And what is the foundation of this application? Not that some
material witness is absent--some material witness whom they have
subpœnaed, and whom they know to be material, and whose attendance they
cannot obtain; that is not the foundation of the application. The ground
of the application is, that a person of the name of Toplis, who was
managing clerk to Mr. Zulueta, was absent at Gibraltar, at the time the
indictment was found. It is not even that he has not arrived: he arrived
on Sunday and is now able to give any evidence that the defendant may
require. It is said, that he is able to make communications in respect
to the evidence of persons, whose names were not known to the defendant
till he arrived, and upon whose absence the application was founded, and
that it is now requisite to send for some witnesses from Liverpool, and
I hardly know where. The affidavit is very singularly sworn; and when my
learned friend says, “from Spain,” and so on, there is no such statement
to be found in it. That which is stated is, that it _may_ be necessary
to send for various witnesses, that it _may_ be necessary to procure
the attendance of witnesses from the settlement of Sierra Leone, as well
as from Spain. My learned friend, in citing it, said, that they were to
obtain witnesses “from Spain.” The affidavit is, that it _may_ be
necessary to have witnesses from Spain--that it _may_ be necessary to
have witnesses from Africa, so that there is no statement whatever that
there is any witness in Spain who would be wanted or can be expected, or
that there is any witness in Africa who will be wanted or who is
expected; there is no such statement at all. The statement is, “That it
will be absolutely necessary for the said Joseph Toplis to repair to
Liverpool for the purpose of procuring the attendance of divers persons,
who are necessary witnesses on behalf of this deponent, who are not
known to this deponent, and whose names this deponent had not the means
of procuring until he had communicated with the said Joseph Toplis.”
Certainly that is a statement of a very extraordinary kind: no doubt it
was put into the affidavit, believing it to be true, but the statement
made by Mr. Zulueta before the Committee of the House of Commons was,
that he had had the management of the whole of the business; and to
suppose that there is a witness in Spain, that there is a witness in
Gibraltar, Mr. Toplis, and that they can make no inquiry as to the names
of the individuals till he comes over, is the most extraordinary
statement ever laid before a Court. As far as this affidavit goes, it
does not appear that they have taken the slightest steps in order to
ascertain by any inquiry as to any witnesses or any transactions; but
Mr. Toplis is to go to Liverpool to hunt out for witnesses. Who they are
does not appear: not any persons who are certain to be witnesses, but
that he is to go to Liverpool to hunt out for witnesses who may be--

Mr. Justice _Cresswell_. And whose names the deponent could not procure
till Mr. Toplis came.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. “And whose names this deponent had not the means
of procuring until he had communicated with the said Joseph Toplis.” He
could hot tell certainly who Joseph Toplis would require till he had
communicated with him; but that he could not have ascertained whether
any witnesses were necessary for his defence would not appear
satisfactorily to your Lordships. It is a case that will require
examination by the Court, in order to do that which would be the object
of the Court, to have the case most fairly and properly inquired into.
Your Lordships see of necessity that the witnesses for the prosecution
are witnesses in a situation not easy to be obtained upon any future
occasion. There is one who is under orders to proceed abroad in order to
take the government of the Gold Coast: there are others who are officers
in the navy.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. What was the date of the inquiry before the House
of Commons?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. 1842, my Lord.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. Your affidavit states 1843.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. It is a mistake, my Lord. It should be 1842.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. Subsequently to that inquiry was any notice
given to the defendant that it would be made the subject of a
prosecution?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. No notice, my Lord, till the bill was found.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. What was the date of the transaction to which the
indictment refers?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. There was then an appeal pending before the Privy
Council.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. What was the date of the transaction to which the
indictment refers? I want the date of the occurrence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. 1840; the end of 1840 and the beginning of 1841.
The capture of the vessel, to which reference was made, was in February,
1841. She left England on the 9th of November, 1840. She was captured:
there was a proceeding in the court abroad; she was condemned, and there
was an appeal before the Privy Council.

Mr. Justice _Cresswell_. The ship sailed from Liverpool?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes, my Lord.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. With a cargo of some sort. One question will be,
whether it was a cargo adapted to the trade upon the African coast, or
for dealing in slaves.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. No doubt.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. Was Mr. Toplis the managing clerk at Liverpool?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes, my Lord. It is stated that he was the
managing clerk at Liverpool; but to suppose that the shipment of any
firm at Liverpool to say that they can obtain no evidence of that
shipment except by a managing clerk, is such a statement as can hardly
be credited of any merchant. That is the statement; but they do not
state any circumstances to explain it. That it is necessary to have his
managing clerk to state the names of the parties concerned in the
shipment, it is one of the most extraordinary statements ever made. Upon
this statement your Lordships will have to consider the foundation of
the application, and your Lordships will take into view all the
circumstances of it. This case is to be proved, as it must necessarily
be, by various officers in the navy besides Captain Hill, who is about
to go out as governor of the Gold Coast; by officers in the navy, and
sailors, and foreigners, now here ready to give their testimony.

Now, my Lord, there is one circumstance singularly deficient in this
case, and without which there has never been a case in which the trial
of any cause has been put off. The affidavit does not give the slightest
suggestion when they are likely to be ready to take their trial; so that
it is utterly impossible that the trial can be available, if they are to
come when the witnesses for the prosecution may be scattered over the
whole world: the prosecution may be gone through, but it would be a mere
formal statement. I am willing to give due weight to every argument on
behalf of a person charged with an offence, in order that the charge may
be fairly and properly tried in respect to him; but at the same time
there are duties on behalf of the prosecution. The crime cannot be
inquired into unless there are the means to procure the evidence. If
these witnesses are here, and this party has not taken the means which
he might have done to have the trial now take place, and if he does not
give us the slightest information when it is to be tried; if a person
charged with an offence is to choose the time for trying it, every trial
of this kind would be an utter abortion, because unless the witnesses
for the prosecution are here it is impossible there can be a fair trial.

Now there is not a statement, there is no pretence, why the witnesses
for the defendant could not have been here at the present time. To say
that there were no means of knowing the general nature of the charge,
and knowing the whole substance of the defence, and having the whole
matter fairly considered and put into form before the Court, is what you
cannot believe. Your Lordships cannot believe, that though Mr. Toplis
may have been an important witness, that the general subject of the
charge inquired into was not generally known, and that all the witnesses
for the defence, such witnesses as were thought necessary, must not have
been generally known to the defendant. There may have been a witness
whose name was known only to Mr. Toplis; there may have been one or
more, but it is impossible that the case might not have been got up with
the exception of Mr. Toplis’s evidence, and might have been ready for
trial on this day. But if they have utterly neglected to take any step
till last Sunday, the time as I understand it, they have no right to
come now and ask your Lordships to put off the trial. There is no
statement of any sort or kind of any individual witness necessary,
except those suggested to be at Liverpool. Mr. Toplis could not know the
witnesses abroad more than any other gentleman. Suppose there are
witnesses abroad--have there been any, the slightest step taken to bring
them here? What steps have been taken? He says there are witnesses from
Africa: when are they to be here? when will they come? when is the trial
to take place? There is not a single intimation of the time when they
will be ready to take their trial. It is to be put off till the
witnesses for the prosecution are scattered, and it is impossible to
have the trial. Undoubtedly it is difficult to have a number of
witnesses of this description ready before the Court, and to get their
testimony together. But what do they say? They say that it may be
necessary to get some of the sailors of the Augusta. Was Mr. Toplis
necessary for that? Why have they not taken any step to get the evidence
of those witnesses? They do not appear to have taken any one step to be
prepared for this trial, although then knowing that it was a matter of
difficulty to collect a number of witnesses like these. If it is to be
held that they can at their discretion from time to time put off the
case, it is a mere abortion to attempt to prosecute any person, however
guilty, in the situation of Mr. Zulueta. However important it is for the
defendant--and I would not wish to withhold that from the consideration
of your Lordships--it is equally important for the public good, and as
well worthy of your consideration. It would be with the utmost
difficulty, if there is any probability of doing it at all, that the
witnesses could be got together again. If they had taken every step, and
gone down to inquire at Liverpool, and proceeded as far as they could
and had the means in their power, and yet could not be ready, that would
be some ground for the application; but they do not appear to have taken
any step--they appear to have relied upon putting off the trial,
considering that that would be as good a protection as any witnesses
could possibly give them.

I certainly do feel that there is a ground of opposition to this
application which has never failed when there is no suggestion at all in
the affidavit of what time they expect to be ready for trial. I believe
there has never been a case in which a party has not given the Court
some reason to believe that, if the trial is put off, they will be ready
to try at a given time: on the contrary, here it is put as if it was
quite loose--there _may_ be some witnesses from Spain and Africa, though
they have had a month during which they might have made inquiries.

I have thought it right to submit these observations to your Lordships,
both for the sake of the prosecution and the defendant. If the
prosecution is well founded, it is of the utmost importance that it
should proceed; on the other hand, it is no doubt of importance that the
other side should have an opportunity of bringing the case before the
Court in all the views of which the case is capable: but the case is one
in which your Lordships must see the great inconvenience to the
prosecutors, and the difficulty of getting the witnesses together, and I
trust your Lordships will feel that it is one which ought not to be
adjourned; but if it be adjourned, it must be to some fixed time at
which it must be understood that the case will come on.

Mr. _Payne_. My Lords, I will add but two or three words to what Mr.
Serjeant Bompas has already addressed to your Lordships. I must say that
I never in the course of my experience met with a paragraph in an
affidavit to postpone a trial similar to the first paragraph in this
affidavit; it is merely this, “That it will be absolutely necessary for
Joseph Toplis to repair to Liverpool for the purpose of procuring the
attendance of divers persons who are necessary witnesses on behalf of
this deponent, who are not known to this deponent, and whose names this
deponent had not the means of procuring until he had communicated with
the said Joseph Toplis.” Now it is generally required, in affidavits of
this description, that if you do know the names of the witnesses, and
where they are to come from, that you should state them to the Court,
that the opposite side may be in possession _bonâ fide_ of the nature of
the defence. If Mr. Zulueta had sworn that he did not now know the names
of the witnesses, there would be some reason for not putting in the
names; but he does not say that--he says he did not know them till Mr.
Toplis came. Mr. Toplis came last Sunday night: he could furnish the
names; and if he had put the names of the witnesses and the places they
were to come from in the affidavit, instead of “divers witnesses,” it
might be in the usual form upon which the Court may sometimes postpone a
trial. I say that that expression is not sufficient. I say that the
Court are entitled to have information of the names of the persons
necessary as witnesses, in order to bring the case within the ordinary
rule.

Then, my Lords, the only other part of the affidavit which has not been
noticed by my learned friend, and which may be touched upon on the
opposite side, is the affidavit of the attorney that he has not been
able to prepare the briefs. Mr. Zulueta having stated that he was the
person who managed all this business, he must have possessed information
sufficient to enable the attorney in four weeks to prepare the briefs;
and if he has not furnished that information, it is owing to neglect on
the part of Mr. Zulueta. Their affidavit is loose and defective--ours is
precise. We say we do not think we can get Captain Hill again: he
states, that he is under orders to sail. Under these circumstances, we
must bow to what the Court think right to decide; but we consider that a
case has not been made out to justify the Court in granting this
application.

Mr. _Clarkson_. My Lords, in answer--

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. You cannot ask for any further postponement
beyond the next sessions.

Mr. _Clarkson_. I did not think that your Lordships would assume
jurisdiction to postpone it beyond that.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. We cannot listen to that part of the application
with respect to the witnesses from Spain or Sierra Leone; they are not
stated with sufficient accuracy.

Mr. _Clarkson_. I quite feel that, my Lord; I only wish to say this,
that if my learned friend comes here to ask for the costs of the day, or
for what my learned friend calls terms--

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. That is not necessary.

Mr. _Clarkson_. There is some mistake about it; such a thing was never
heard of here: but there is this observation to be made in answer to the
greater part of what my learned friends have said--for twelve months and
more have these parties who are prosecuting been taking steps, and yet
to this hour nobody knows who they are, no name has been furnished: for
twelve months have they been about that which they now call upon a
respectable merchant of London to meet in a month; and two or three
years have elapsed since the vessel was condemned.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. It is the duty of the Court to take care that the
ends of justice shall not be defeated by too easily yielding to
applications of this nature; but it is equally the duty of the Court to
take care that a man charged with a felony shall not be brought to his
trial until, he is able to present such an answer as the circumstances
of the case will admit of.

It appears that the offence with which the defendant is charged is
alleged to have been committed in 1840. The grounds for charging Mr.
Zulueta with participation in that offence may have originated in the
examinations before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1842. If it
did then originate, the parties who conduct this prosecution must have
known what the foundation of that accusation was, and if they intended
to charge Mr. Zulueta with that offence, and particularly if they meant
to support it upon the testimony of witnesses who might be absent at a
future time, they ought to have taken steps by which to have secured the
attendance of the defendant, and have taken him before a magistrate, and
examined the witnesses there. But it appears, though this examination
took place in 1842, no steps are taken in the prosecution till August
1843, and that is just upon the eve of the departure of one of the
witnesses, from which circumstance the Crown, it is said, cannot avail
itself of his presence, because he is going upon a public mission to
some other part of the world. This is a prosecution of a singular
character, and the Crown will take care that the ends of justice are not
defeated by their sending away an officer whose testimony is necessary
for the establishment of such a charge. I do not believe there is any
risk of the ends of justice being defeated by his absence.

Then is it fair to call upon the defendant now to present himself to the
Court? It appears that a person of the name of Toplis had the management
of this business at Liverpool, where the circumstances are said to have
originated which form the foundation of this charge; he is abroad, and
from the year 1842 no notice is given.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. The Privy Council did not decide.

Mr. Justice _Cresswell_. We have nothing to do with the Privy Council.

Mr. _Clarkson_. There is no decision by any body. It is no prosecution
by the Crown.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. I was not saying any thing imputing improper
motives to the prosecutors, but stating facts, that no notice had been
given to the defendant. If, in the year 1842, any notice had been given
to Mr. Zulueta that this prosecution was to be instituted, then if he
had sent Mr. Toplis abroad, he would have no right to avail himself of
that circumstance; but in the absence of any notice of that sort, he had
a right to assume that the evidence before the House of Commons was
satisfactory, and that there was no ground to institute a prosecution,
and he might then fairly send his clerk abroad. Then it appears, that,
having been sent abroad, immediately the prosecution was instituted a
letter was sent to him, in consequence of which he returned to this
country: he only arrived on Sunday last; and it is impossible, from the
state of the facts, that Mr. Zulueta could be in a state to prepare the
requisite instructions for counsel, and get those witnesses necessary to
enable him to proceed with his defence. We therefore think that this
trial should be postponed till the next sessions. We do not yield to the
necessity suggested of sending to Spain or Sierra Leone; there is no
sufficient ground for that laid in the affidavit.

Mr. _Clarkson_. The form will be, that your Lordships will be pleased to
respite the recognizances of Mr. Zulueta and his bail to the next
sessions.

Mr. Justice _Erskine_. Yes.

  (_The recognizances were enlarged, and the parties left the Court._)




  TRIAL
  OF
  PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN., ESQ.,
  AT THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY,
  ON FRIDAY, 27th OCTOBER, 1843,
  BEFORE
  The HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE MAULE,
  The HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE WIGHTMAN,
  AND
  Mr. COMMISSIONER BULLOCK.


  _Copy from Mr. Gurney’s Short-hand Notes of the Proceedings on the
  Trial of this Indictment._

  THE QUEEN,        }
  _v._              } INDICTMENT FOR FELONY.
  PEDRO DE ZULUETA. }

Mr. _Kelly_. My Lord, with respect to Mr. Zulueta, it is very important
that I should be able to communicate with him from time to time as the
trial proceeds. May I ask of your Lordship some indulgence to permit him
to sit near his counsel?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. What is the charge?

Mr. _Kelly_. The charge under prosecution is felony; the felony being,
the fitting out a ship with certain objects declared by statute to be
illegal, namely, those of slave trading.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I should wish that Mr. Zulueta, and every one else,
should have the liberty of sitting by his counsel, but that is
impossible. I understand an application was made in the case of a person
of the name of Trotter.

Mr. _Kelly_. It has been done; there are many precedents. I do not ask
it on the ground of any difference of rank or condition, but because the
justice of the case requires it, particularly as he is a foreigner, a
Spaniard, and many of the documents which will have to be referred to in
the course of the proceeding are in the Spanish language, that I should
be enabled to communicate with him. It is not at Mr. Zulueta’s own
instance I make the application, but for my own assistance in the
conduct of the defence.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. A similar application was made in the case of
Captain Douglas.

Mr. _Kelly_. That was not an application by counsel for the convenience
of counsel, in aid of the justice of the case, but on the ground of his
being an officer in the British army. That, if granted, might establish
a distinction which ought not to be established; but in the case of
Horne Tooke, where it became necessary for the merits of the case that
there should be a constant communication between the counsel and the
prisoner, it was permitted.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. What was the charge against him?

Mr. _Kelly_. High treason. A case, I may venture to say directly in
point, except that that was a weaker case than this, for this is a case
of a foreigner, a Spaniard; and, as I have observed, most of the
documents to which it will be necessary from time to time to refer, are
in the Spanish language, and it is impossible I can do justice to his
case if I cannot communicate with the prisoner so as to understand their
effect.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Have you the 9th vol. of Carrington & Payne? The
difficulty stated is, that though the prisoner cannot come to his
friend, his friend may go to him.

  [_The 9th vol. of Carrington & Payne’s Reports was handed to his
  Lordship._

  [_The Witnesses on both sides were directed to leave the Court._

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Have you got the case of the King _v._ Tooke?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, I have not the book here, my Lord; but I remember the
case.

  (_The Report was produced._)

Mr. Justice _Maule_. In the Report in the State Trials of the case of
Mr. Horne Tooke, to which you have referred, it appears that he claimed
as a matter of right, the being permitted to sit near his counsel. The
Lord Chief Justice says, “That is an indulgence which I have hardly ever
known given to any person in your situation.” The Lord Chief Justice at
that time was Lord Chief Justice Eyre. Mr. Horne Tooke says, “I am
perfectly aware that it is unusual, but I beg your Lordship to observe
that every thing in the course of these proceedings is likewise unusual.
I beg your Lordship to consider that the proceedings upon the last trial
will fill, as I am well informed by the short-hand writer, 1,600 close
printed octavo pages. That trial lasted nine days; eight days trial, and
one day between. The nature of the indictment is such, that it has been
impossible for me to guess what would come before your Lordship: it has
been equally impossible for me to instruct my counsel; they cannot know
the passages of my life, and from what I have seen on the last trial the
whole passages of my life, and those which are not passages of my life,
but are only imputed to me, will be brought before you: how is it
possible for my counsel to know those particular facts which are only
known to myself? If ever there was a case where indulgence was fit to be
granted, it is this; yet your Lordship will forgive me for saying that I
claim it as my right by law, and do not ask it as an indulgence.” After
more argument to that effect, the Chief Justice says, “Mr. Tooke, you
have been furnished with that which the law considers as the necessary
means to enable you to make your defence; you have had counsel assigned
to you; they have had, or might have had, access to you at all
seasonable hours; that is what the law allows you. You have taught the
Court not to use the word indulgence, and you have pointed out to them
their duty, that they are to give no indulgence. I am apprehensive that
it would be considered as an extraordinary indulgence if the Court were
now to do that which you ask, because that is not done to other
prisoners; it was not done to another prisoner who went immediately
before you, who had the same stake that you have, nor is it done to all
other prisoners who do come to this bar, and therefore the Court are not
permitted without doing injustice to others to grant that which you ask
upon the ground upon which you ask it.” Then he goes on--“But you have
mentioned another circumstance extremely material, and which will, in my
mind, warrant the Court to do that which you think they ought not to do,
to indulge the prisoner. You have stated the condition of your health,
and that in the place in which you stand your health will suffer: the
Court has no desire to put you under any difficulties; they wish that
you should be enabled to make your defence in the best way imaginable;
and if the situation in which you stand is really likely to be
prejudicial to your health, and therefore likely to disable you from
making your defence in the manner you might otherwise make it, I shall
put it to my Lords to consider, whether you may not be indulged with
that which you have now asked.

“Mr. Tooke--The Court will forgive me only for saying, that if, on the
footing of indulgence, the Court shall not think fit to grant what I
ask, I hope I shall not, after that decision, be barred from my argument
upon it as a point of law.” Then the Chief Justice says--“You must state
your whole case upon any matter that arises at once: the proposing it
first in one shape, and then going on to state it in another, is
carrying us on without end; if you mean to argue this as a point of law
to be sure we are ready to hear you.” Mr. Tooke: “I beg your Lordship
not to misunderstand me; I did so mention it at first, and did ask it
not as an indulgence, if your Lordship will be pleased to recollect: I
did mention, that if there were objections I should then argue it in
point of law, thinking that I am well entitled to it by the principles,
by the letter, and by the practice of the law: I did not mean to change
my ground; I beg your Lordship will be pleased to recollect I excluded
the idea of indulgence: I did not mean to take first one ground and then
another, but I thought it possible I might save the time of the Court,
therefore I left it to your Lordship to collect the sense of the Court
even upon the score of health, which your Lordship mentions, to save
time, and not to waste the time. I understood very well that after a
decision I should not be permitted to argue it, and therefore I
mentioned that, but not to change my ground; and therefore if your
Lordship should find upon the score of what you call indulgence, I
suppose in a different view of the word that I am accustomed to take, I
rather understand that your Lordship means you are willing to grant it
me upon the score of my health, in that case I do not desire to waste
the time of the Court; provided it is granted to me, I am very happy
and shall be glad to avoid the argument, if your Lordship will be only
pleased to give me some intimation of your opinion.” The Chief Justice,
after consulting with the other judges, says:--“Mr. Horne Tooke, I have
consulted my Lords the Judges who are present, they feel themselves
extremely disposed to indulge you on the score of your health; they
think that it is a distinction which may authorise them to do that in
your case which is not done in other cases in common; they cannot lay
down a rule for you which they would not lay down for any other man
living, but if your case is distinguishable from the case of others that
does permit them to give you that indulgence which you now ask”--Then
Mr. Tooke says:--“I am very much obliged to your Lordships, and am very
well content to accept it as indulgence or any other thing. Undoubtedly
it is very acceptable to me, and very necessary for my health; I am glad
to save the time of the Court.” On that ground, after having attempted
it on the ground I have stated, he was removed to the inner bar.

Now that case seems, I think, to establish that it is, in the judgment
of the several judges who were here upon that occasion, a thing which
ought not to be done unless under very special circumstances, and we
ought to be on our guard against doing that which might have the
appearance of treating one kind of felony, and one rank or class of
persons, in a different way from another; or of intimating that, because
a person is somewhat of a superior rank, he is to be treated in a
different manner; and we are anxious not to do it in the way of favour
or on any such ground as that, and we feel that we cannot grant this on
the ground on which you put it. This seems to my learned brother and
myself to be the same in fact as Mr. Tooke’s, though not quite so
strong--a desire in the party to communicate with his counsel, which
will exist in every case. It was not thought sufficient in that case: he
was indulged only on the ground that his health was such that it would
suffer from his remaining in the ordinary place: and here no such cause
is alleged.

Mr. _Kelly_. It is my duty to acquiesce in the decision of your
Lordships. I beg to say I did not put this on any distinction of rank.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. No; that we understand perfectly, and the Court is
disposed not so to put it. I said, that lest there should be a feeling,
though it was not put so, that there might be a distinction drawn
between this and any other case on that ground. What other difference is
there between Mr. Zulueta, charged with felony in slave trading, and any
other person coming to that dock, charged with any felony of any other
character, requiring wealth and capital to carry it on?

Mr. _Kelly_. I did not desire, in the least, to press it on that ground;
on the contrary, I disclaimed it: I mentioned that which was the
principal ground--that the documents are all in a foreign language; and
that which I submitted to your Lordship was entirely my own suggestion,
and not Mr. Zulueta’s: I acquiesced at once, as I ought, in your
Lordship’s decision.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The Court is so constructed that you can approach
Mr. Zulueta, though he cannot approach you.

  (_The Defendant took his place within the Bar, and was arraigned on
  the Indictment for Felony._)

_Clerk of Arraigns._ How say you, are you Guilty, or Not Guilty?

_Defendant._ I am Not Guilty.

_Clerk of Arraigns._ If you object to any of the gentlemen who are
called, you may make the objection before they are sworn; and it is my
duty to inform you that you have a right to be tried, being a foreigner,
either by a jury of half foreigners and half English, or by a jury
entirely English.

_Defendant._ I have no wish; I am as safe in the hands of Englishmen as
of any body.

  _The following Jurymen were called and sworn:--_

   1. John Foote.
   2. William Jackson.
   3. Robert Nagle.
   4. Charles William Knight.
   5. Michael Jones.
   6. Richard Jessop.
   7. William Hawksworth.
   8. James Gillard.
   9. Edward Findlay.
  10. James Parker.
  11. John Godfrey.
  12. James Gordon.

  (_The Jury were charged with the Prisoner in the usual form._)

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Before I make the address which it will be
necessary to make to the jury, will your Lordship allow me to apply on
behalf of a witness, a gentleman who took the notes in short-hand of
what took place before the Committee of the House of Commons? I, of
course, do it with the consent of the counsel on the other side; it is,
that he may be now examined, which will remove all question as to the
propriety of the proceeding; that he may be now sworn and state that
this blue book contains a correct account of what took place: that will,
of course, be subject to such objections as may be made by my learned
friend.

Mr. _Kelly_. My Lord, I understand that Mr. Gurney’s presence is
required, for the purpose of justice in Wales, under an order from the
Home Office. I perfectly agree, that it shall be taken upon his evidence
that this blue book contains a true account of what took place before
the Committee, subject to any objections as to the admissibility of the
evidence, the matter standing as if Mr. Gurney had given his evidence in
its proper order.

Mr. Joseph _Gurney_, sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

_Q._ Did you attend as short-hand writer before the Committee of the
House of Commons, at which these proceedings were taken in
short-hand?--_A._ I did.

_Q._ Is this book printed from your short-hand notes?--_A._ Mr.
Zulueta’s evidence. I took the evidence of Mr. Zulueta; not the whole.

_Q._ Did you take the evidence of others?--_A._ Yes; of some others.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. On behalf of the prosecution we admit that the
other parts are taken from the short-hand notes: we shall want the
evidence of Mr. Zulueta.

May it please your Lordship,

Gentlemen of the Jury,--It is my duty to call your attention to a case
of very considerable moment. I am quite sure you will feel that all
cases, in which the liberty and welfare of any person standing as a
prisoner at the bar before you are concerned, are matters of
considerable importance; but I cannot but think that this is one which
will deserve your very particular attention. The case is, to you and to
most persons, one of a novel description as a matter of trial. It is
very rarely indeed, that offences under the Act to which your attention
will be directed can be brought before a jury as the subject of their
investigation. It necessarily will include a variety of facts, some of
them being in some degree complicated; and it requires, therefore, that
careful discrimination which I am quite sure you will be quite ready to
give. To the prisoner, of course, it is of paramount importance,
standing here before you upon his trial on such a charge as that which
has been presented against Mr. Zulueta, and calls for the utmost
possible attention. I do not consider that I should keep from you one
thing which has been mentioned already in your hearing, that the
prisoner at the bar is a person of wealth, and rank, and station. He is
a merchant of the city of London. I am quite sure that that cannot make
any difference in your consideration of the case, unless by increasing
that interest which necessarily is excited by the respectability in life
of the person who is standing before you on his trial, exciting you to
greater vigilance to see that perfect justice is done as between him and
the law. I am quite sure that you will see, that if he be innocent, you
will, as you would in respect of every individual who stands before you
upon his trial, take care that he shall not be convicted; but if, on the
other hand, the evidence, when it is laid before you, shall satisfy your
minds that he is guilty, it can in no manner or degree lessen the guilt
of a person against whom such facts shall be produced, that he is in a
station which should teach him better to obey the law of his country. So
far as any such topic can be urged, on the one side or the other, to
excite your utmost anxiety and most careful vigilance to ascertain the
truth, I, on behalf of the prosecution, should feel that it is of great
importance it should be exercised, because the truth, and that alone,
ought to be, and I trust in all cases is, the object desired by the
public prosecutor.

Gentlemen, the kind of charge is one that will require your very
particular attention. The prisoner stands charged, “that he did
illegally and feloniously man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, and
employ,” that is, that he did employ--that is the particular term to
which I would direct your attention--“which in and by a certain Act of
Parliament made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late
Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled ‘An Act to amend and
consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,’ was
and is declared unlawful, that is, to deal and trade in slaves.” The
other counts vary the charge in some degree, but in nothing that I
believe will be material for your consideration, except that in the four
latter counts he is charged with shipping goods on board the same vessel
for the purpose of accomplishing the same object.

Gentlemen, it is now happily a matter of history of some considerable
period back, that there was a contest in this kingdom by those who were
anxious to put an end to what they rightly considered one of the
greatest crimes staining human nature. On the 25th of March, in the year
1807, was accomplished that victory, I may say for humanity, by which,
as far as the laws of this country could accomplish it, this kingdom was
separated from that course of crime, which probably is almost the
greatest blot that rests upon human nature; I mean, that that Act was
passed which is called “the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade.”

Gentlemen, you are aware that before that time persons of wealth--for
persons of wealth alone could engage in such an occupation, and
unfortunately that which was called the slave trade was a source of
great wealth--before that time no doubt persons of wealth engaged in
that trade. That Act, as far as regarded any public Act, of course
extinguished them; but from time to time, from that time to this present
moment, though not of course engaged in public or in the immediate
visible commerce which was the subject of condemnation by that Act, it
has been more or less continued, and the course of the law has been from
time to time by more and more stringent penalties as far as possible to
put an end to it as respects this country; and it is impossible that you
should not be aware that one great object of this kingdom in all its
negotiations with all foreign countries is, as far as possible, to
create one great combination among all the civilized part of mankind,
uniting in extinguishing that which is a crime on the part of all
engaged in it; and therefore it has become above all other things the
duty of this Government, as far as relates to any individuals living
within this kingdom, to the utmost possible degree to put an end to any
connection with it of any sort or kind, and to prevent any persons who
continue in this kingdom, and are subject to its law, from being in any
way whatever connected with that which is considered a crime of the
greatest magnitude; and it is with that view that the Act of Parliament
which you have heard mentioned in the indictment, the Act of the 5th of
George the Fourth, chap. 113, was passed, in order as far as possible to
extinguish all connection of any individuals in this kingdom with the
slave trade, and by a severe penalty to put an end to any such
transactions. Indeed, when we consider the penalty, it is such as shows
that the Legislature intended to render the punishment most severe: it
is a penalty which subjects every person connected with that trade to
transportation for fourteen years. But every single individual who,
through any connection with that trade, is torn from his friends in
Africa, and sent in the miserable way in which they must necessarily, if
they survive the horrors of the voyage, be removed from that country to
an interminable life of slavery--every individual suffers double and
treble the penalty which is inflicted upon the criminal engaged in the
trade; and therefore I feel satisfied that we shall not consider that
penalty too severe, provided only the offence is fully proved: and the
severity of the punishment ought to excite, I admit, to the utmost
degree, your watchfulness to see that it is fairly and satisfactorily
brought home to any man, because I take it any person on behalf of the
prosecution who calls the attention of a jury to the enormity of any
crime, does it under the most anxious caution that, in proportion as the
crime is great, so the jury ought to extend their utmost care and
attention to see that it is fairly and satisfactorily made out.

Gentlemen, you are aware that in cases of this kind the transactions
must necessarily extend over some considerable time. The distance of the
place to which the transactions ultimately relate, the difficulty of
obtaining from Africa the various documents necessary to be produced to
ascertain the guilt or innocence of the party, necessarily occasions the
lapse of some considerable time; and in the present case it will be
necessary for me to refer to transactions that extend over several
years. In this particular case a trial took place in respect of the
vessel in Africa, and afterwards in England, which necessarily occupied
some considerable time; and no doubt the necessity of obtaining the
requisite documents occasioned the delay for a still further lengthened
period.

Gentlemen, the charge made against the prisoner is, that he employed a
vessel in order to accomplish, that is for the purpose of accomplishing,
the dealing in slaves, and that he sent goods for the purpose of
accomplishing that object, namely, the trading in slaves; and the nature
of the charge, which I will mention generally before I enter into the
particulars of the evidence, is this, that the prisoner at the bar
employed a vessel--and you will of course hear the manner and mode in
which that was done, and observations will occur to you on the detail of
the facts--that he sent goods in that vessel to supply persons who are
merchants in slaves, individuals holding slaves in Africa, to enable
them to keep the slaves while they were there, and to provide the means
for bartering those slaves, so as to enable them to transmit them to
Cuba, or the Havannah, as the case may be. Of course it need not be said
for one moment that openly and publicly in this kingdom no man could do
that, which to the eyes of all would appear to be dealing in slaves; it
would be the object of attention of every man: and it is necessary I
should detail the evidence I have, in order to show first, that this
vessel named the Augusta, and the goods which were shipped on board that
vessel were in fact for the purpose of supplying a factory situated at
the Gallinas, a port on the Coast of Africa, and that the prisoner at
the bar knowingly and willingly was the person who had employed the
vessel, knowing that it was employed for that purpose. Of course the
persons who were employed, the persons more deeply interested, were
persons residing abroad; but we charge (and before you convict the
prisoner you must be satisfied of that fact) that he knew the object,
and lent himself to that object, and shipped the goods with that view.

Gentlemen, to give you an account of the progress of this vessel, I must
direct your attention so far back as the year 1839. In the year 1839 a
vessel, the Augusta as she has been since called, was then trading under
the name of the Gollupchick, under Russian colours, fully equipped for
slave trading. At that time she was captured by a gentleman, who will be
called as a witness before you, Captain Hill, and taken into Sierra
Leone as a vessel trading in slaves, of which there was no doubt. I have
stated to you that she was sailing under Russian colours. At that time
the captain on board was named Bernardos, one of the three persons named
in this indictment, though not present. He was the captain, and the crew
were entirely Spaniards. The Russians, you probably know, have not
settlements requiring the dealing in slaves. She was taken to Sierra
Leone to be condemned, it being believed that the Russian colours were
employed merely as a pretence. The court before which she was to be
tried was a mixed commission of Spanish and British. That court
considering that they had no right to try the case of a vessel trading
under Russian colours, she was not then condemned; the case was not
there inquired into. It is sufficient to say that she was brought over
from Sierra Leone to England with her crew, and with a number of the
British crew who had taken her in there. Bernardos being the captain of
her, he and his own Spanish crew came to England in that vessel. She was
then perfectly equipped as a slave trader. Upon her coming to England
the Russian consul claimed her as a Russian vessel. She was then sold at
Portsmouth. She was sold to a person of the name of Emanuel, who
purchased her for 600_l._, paying 30_l._ as the auction duty; the
expense therefore would be 630_l._ Upon her being sold, part of the
balance of the purchase-money was paid to Bernardos, which had been
expended on account of the vessel.

When this vessel was brought to this port, a letter was written by Mr.
Zulueta: the contents of that letter I have no means of knowing; we can
do no more than give evidence of the writing of that letter. I shall
show a letter was written; it will be for the prisoner at the bar or not
to produce that letter. She was sold, as I have mentioned, to Mr.
Emanuel; and upon that we have a letter written by the prisoner at the
bar, Mr. Zulueta, to Thomas Jennings, in respect of the purchase of that
vessel, and I will call your attention to that letter. The letter is
dated London, the 20th of August, 1840. It is a letter that was found in
the vessel when she was subsequently captured by Captain Hill. The
letter is in these terms, dated “London, 20th August, 1840,” directed to
“Thomas Jennings”--Thomas Jennings is one of the three persons indicted:
he was the person who was captain of the vessel, and was captured in the
vessel subsequently--“Sir, in reply to your letter of yesterday, we have
to say that we cannot exceed 500_l._ for the vessel in question, such
as described in your letter, namely, that excepting the sails the other
differences are trifling from the inventory. If you cannot therefore
succeed at those limits, we must give up the purchase, and you will
please act accordingly. Zulueta and Company.--Captain Jennings,
Portsmouth.” The purport of this letter is, that Zulueta and Company
would purchase the vessel if they could get her for 500_l._, but that
they would give no more than 500_l._ for the vessel. Gentlemen, in fact
I shall be able to prove to you that this being dated the 20th of
August, 1840, very shortly after that, I believe on the 29th of August,
Messrs. Zulueta paid for that vessel 650_l._; and the way in which they
paid that for it was this--they gave a check to Bernardos, the captain
of her when she was captured under the name of the Golupchick, whom I
shall prove to have received the money at the bank in London, and to
have gone down to Portsmouth, and together with Jennings to have gone to
Emanuel, and paid this money to Emanuel for the purchase of the vessel.
There will, I believe, be no doubt whatever that that money came from
the prisoner at the bar, Mr. Zulueta; for I shall be able to show that
that very same money received by Bernardos, the very same notes
amounting to 650_l._ were paid to Emanuel at Portsmouth. There will be
therefore no doubt that the money was paid by the prisoner at the bar.

Gentlemen, the vessel remained for some time at Portsmouth; she remained
there, I believe, till the beginning of October. There will be no doubt
what was her object. Immediately after her purchase--almost immediately
after--I shall be able to show you, by its having been found in the
vessel, that there was a letter written by Bernardos--

Mr. _Kelly_. Surely you are not going to read letters found in the
vessel, without connecting the defendant with the vessel or with the
letters.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. If you object to the letter, I will state the
ground on which I conceive it is evidence.

Mr. _Kelly_. I object to no letter written by Mr. Zulueta or any of his
clerks; but letters found months after, when all his connection with the
vessel had ceased, surely you cannot read.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I shall show that this letter was on board the
vessel at Portsmouth on the 25th of September, 1840--a letter written by
the man who received the money for the purchase of her to the captain,
who was to conduct her to Africa: of course there are two facts here
which it will be necessary I should prove; first, that her destination
was the Gallinas; and secondly, that her object was to assist in the
dealing in slaves: and it shall be my object to show, or I shall fail
and you will give your verdict for the prisoner, that this was with the
knowledge of Mr. Zulueta.

Mr. _Kelly_. Show that by proper evidence, but do not read letters which
are not evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I have a right to read this letter; you may
object, if you please.

Mr. _Kelly_. I do object, because it is impossible with effect to object
to it hereafter. Here is a gentleman on his trial for felony: I do not
object to the reading of any letters from his house of business, though
they may not have been written by himself; I do not object to any letter
being read which was written by Mr. Zulueta himself, or any letter which
my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Bompas, can undertake to say Mr. Zulueta
had seen or known; but letters written by third persons, over whom he
had no manner of control--letters written by a person included in this
indictment, but not on his trial, and which I have no means of
explaining--cannot be evidence. Mr. Zulueta has no means of explaining
this letter, the writer of which was unknown to him: and I submit that
it would be more fair, and more according to the ordinary course of
business in this country, if my learned friend were to arrive at the
facts, which he says he can prove, by that which is properly evidence,
and to leave the reading this letter to a separate discussion on any
argument which may then be raised as to its reception in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I do not object to my learned friend interposing
in objection to the reference to this letter, because I am willing to
admit that it is desirable to exclude every effect which might be
produced by the reading of a document which may be objectionable; and
while it is my duty to open that which I feel to be evidence against the
prisoner, I will not open any thing as to which I feel a substantial
doubt. The letter I am now proposing to put in is a letter written by
Mr. Bernardos, the man who received the money after that first letter I
have mentioned, and after all which occurred with respect to the
purchase, and it has reference to certain objects in respect of his
destination, and giving him--not instructions in the sense of ordering
him--but directions and instructions as to the course of that voyage. My
object is to show, that at the time the vessel was at Portsmouth, the
destination was fixed, and he received direction in that respect from a
person whom I have so connected with Mr. Zulueta as to show that that
man Jennings was the purchaser with the money of Zulueta of this very
vessel, Jennings being the captain, and ultimately one of the owners;
and I shall show directions from Mr. Zulueta. I cannot conceive how that
can be objected to.

Mr. _Kelly_. I undertake to say not a shadow of doubt shall remain on
your Lordships’ minds that this is not evidence when the facts are
before the Court. To be opening the contents of the letter, under such
circumstances, I submit is not justified.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Brother Bompas, I do not think this is so clearly
evidence that it should be opened to the Court. It is very difficult to
decide whether a document is evidence or not till the facts are brought
before us.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Gentlemen, I am quite willing to be wholly under
the control of the learned judges in the conduct of this case. I would
not myself, as I think I ought not, to open that which is really
substantially doubtful, and if I had felt this so, I would not have
mentioned it at all.

Mr. _Kelly_. I am quite sure that my learned friend would not have done
so if he had felt that it was open to objection. I am quite sure that my
learned friend from the first desired that nothing should be stated,
which in his opinion could not be brought home to the defendant himself.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. After the observation of Mr. Kelly, I will say no
more with respect to this. I have to prove two things; first, what was
the object of this vessel. I have to prove what it was intended to do.
It may or may not in many instances be shown that there was the hand of
Mr. Zulueta in what was done; but if I show to your satisfaction that he
was aware of the circumstances, and was one of the parties, it is not
necessary that I should show that his was the hand by which every
individual act was done: therefore, I beg to keep these two things quite
distinct. I shall show what was the object and destination of the
vessel; and undoubtedly I shall show you, or I fail in this case, that
he was conscious of the object and intention of the employment of the
vessel.

Gentlemen, upon the vessel, at the time she was at Portsmouth and when
she was sold, there were on board her part of the equipments which had
previously existed of the Gollupchick. In order in one way to equip a
vessel directly for slave trading--to put her in a situation in which
she could take slaves in--it is necessary that there should be the means
of very considerable supplies of water. There are commonly leagers. It
is not necessary there should be leagers, unless when the occasion
requires the carrying an extraordinary supply of water; where that is
required, it is necessary there should be the means of carrying such a
quantity of water in the vessel; and there were on board this vessel
leagers--that is, large vessels containing many hundred gallons of
water, ten or twelve or fourteen feet in diameter. At Portsmouth several
of the leagers then on board were taken to pieces, and the staves and
heads left on board the vessel. You are aware that it would be quite
impossible for such a vessel, with leagers, or any fittings up of that
kind, to leave this kingdom in order to go to a place on the coast of
Africa, where it is known the slave trade is carried on; it would be
quite obvious what their object was; and these vessels were accordingly
taken to pieces, and the materials left in the vessel.

It was observed, also, that the vessel afforded the means of having
slave decks placed. Where a vessel leaves a place, such as Spain, or
some place where she may leave with impunity with all her equipments
complete, they have slave decks in the vessel--that is, decks with about
two-and-thirty inches from one deck to another, in which the slaves lie.
These they were not able to set up under these circumstances; but there
are decks placed that as many as possible may be carried. These decks
could not be existing in this country: they could not be allowed to go
from this country. There are, however, places, and some screw-bolts
where they can be placed, and by which they could be fastened: they
might be speedily put in on the coast of Africa, so as to fit the vessel
for carrying slaves there: of course it could not be done here, but the
screw-bolts might be put in, and the slave decks fixed in an incredibly
short space of time; and thus she might be immediately prepared for
receiving the slaves when she was in Africa.

I shall also, I believe, show that a person was applied to at Portsmouth
to enter to go to the coast of Africa. When she was there, letters were
received by Jennings; and I shall prove certain circumstances by a
witness, who I shall call before you, who was present when the vessel
was taken, a letter found on board her, which was written from London:
and I may state that at once, as my learned friend has admitted that
whatever was written by the house would be evidence against the prisoner
at the bar; and I should state that he himself said before the Committee
of the House of Commons on his examination, that he himself had the
management of the whole of this business. I will read the exact
words--“I have managed all this business;” therefore there can be no
doubt that what came from the house he is responsible for. The letter to
which I will call your attention was received on the 26th of September,
1840.

Mr. _Kelly_. My learned friend will pardon me for a moment. I have said
I shall not think it right, in a case of this sort, to interrupt my
learned friend in any attempt he may make to read documents which
proceeded from the house, but I must not therefore be taken to agree to
their admissibility.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You will not consider the admissibility of the
evidence as established until it is offered in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Of course every thing I read, you will consider
subject to proof. If I have been misled in any fact, you will remove it
from your minds. Not that I would state any fact, if I did not believe
it to be founded in truth. This is dated--“London, 26th September, 1840.
Captain Thomas Jennings, Portsmouth. Dear Sir,--We have received your
letter of yesterday, whereby we observe that the sum we have remitted
you will not be sufficient to cover all the expenses to clear the ship.
We much regret you have omitted mentioning the sum you require, which
prevents our remitting you the same by this very post, thus causing a
new delay in leaving that port, so contrary to our wishes. You will
therefore write to us to-morrow, that we may receive your reply on
Monday morning, informing us of the amount necessary to finish paying
all your accounts and expenses, to remit you the same by Monday’s night
post, in order that you may be able to sail for Liverpool on Tuesday or
Wednesday at the furthest. You must not omit stating the amount
required; and waiting your reply, we remain, very truly, dear sir, your
obedient servants.” Then the signature which was to that letter is cut
out. Then it says, “According to our Liverpool house notice”--the
prisoner, Mr. Zulueta, is connected with a house at Cadiz, as well as a
house in London--“According to our Liverpool house notice you will go
there to the Salthouse Dock,” superscribed “Captain Thomas Jennings,
Broad Street, Portsmouth.” That letter was regularly received in the
course of business, as to which business Mr. Zulueta says, “I managed
it.” I believe I shall show you the handwriting of a part of it; but the
signature was cut out. I believe I shall show it was cut out previous to
its being found.

This being the letter, Mr. Zulueta having furnished the money for the
purpose for which it was demanded, and having desired that Captain
Jennings will send up an account of all the money expended, and that he
should go to the Salthouse Dock at Liverpool; accordingly he went to the
Salthouse Dock at Liverpool. It is impossible Mr. Zulueta’s name should
be mentioned as the owner of a vessel used for such a purpose. It is
quite clear, that if he knew it, his name would not be used as the owner
of the vessel, and therefore this vessel was purchased in the name of
Thomas Jennings. How far he was really the owner you will be able
probably to form an opinion from the remainder of the evidence with
which I shall furnish you. When it was purchased, no papers of any kind
were handed over. She was a condemned vessel. She was bought without any
register, and taken as a Russian vessel, and there being no evidence of
ownership, she was purchased as such.

Gentlemen, she went to Liverpool; and when she went to Liverpool, I
shall have to call your attention particularly to what took place at
Liverpool. At Liverpool a charter-party was entered into, to which I
will call your attention:--“Memorandum of the charter-party. London,
19th October, 1840. It is this day mutually agreed between Mr. Thomas
Jennings, master and owner of the good ship or vessel called the
Augusta, of the burthen of        tons, or thereabouts, now lying at the
port of Liverpool, and Messrs. Pedro Martinez and Co., of Havannah,
merchants.” Pedro Martinez and Co. were merchants, having a house at
Cadiz. It will appear from Mr. Zulueta’s own statement that they had a
house also at the Havannah, that they were known slave dealers.
According to Mr. Zulueta’s own evidence, he believed at the time they
were slave dealers.

Mr. _Kelly_. If you say that, I beg you to read the evidence. He never
did say that.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. “Do you know the nature of the trade of Pedro
Martinez at the Gallinas?--I know from general report that Don Pedro
Martinez himself is supposed to deal in slaves, and I believe it is so.”
That is at page 682, question 10398.

Mr. _Clarkson_. That is an examination in 1842.

Mr. _Kelly_. These are statements made in 1842. Have the kindness to
read the answer to 10413, in the next page.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Every word he said in evidence will be read; but
an interference in that form and that manner is not proper, and I shall
not submit to it.

Mr. _Kelly_. I merely meant to correct what I supposed to be an
inadvertent mistake.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My learned friend is quite right to interfere, if
he thinks I am under a mistake. My object is to call your attention to
what he said at the time; every word will be read to you, and you will
form your own opinion upon it. “Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer
in slaves?--I do not know, but I believe so; I do not know why it should
not be known at the Havannah, if it is known in other parts.” My learned
friend will make his own observation upon that, I shall read that as
evidence before you; you will consider whether it is sufficient proof
that he knew that Martinez & Co. dealt in slaves.

Gentlemen, I was reading to you the charter-party of the ship: it
proceeds in these words--“That the said ship being tight, staunch, and
strong, and every way fitted for the voyage, shall, with all convenient
speed, load from the factors of Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co., a cargo of
legal goods, which the said merchants bind themselves to ship, not
exceeding what she can reasonably stow and carry over and above her
tackle, apparel, provisions, and furniture; and being so loaded, shall
therewith proceed to Gallinas, on the coast of Africa, or so near
thereunto as she may safely get, and deliver the same; after which she
may be sent on any legal voyages between the West Indies, England,
Africa, or the United States, according to the directions of the
charterers’ agents (restraint of princes and rulers, the act of God, the
Queen’s enemies, fire, and all and every other dangers and accidents of
the seas, rivers, and navigation of whatever nature and kind soever,
during the said voyage, always excepted). The freight to be paid on
unloading and right delivery of the cargo, at the rate of 100_l._
sterling per calendar month that the ship may be so employed, commencing
with this present month, all port charges and pilotages being paid by
the charterers, and            days on demurrage over and above the said
laying days at              pounds per day. Penalty for non-performance
of this agreement 500_l._ The necessary cash for ship’s disbursements to
be furnished to the captain free of commission. The charterers to be at
liberty of closing this engagement at the end of any voyage performed
under it on settling the freight due to the vessel. The captain being
indebted to the charterers in certain sums as per acknowledgment
elsewhere, the freights earned by the vessel to be held as general lien
for such sum, and in any settlement for such freight, the said advances
to be deducted from the vessel’s earnings.--THOMAS JENNINGS.”

Then, here is the addition to the charter-party:--“I, Thomas Jennings,
captain and owner of the ship ‘Augusta,’ of this port, hereby I declare,
I have received from Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co., of Havannah, through
Messrs. Zulueta &, Co., of this city, 1,100_l._ sterling for the
disbursements of the said ship, her fitting out and provisions, which I
engage myself to repay with the earnings of the same, according to the
charter-party entered this day with the said gentlemen, and under the
following conditions:--1st. All the earnings of the ship will be
accounted for and applied to the said Pedro Martinez & Co., they
furnishing the necessary cash for all expenses, repairs, provisions, and
crew’s wages, including 15_l._ per month for my salary as captain. 2nd.
At any time, when the said gentlemen may think proper to close the
charter-party, I will make out the account, and deliver to them, or to
their representatives, a proper bill of sale for the said ship and all
her appurtenances, to cover the balance due to them in the said account.
3rd. That I am in no other way responsible for the settlement of the
above-mentioned debt, but with the said ship and her earnings; and that
the said Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. will take on themselves the
insurance and risk on the vessel.--THOMAS JENNINGS.”

Now, Gentlemen, it will be most material for you to consider the effect
of this charter-party, and what is called the loan. It is nominally
chartered by Thomas Jennings, as the captain of the vessel, to Pedro
Martinez & Co. through Zulueta & Co.; and Zulueta & Co. are the persons
employing that vessel: there can be no doubt of that. Now what is the
effect of these two documents? Is it that Jennings is the real party who
engages to pay? No such thing. “I am in no other way responsible for the
settlement of the above-mentioned debt, but with the said ship and her
earnings; and that the said Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. will take on
themselves the insurance and risk on the vessel.” So that he is not in
the slightest degree indebted to them: he is not bound to pay, but it is
only that he is indebted to them on the vessel. Can he say I will pay
you the money and keep the vessel? No; whenever Messrs. Martinez & Co.
choose, the vessel is to be made over to them. Can he make over the
vessel and apply the money to his own use? No; he has only 15_l._ a
month, and can be required to make over the vessel whenever they please.
But that would be the ordinary transaction in peace time; the money
would be advanced to him; the vessel would be the security for it at any
one moment at which Martinez & Co., or their representatives--that is,
Messrs. Zulueta & Co.--might call upon Jennings to deliver up the vessel
to them. He is always accountable to them for the earnings of the
vessel, and he is in no respect personally responsible. The question you
will have to decide is this: Is this a method by which it shall appear
that Thomas Jennings is the owner of the vessel, so that no other person
shall have a right to say that he is the owner? He is to appear to be
so; but the other parties have a right to say, “Give the vessel up to
us;” he borrowing, but having nothing but the vessel; he being to
receive his wages of 15_l._ a month as captain. It will be undoubtedly a
very material consideration whether this is matter of concealment; a
mode in which Jennings is to be made the apparent and not the real
owner, or whether he is the real _bonâ fide_, owner. It is clear he
would be in no respect responsible under this arrangement entered into
at Liverpool. You will have, in connexion with the evidence, to examine
the statement made by Mr. Zulueta. The letters, which will be read,
undoubtedly treat Zulueta & Co. as purchasers on behalf of Martinez &
Co.; and the charter-party is made by them as agents for Martinez & Co.,
by which the factors are to ship these goods for Africa as agents for
Martinez & Co.

Gentlemen, the vessel went to Liverpool; she was there loaded in the
ordinary course, according to the account given by Mr. Zulueta in his
evidence. He is asked, “You did not imagine that in being the instrument
of sending lawful goods to any part of Africa, you were doing any thing
which required concealment?--Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof
of that is, that in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body could see
our names as consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our names
of every thing.” No doubt, gentlemen, according to that charter-party,
if it was a _bonâ fide_ charter-party, shippers might ship goods on
board the vessel in their name; every thing would be in their name; and
the papers on board that vessel might be in the name of Zulueta, and not
in the name of Captain Jennings: but if Captain Jennings was the owner
of the vessel, and Messrs. Zulueta the factors of Martinez, he would
have only to receive the goods shipped on board that vessel by Messrs.
Zulueta. It is clear a cargo was put on board that vessel, and if she
was going on a legal voyage, there is no reason why every thing should
not be in the name of Messrs. Zulueta, and why the ship’s papers should
not be in their names as the owners of this vessel. But all the ship’s
papers were made out in the name of Thomas Jennings; the bill of lading
is made out as shipped by Thomas Jennings; and none of the shipments are
made by these factors, who, according to the charter-party, were to ship
the whole. No doubt it will be for you to consider how far that is a
wilful act of concealment or not.

Gentlemen, this vessel was going to the Gallinas. The Gallinas is a port
in Africa, about 200 miles from Sierra Leone. It is necessary you should
know the nature of that port. It will be impossible but that persons
engaged in trade should know the nature of that port. It is a
settlement, or rather a native State, that consisted of a harbour and a
river, and it is called the Gallinas. The sole trade carried on there is
the slave trade. It consisted of a few, I think there were five, of what
are called barracoons. It is hardly necessary I should state that a
barracoon is a place in which slaves are kept; that slave traders by
attacking a village, or other means, take possession of the people, who
are taken down to warehouses erected for their use--barracoons as they
call them--places where they are kept until an opportunity arises,
whereby they may be shipped off either to the Havannah or to Cuba: the
two great places to which slaves are sent from this place are the
Havannah and Cuba. The place consists of five barracoons, as they are
called; five warehouses, where the slaves are kept. It is not a trading
place in any other way. Slaves are purchased by the barter of cotton
goods or other goods from England, or by doubloons, which are raised by
drawing bills on persons in England. There is no other trade but the
mere slave trade. In the barracoons and places, these unfortunate people
are kept until an opportunity arises for selling them, to be disposed of
either in Cuba or the Havannah. One was kept by a person of the name of
Rolo, another by a person named Ximines, another by Alvarez, another by
a person of the name of Buron, and another by a person of the name of
François. This vessel and cargo therefore were dispatched to a place
which was wholly a slave trade establishment. There is no other trade
whatever. I believe there was not at that time, nor had been long
before. Since the slave trade has been stopped there, it is somewhat a
different thing; but at that time it was a place used entirely for the
slave trade, and the goods which were sent there were used for barter,
and the doubloons for which the bills were drawn were employed in the
purchase of slaves. The three consignees of this vessel were the three
persons I have first mentioned, three persons having barracoons in the
Gallinas. It is possible that a name of a fourth may appear in the
evidence. You will remember that the fourth is named Buron. The vessel
therefore went out from England with a cargo consigned to these three
persons, Rolo, Ximines, and Alvarez.

Gentlemen, when the vessel got some little distance from England, I
believe a hundred miles from Cork, she encountered a considerable gale:
upon that the captain determined to go to Cadiz; the wind was
unfavourable for Cadiz: she was about a hundred miles from Cork, and
there was a perfect facility of going to Cork or to Falmouth, where they
might have arrived in the course of a day. It would take 18 or 19 days
to go to Cadiz, I believe 19; but the captain determined to go to Cadiz,
the crew resisted this, and they came to the determination that some of
the crew should be discharged at Cadiz, Mr. Zulueta having a house at
Cadiz, and Mr. Martinez too; and it was at Cadiz she received the
dispatches which were found on board, as to the consignees, as to what
was to be done with the shipment on board, and what was the object of
the shippers. Part of the goods appear to have been landed there by the
firm of Zulueta & Co., and Mr. Zulueta received an award for the injury
which had occurred, the injury the cargo had sustained in that gale. I
believe the principal part of the tobacco was landed. It will appear by
the bill of lading the shipment of goods was by these three persons. The
tobacco was landed by Mr. Zulueta of the house in Cadiz, and the house
in London received compensation for the loss upon that, they having
shipped the same in London.

Gentlemen, the vessel afterwards sailed from Cadiz. She arrived, I
believe, about the 6th of December, and sailed in the early part of
January. She was captured on the 7th of February, 1841, by Captain Hill,
when she came near the coast of Africa. It happened that Captain Hill,
whose duty it was to capture those vessels, either Spanish or English,
which had dealings in slaves, met with her, and he was not a little
surprised at seeing so soon a vessel he had captured as a slaver, under
the name of the Gollupchik, come under English colours with a new name.
He boarded her, and saw Jennings on board. She was not then, of course,
to use the technical term, equipped as a slave trader; she having sailed
from England with goods on board, it was impossible she should be. He
asked to whom she was consigned: Jennings refused to tell.

Mr. _Kelly_. Are we to have the conversations with Jennings, the master,
long after the felony is supposed to have been committed by Mr. Zulueta
in England? Is the conversation with every person, in every quarter of
the world, to be given in evidence?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am not going into any conversation between the
master and the captors, merely the simple fact. Captain Hill being about
to seize the vessel, the dispatches of the vessel were at length brought
out with great reluctance; the captain, however, delivered up the
letters, and told Captain Hill those were the letters to the consignees.
They are letters with certain directions.

Mr. _Kelly_. My Lord, I must object again to what I conceive is most
irregular on the part of my learned friend, who is proposing to give in
evidence that which took place between Captain Hill and Jennings. My
learned friend has opened a very complicated case, and now my learned
friend attempts to describe the contents of papers given by the house of
Martinez & Co. to the captain, some months after the vessel had sailed
from England. Mr. Zulueta, at the bar, is charged with a felony in
having equipped and employed this vessel for the purposes of the slave
trade. My learned friend is opening the case against him on the charge
of felony, and he is supposed to be affected by instructions given by
other persons months afterwards--persons in Cadiz, over whom he had no
control--instructions which he never saw until they were alluded to in
certain proceedings in which he had no concern whatever. My learned
friend is stating a part of the contents, and stating them most
incorrectly. I apprehend Mr. Zulueta is undoubtedly liable for the
consequences of any act he has done, any act he has sanctioned, any
thing done by his firm with his knowledge; but that he cannot have used
as evidence against him papers delivered months after the supposed
commission of the crime, and long after he could have interposed--months
after the vessel left England. My learned friend knows he has no
evidence affecting the defendant touching her afterwards; but he is
opening the contents of papers given by a foreign merchant months
afterwards.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. I did not understand Brother Bompas to state
that the prisoner was aware of the contents of those papers.

Mr. _Kelly_. My learned friend does not pretend now to state that, but
he describes them as containing instructions given to the captain; they
were not instructions given to the captain.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. He does not state that they were.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. It is important that the objection should be
made, if at all, now. The evidence no doubt is most important, and I
thought it was possible that my learned friend might object. It is fair
to the understanding of the case that the objection should be stated,
and I am obliged to my learned friend for taking the objection now, if
it was to be taken. I wanted to call his attention to it, not wishing to
allude to the contents of those documents unless they are admissible in
evidence; but it will be quite impossible to call the attention of the
jury to these facts, unless I know whether the evidence is admissible.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. How can we decide that until we know what they are?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My object is to offer them as evidence in the
case, and therefore to open them as evidence.

Mr. _Kelly_. My learned friend is stating what I did not understand him
to state before, and therefore your Lordship will allow me to place this
point of the case on its proper basis. When he is opening this part of
the case, in order that if there is no doubt on the admissibility of the
evidence it may be at once taken, I do at once make the objection; and I
think your Lordship will pardon my saying a few words more on that which
my learned friend considered rather an interruption, or a protestation,
than an objection. My learned friend charges Mr. Pedro de Zulueta with
having committed a felony, that felony having been committed in England
in the months of July, August, and September; that is, that Mr. Zulueta
equipped and dispatched a vessel, and shipped goods on board that
vessel, for the purposes of the slave trade. That vessel left England, I
think, in the month of October--

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. The 9th of November.

Mr. _Kelly_. We shall have no dispute on those facts. That vessel,
purchased under circumstances which will probably appear more clearly
in evidence. It is stated by my friend that Zulueta and Company
purchased the ship; no doubt the house of Zulueta and Company interfered
as agents for the house of Martinez and Company. That vessel was
dispatched from England, and left England in the month of November,
1840. Whatever the prisoner at the bar has done in respect of the
dispatching of that vessel, was done and completed then. The crime, if
he committed any, was completed before the month of November, 1840. That
is the charge upon which he is now on trial. I quite agree that, if
since November, 1840--if instantly he had held any conversation--if he
had written any letter--if he had held any conversation that might be
used against him as evidence of the purpose for which he used and
dispatched that vessel, which he had dispatched in the month of
November, 1840--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. With respect to that portion of the opening of my
Brother Bompas, the question is pretty much the same as with respect to
that mentioned before.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Will your Lordship just hear how I present it?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is open to the same mode of dealing with the
matter depending on the question--whether it is so clear that it will be
admissible, when it comes to be offered in evidence, as that it ought to
be stated. If Brother Bompas proposes to argue that, he may go on now.

Mr. _Kelly_. I am in your Lordships’ hands; it is immaterial to me when
I am heard. I was only going to add, which will go much to the argument,
that on a common civil case, something written, said, or done by another
person in a distant country, some months after the time when he is said
to have committed the offence charged, is no evidence against him. If it
were, Mr. Zulueta might have (as I believe he was), he might, with the
rest of his firm, have been engaged in shipping goods on a lawful
merchandise according to the British laws, in consonance with natural
equity and right, and the character of the transaction might be
completely changed. I can very easily imagine a case in which a British
merchant--nay, a British trader of any kind--may ship a quantity of
muskets to the coast of Africa, or the coast of Spain: nothing can be
more simple than the proposition--a trader may ship a quantity of
muskets to Africa, to Spain, or to France; he receives the goods, and
ships the goods; and now he has done all, and the ship sails; and he may
have died after the shipment; another person possesses himself of those
muskets, and he employs them in war against the Queen of Britain--Is
that to be used in a criminal charge of felony against him? But that is
just the case here. These gentlemen of this house of Zulueta and Company
are concerned in shipping a quantity of goods--I might have taken the
objection whether as principal or agent, but I will not raise that--here
is the ship, and here are the goods; they ship them for the coast of
Africa: the shippers remain in England; they have nothing more to do
with the transaction; the vessel putting in to Cadiz, whether by
previous design or stress of weather I will not say; another person,
over whom the shippers have no more control than they have over the
inhabitants of the kingdom of Spain, give certain orders, which I will
suppose contemplate an illegal object--Are those to be used as evidence
against the shippers here on a charge of felony? My Lord, I have done; I
shall wait until I hear how my learned friend can justify the giving
that in evidence against Mr. Zulueta.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My Lord, if I had any reasonable doubt that I
could give this in evidence before your Lordships, I conceive I ought
not to interfere with the view your Lordship has thrown out with respect
to the letter I before tendered; but I apprehend there can be no doubt.
I may be mistaken in the view I have taken: I may be wrong.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Unless you feel it quite material to the case to
state the nature of the evidence you propose to offer, I should think
that in a matter of this kind it might be advisable to abstain from the
statement of it. The circumstances which a learned counsel proposes to
offer in evidence ought to be such as leave no doubt in his mind that he
shall be able to bring them home to the prisoner, or that which is not
ultimately made evidence against the prisoner may make an impression
which is not justified. If you have any doubt that you shall be able to
make this evidence, Mr. Kelly is justified in his objection, and so long
as there is a doubt whether it is admissible, the Court think it is not
fit it should be stated. If in your opinion that is doubtful, you have a
right to be heard; but if you consider this as likely to be a long case,
it will be desirable to abridge it so far as you can, to bring it within
such a compass that it may receive the attention of the jury, and that
time should not be unnecessarily occupied in these discussions.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Gentlemen, I am always most ready to adopt the
suggestion which the Court are kind enough to hold out. I feel that a
counsel, standing for the prosecution, stands in a somewhat different
situation from another person, and their Lordships, sitting to do
justice, and fairly taking care that if there be a doubt, that doubt
shall be taken for the benefit of those charged with a crime. I feel
that as to the admissibility in evidence, if there is a doubt, it ought
not to be stated to the jury. It is not for me, as counsel for the
prosecution, to say that their admissibility is perfectly certain. It
would be very hard if the view taken by counsel in a criminal
prosecution were not to be regulated by the judgment of the Court. It is
enough that I should state, that, in my opinion, it will be necessary
that these letters should be admitted in evidence, and that you should
direct your attention particularly to them. It will place an additional
obligation on the learned judges at a future stage, if I am not allowed
to call your attention to them, to see that they are so brought before
you as that you should understand them. There is no weight intended to
be given to the evidence beyond that to which it is entitled, but it
will be my duty to bring them fairly to your understandings, when I
tender them, that you may see the bearing of them. The reason of my
offering them in evidence will be given when I do offer them in
evidence. This is not a decision that they are not admissible in
evidence, but that it is better I should not open to you what may leave
an impression which ought not to be made, unless I show that this is
evidence. By the course taken, if this is not evidence, there will be no
impression made. There is no doubt that very great importance to the
prosecution will rest on the decision of this question; it will have a
very great effect in the decision of the question, whether from this
time or not there may be perfect and absolute impunity to any person who
chooses to conduct a trade of this kind, provided only he is not so
unwise as to advertise himself before-hand as a man who has connexion
with the ultimate procedure of the vessel. Gentlemen, at present this
matter is perfectly in debate. I shall offer this to you in evidence,
and then it will be shown how it applies. This vessel, as I was stating
when I mentioned certain things found on board, was captured by Captain
Hill, was carried to Sierra Leone, and from thence brought home to
England, and there was an end of the voyage.

Gentlemen, one material question that you will have to consider when the
case is before you is--What was the object of the destination of the
vessel? For what purpose was the vessel sent to the Gallinas? Was she
sent for the purposes of fair trade, or was she sent to the Gallinas
with goods to be used for the purposes of the slave trade? No doubt the
vessel would not be perfectly equipped on going from Portsmouth; but the
state of the vessel then you will have to consider, and I believe I
shall be able to show that at that place the leagers were taken to
pieces and put on board in such a manner as that they could be easily
put together when she got out, and that there were existing in the
vessel a very considerable number of shackles usually used for the
purpose of confining slaves. You are aware that the slaves, the male
slaves, are almost always put into this situation between the decks, and
confined also by shackles. I shall be able to show that the leagers were
taken to pieces and stowed on board the vessel, and that there were a
very large number of shackles on board the vessel. Now, what was the
object in going to the Gallinas? If any directions which were given in
respect of that object are not brought out, you must find it out as well
as you can in the circumstances of the vessel. She was going to the
Gallinas. Mr. Zulueta was acting on behalf of a person whom he admits he
believed to be dealing in slaves. The whole view of the case must be
left in some degree to you, after all the evidence laid before you,
supposing the evidence to which I have called your attention to be
ultimately received.

Gentlemen, it will be my duty to call your attention to the evidence
which Mr. Zulueta volunteered before the Committee of the House of
Commons, and I can only say you will have to keep it in mind as
applicable to the other evidence if it is admitted. If it is not
admitted, you will take it as it is applicable to the case. I have
mentioned one or two sentences, and my learned friend has interfered to
represent that I was giving the effect of that evidence unfairly before
you. I shall call your attention to the material parts, and leave you to
apply it to the rest of the evidence. He was examined on the 22nd of
July, 1842. It would appear, from the questions proposed to him, that
some persons had made statements before the Committee of the House of
Commons, which, being intended to reflect upon him, had been inclosed
to him for his consideration, and that he felt himself obliged to appear
to meet those statements. That is the way in which the evidence was
given. He was not summoned before them--they could hardly summon him to
give an account of that which was intended by previous evidence to
reflect upon him; but, under those circumstances, he went before the
Committee of the House of Commons. The Chairman says, “You have seen
some statements that have been made to this Committee upon the subject
of a transaction in which your house was engaged; have you any
observations to offer upon it?--I received from the Clerk of the
Committee a letter accompanying a copy of certain evidences, which are
Mr. Macaulay’s evidence of the 10th of June, the 14th of June, and the
15th of June; and Captain Hill’s evidence of the 29th of June, the 4th
of July, and the 6th of July. I would beg first of all to refer to the
letter which I had the honour to address to the Chairman. My reason for
wishing to be examined before this Committee was, that the statements
contained in the evidence which I have mentioned are all of them more or
less incorrect, some of them totally so. I will begin by stating what
has been the nature of our, I will not say trade, for we have not had a
trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the shipment of goods to the
coast of Africa. We have been established as merchants for upwards of 70
years in Spain, for nearly 20 years in this country, and we have had
connexions to a large extent in Spain, and in the Havannah, and in South
America, and several other places; among them we have had connexions or
commercial intercourse with the house of Pedro Martinez & Co. of the
Havannah, and with Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah. With them we have
carried on a regular business in consignments of sugars and of
cochineal, which they have made to us; and in specie received by the
packets from Mexico and other places. We have several times acted for
them here in this country, buying raw cotton for instance at Liverpool,
and re-selling it very largely; that has been principally with Pedro
Martinez & Co.” “They are general merchants?--They are general
merchants, and their transactions with us have been of that nature. As
general merchants we have bought stock here for them rather largely; and
in the course of those transactions we have received orders from Don
Pedro Martinez & Co., of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez, of
Cadiz, to ship goods for the coast of Africa; never from Pedro Blanco,
and never from Blanco & Cavallo.” “Have you received orders from Pedro
Martinez for shipments for the coast of Africa?--Yes, in the course of
business we have received orders to ship goods upon the funds in our
hands belonging to them, and we have shipped the goods described in the
letter, and sent the bills of lading to Pedro Martinez; but, beyond that
we have never had any returns from the coast of Africa, nor any control
of any kind from the moment the cargoes left the ports of this country.”
“You have had no interest in the result of the adventure?--No, nor any
notice, nor any acquaintance, nor any correspondence with any one upon
the coast; we have never had any kind of knowledge, either subsequently
or previously, of the shipments, except the mere fact of buying the
goods and shipping them.”

It is quite correct that they had had communication, as will
appear subsequently by evidence in respect of this vessel; they
actually received the amount of the insurance on the damaged goods
landed at Cadiz. “Your whole interest was a commission upon the
transaction?--Entirely. The extent of those transactions has been so
limited in the course of nearly 20 years that we have been in this
country, that the amount of the invoices that we have sent out has been
something like 20,000_l._ or 22,000_l._ in the course of all that time.
That is one part of the operations we have performed. The other
operations are the acceptance of bills drawn by people on the coast;
among them Pedro Blanco when he was there, upon ourselves, on account of
Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which Blanco & Cavallo had in
our hands; for instance, the people at the Havannah, or in Spain, open a
credit with us, and we accept the bills of the parties on that credit
with us just the same as we should do with any other correspondent in
any other part.” You will hear probably in evidence who this Pedro
Blanco was. I shall prove that he was a person extensively engaged in
the trade in slaves.

Then the evidence proceeds:--“You would have funds in your hands,
arising from some commercial transactions between you and the Havannah
merchant or the Cadiz merchant; and Pedro Blanco, upon the coast of
Africa would draw upon the credit of those funds, being authorised by
the Cadiz or the Havannah merchant?--Yes; and if Pedro Blanco had drawn
five shillings beyond that, we should have protested, and in some
instances we have protested. With regard to the vessel alluded to in
this Report, the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that
which appears from one of the letters: that is to say, Pedro Martinez,
of Cadiz, had made choice of Jennings to buy the vessel, and lent him
money to buy the vessel; because Pedro Martinez wanted him to have a
vessel in the trade for the purpose of taking his goods to their
destination.”

Gentlemen, it is always satisfactory in a case of this kind to know, if
a person be charged with any offence, as Mr. Zulueta was, that a copy of
the evidence is sent to him; and when a person under such circumstances
makes a statement, it is satisfactory to know that if that statement be
true, it can be perfectly and easily proved by him, that there is no
doubt about it. No doubt evidence must be given sufficient to charge the
prisoner with the offence before he can be called upon for his defence;
but if he makes a statement, it is satisfactory to know that, if there
is a defence, it is absolutely in his power. Mr. Zulueta is one of a
firm; there is no difficulty therefore in proving all their
transactions. If he has letters limiting him to 500_l._, there are means
of proving that beyond all question.

He goes on: “I have now described the three kinds of operations in which
we have been concerned, and our knowledge of all of them terminated with
the execution of the orders of our correspondents. We had nothing more
to do than to follow the orders of the purchaser in shipping the goods.
With regard to the purchase of the vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a man
who has been employed some time by Martinez; he has served Martinez as a
chartered captain, and Martinez having been satisfied with his services,
agreed to lend him that money on the security of the vessel, provided
it did not exceed a certain amount; which was all the interference we
had with it, just to see that a certain amount was not exceeded, 500_l._
or whatever it was.” “Then you were to furnish Captain Jennings with
money for the purchase within a limited amount, say 500_l._, credit
being given to him upon you by Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz?--That is just
the point.” There is no doubt, gentlemen, as it would appear, that the
letter I have read to you had been published, and was known to Mr.
Zulueta, in which he writes and tells Jennings that they will not
proceed in the purchase further than 500_l._ Certainly it was not known
at that time that we should have the means of showing them that there
was in fact no such limit to the purchase adopted, and that that letter
could not be used for the purpose, for Mr. Zulueta does actually give
650_l._ for the purchase of that vessel.

He is then asked--“The Augusta being purchased by money advanced by your
house for Martinez and Company, of Cadiz; and she then became the
property of Pedro Martinez?--No, she became the property of Jennings;
the money was lent to Jennings, and he bound himself by giving security
on the vessel to answer for the amount. It is a mercantile operation,
which is not unusual.” If it had been a mere loan and mortgage of the
vessel, there can be no doubt of the fact; but it is for you to say
whether that is the nature of the transaction. “You advanced the money
to Captain Jennings for the purchase of the vessel, Jennings
transferring the vessel to you as a security for the amount so
advanced?--That is just the description of operation, which is a very
general one in business.” Then he goes on to describe the transaction:
“What is the object of such an operation?--I know very little, or almost
next to nothing, of the operations in those parts of the world; but the
object of such an operation I apprehend to be this: a vessel chartered
with a stranger must be governed by the different clauses of the
charter-party; the charterer must be limited to time and to places; and
by Martinez having the vessel owned by a man with whom he could have a
better understanding than with others, he might always send more
advantageously articles from the Havannah to the Gallinas, and from here
to the Gallinas. When I say articles, I mean legal articles.” “What
advantage would there be in Mr. Jennings taking the articles rather as
the owner than as captain under Martinez; was not he commander of the
vessel as well as owner of the vessel?--Yes.” “He is made the owner,
instead of being captain?--He is the owner as well as the captain of the
vessel; he stands indebted to Martinez, and gives a bottomry bond for
the vessel.” Gentlemen, the documents I have offered to you, which are
the charter-party and the other papers relating to the vessel, do not
amount to a bottomry bond; if there was one, there can be no difficulty
in the prisoner proving it to you.

Then he is asked: “Does Mr. Jennings upon this transaction make all the
freight to his own profit?--Certainly; whatever he does is to his own
profit.” That certainly was not the fact; for he was obliged to give up
the vessel whenever called upon. “He is not, then, an agent for
Martinez?--No, he is a person to whom Martinez lends the money to buy
the vessel; whatever profit he derives is his own. Martinez has this
advantage, which to a mercantile man is very perceptible, that he has
got a charter with a man who stands in that relation towards him which
gives him a sort of control over the vessel. If I, as a stranger,
charter a vessel for Martinez, and he has spent one, two, or five days
more in landing goods than the charter-party allows, I should make a
claim for it; I should say, ‘You must keep to the charter.’ Now, when
Jennings is indebted to him for the favour of a loan for the vessel, he
is not upon a similar footing.” “So that he gets the vessel more under
his own control?--Yes; in saying this I am putting an hypothetical case,
but I do not know the mind of Martinez himself.”

Then he is asked: “You acted in this transaction merely as agent in the
usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in any part of the
world?--Exactly; if Martinez had told me, ‘You have got 500_l._ in your
hands, pay that to Captain Jennings,’ I should have known nothing more
of the transaction; I should have paid the money. But Martinez did not
wish to go beyond a certain amount; and he says, ‘You exercise control,
do not allow the man to pay more than 500_l._ for the vessel.’”
Gentlemen, the letter treats it as a purchase for Zulueta. There may or
may not be those directions; if there were, it is in his power to prove
them; and it should be recollected that there was not time to get fresh
instructions after the declaration that he could not exceed 500_l._
before he paid 650_l._ for it: it is only in a few days. If a man says,
when charged with theft, “I bought the goods of such a person,” that is
no evidence at all, unless, he proves that he bought them, which he may
easily do if it is the fact. So here, if the prisoner says, though this
letter, which purports to be the letter of instructions for the actual
purchase, limits it to 500_l._, I received directions from Martinez to
purchase at 650_l._, that is proved with perfect facility, for it must
be by letter, and there are other persons in the firm who can prove it
for him. “But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of the
goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions were
entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?--Most assuredly; except
with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any
thing with him in any way.” That of course will be proved.

Then it goes on: “Though the process of hypothecating a vessel may be
usual between British merchants, is it usual to cover a transaction of
Spanish slave trade with the British flag, by means of such an
arrangement as that described to have taken place in the case of the
Augusta?--In order to answer that question, it seems to me that it is
fair that I should ask where is the transaction of covering, and where
is the slave trade transaction? I know positively of my own knowledge
that there is no such thing at all connected with the Augusta. If I had
an opportunity, I could make my affidavit of that.” He is asked again:
“Do you mean that you know that the Augusta was not engaged in any
slaving transactions during the voyage upon which she left
Liverpool?--Most assuredly not; in fact my testimony is hardly required
of that, because every thing proves that. When she was detained, it was
never said that she was upon a slaving operation at all. Before she left
this port, after she was bought, she was completely rendered useless for
that purpose.” Now leagers and things of that kind must be taken to
pieces, for she would not be allowed to have those on board; but the
staves forming them were left on board in a state in which they might
very soon have been made ready for use. When the question comes, whether
she was engaged in a slave trading transaction, you are to examine the
grounds of the prisoner’s denial with reference to the other parts of
the testimony, and how far that can be relied upon.

This question is then put: “The charge is, that she was engaged in
carrying goods to a person engaged in the slave trade; not that she was
engaged in the slave trade herself?--I most certainly say, that I do not
know whether the person is so engaged or not.” “Is it usual to cover a
transaction of Spanish trade with the English flag?--I am not aware that
a Spanish merchant is prohibited chartering an English vessel.” No doubt
a Spanish merchant is not; but if an Englishman knows that that vessel
is being chartered for a slave trading transaction, and he is one of the
persons chartering her for that purpose, I have no hesitation in stating
that he is guilty under this Act of Parliament, for he is chartering a
vessel to accomplish that illegal object; and if merchants in this
country would not accept bills drawn by slave traders, if they would not
send goods from this country to be employed for the purpose--in fact,
the trade could not be carried on at all. Then he is asked: “But is it
lawful to employ the British flag to cover a vessel that is not owned by
a British subject?--I say that that vessel is owned by a British
subject.” “By whom?--By Captain Jennings.” It is for you to say whether
that is a covert, or a _bonâ fide_ ownership. “Was not the money with
which she was purchased, the money of Pedro Martinez--It seems to me
that English captains and English subjects are not prohibited from
borrowing money from Spaniards; she was bought with money lent by Pedro
Martinez to Captain Jennings for the purpose.” Of course there can be no
difficulty in showing that that was lent by persons connected with that
firm, if it is true; if it is not true, of course it will not be shown.

Then he is asked: “Do you mean that the money was a loan to Captain
Jennings, at the time he paid it for the vessel?--It was a loan to
Captain Jennings.” “Do you mean that the ship was then Captain
Jennings’s property?--It was.” “Was it in his power to sell that ship at
any port he pleased?--There was a mortgage upon the vessel.” “You have
stated that yours is an agency trade?--It is so, and in the multitude of
business, any one can understand that 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years, can
only be a mere trifle in the business of any merchant, without laying
claim to a large business; and in following that business, we have
executed shipping orders.” “To what part of the coast of Africa has that
business been chiefly conducted?--I believe almost exclusively to the
Gallinas.” I believe you will find the Gallinas is simply a slave
trading place, and nothing else. “Have the goods that Mr. Martinez has
ordered to be sent to the Gallinas, been all sent to the same
individual?--No, to different individuals; sometimes to Pedro Blanco,
who was for a certain time an agent of Pedro Martinez on the coast, and
sometimes we have sent a bill of lading drawn in this way to order; we
have sent it to Pedro Martinez as a voucher against his account.” “Do
you know the nature of the trade of Pedro Martinez at the Gallinas?--I
know from general report that Don Pedro Martinez himself is supposed to
deal in slaves, and I believe it is so.” All his goods have been sent to
the Gallinas. “Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer in slaves?--I do
not know; but I believe so. I do not know why it should not be known at
the Havannah, if it is known in other parts.” “Is a ship which is
hypothecated liable to be foreclosed at any moment at the discretion of
the mortgagee?--It depends altogether upon the terms of the mortgage. If
the mortgagee says, ‘You must give me the money when I ask for it,’ of
course he must sell the vessel if he has not got any thing else.” Read
on in the same way this document, “but he is not bound to give the money
in any shape or form.” “He would always have to deduct whatever freight
had been earned. When the security may be called upon to be effective,
depends upon the nature of the transaction between the parties.” “Your
house had nothing to do with any letters that might be put on board the
Augusta after she sailed from this country?--Nothing whatever.” “The
Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa on the charge of slave
trading?--I believe that was the case.” “Did you not appeal against that
condemnation?--Yes, there is an appeal by the owner.” “Before the Privy
Council?--Yes.” “That appeal is not yet decided?--I believe not.” “You
stated that your transactions with Africa for Martinez have amounted to
about 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years. What has been the amount of your
whole transactions with Blanco and Martinez of the Havannah during that
period?--Perhaps 100,000_l._ or a larger sum. For instance, we have
received more than 40 or 50 cargoes of sugar from the Havannah consigned
to us, and cigars; and we have received bills of lading of specie,
shipped at Mexico, to be sold here, and bar gold, and things of that
sort.” “Have you reason to suppose that the whole of that large commerce
is subservient to the carrying on of the slave trade by the house of
Blanco & Martinez at the Havannah?--I do not know; I know that they have
large transactions in general business. I know that a short time ago I
got 40,000_l._ or 50,000_l._ of Spanish bonds in the market for
Martinez. I know that he is a large speculator in Spanish bonds and in
securities of state.” “Is that speculating in Spanish bonds on account
of the house at Cadiz, or the house at Havannah?--Speaking technically,
I should say it was on account of the Cadiz house.” “The question
related to the commerce of the Havannah house?--Pedro Martinez is a
Havannah merchant. But with regard to Havannah merchants, we have
received large consignments of sugar, cochineal, and sometimes Mexican
goods, brought to Havannah, and shipped to us here.” “In what course of
business have the proceeds of those consignments been disposed of; have
they gone in sending supplies to the coast of Africa?--Out of that large
amount of money 22,000_l._ is the amount of all the goods that we have
sent to the coast of Africa in 20 years.” “Of all descriptions?--Of all
sorts and kinds; I have gone through the invoice-book and found them
out.” “Have the proceeds generally been disposed of by drafts from the
parties themselves to your house?--By the parties at Havannah, when the
exchange turns to their advantage.” “Have you reason to suppose that a
large portion of the trade that they carry on at the Havannah is the
slave trade?--I had no reason to know any thing of the kind; I have
known more of their transactions with the slave trade since these things
have been mooted than I ever knew before; I have had more knowledge of
these things lately than I ever had in my life before; and when I say
‘I,’ I beg to state that I ought to state ‘we,’ for all my partners are
in the same situation.” “Have you been employed by the house at the
Havannah to ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah,
suitable for the African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the
Havannah of the same kind as those that were in the Augusta; cotton
goods and other things of that sort.” “Has that been recently?--In the
course of our operations.” “How many years ago?--In the course of these
15 or 20 years that we have been engaged in business with them; all that
I could see in a moment by my books.” “Have you sent any goods of that
description to the Havannah recently?--Not very recently; I think not
for some years.” “Have you sent any goods of that description since you
first began to send goods out direct to the coast of Africa?--They have
been mixed; I cannot draw a distinction between the two destinations;
some have gone to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.” “Have those
supplies of English manufactured goods, which heretofore went to the
Havannah, to be used there for promoting the slave trade, been more
recently sent direct from this country to the coast of Africa?--No, I do
not think that is the case; I should think the contrary is more likely
to be the case; but I think we have shipped in some months, or in some
years, partly to the Havannah, and partly to the Gallinas.”

Then comes a statement as to the mode of carrying on the trade, which
will be read to you, but I do not think it necessary to read it now.
“Have you shipped English manufactured goods direct to the coast of
Africa, on behalf of both those houses?--Such goods as were in the
Augusta, I have shipped for one party only. With regard to the house of
Blanco & Carvalho, and the house of Pedro Martinez & Co., with both of
them I have carried on a general large business. But to Blanco &
Carvalho I never shipped a single piece of goods of any kind, except
some sugar mills to the Havannah; and with regard to the house of Pedro
Martinez, we have shipped such goods as those by the Augusta.” “From
your general knowledge of the trade of the house of Pedro Martinez &
Co., is it your opinion that the goods which you so shipped to the coast
of Africa were destined to be employed in the slave trade?--I do not
know, they may be for any thing that I know.”

Now, gentlemen, I would humbly submit, that if they have that reason to
know, that they do believe that the goods are so employed, and if they
send the goods, it is not for them to shut their eyes and say, “I do not
know.” It is like the case where a person receives stolen goods and no
questions are asked, and he gives money in exchange for them. Such a
person is as much guilty of receiving stolen goods, as if the person who
brought them told him the fact. As to hundreds of persons whom you try
for receiving stolen goods, they do not know, they cannot know
positively that they are taken out of such a house; but they are
delivered to them in such a way, or are concealed in such a way, that
there is no doubt they were dishonestly come by, and that is as good
evidence as if they had known where they were stolen. So it is not
enough for a person to say, “I do not know; they may not for aught I
know.” If he believes, and you are satisfied that he must have been
aware of the fact, then the case is clear; it is no defence to say, “I
shut my eyes, and do not know; they may be for aught I know.”

Then it is asked: “Has it come within your knowledge that the house of
Martinez & Co. are exporters from Africa of the native produce of
Africa?--No, because I never tried to get any knowledge of their
transactions there of any sort.” “Have you ever received consignments
from them, or on their behalf of palm oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the
coast of Africa?--Never; we never have received any thing from the coast
of Africa whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will
perhaps appear strange to the Committee, that I should not know more of
the coast of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had shipped
to the amount of 100,000_l._ to the coast of Africa, or carried on any
considerable trade there, we should certainly have known more about the
coast of Africa; but in transactions of a very large amount, an invoice
occasionally of about 2,000_l._ or 3,000_l._ of goods was a thing that
we sent as a matter of course, and did not trouble our heads about,
especially as the remuneration we got was a mere trifle, not of itself
worth pursuing, if it had not been for the general business we had.”

Then the question is put: “Is there any other part of the evidence which
has been given that you wish to observe upon?” and he answers, “It is
asked here in question 5086, ‘Who was he?’ the answer is, ‘The name is
mentioned in the Parliamentary Papers as being connected with the
purchase of a slave vessel, Mr. Kidd; and it is mentioned in connexion
with that of Mr. Zulueta, of London.’ Now, as to Mr. Kidd, the very
first thing I ever knew or ever heard of his name was to see it here. I
never heard of his name at all. I never had a letter from him or through
him, or knew any thing of the man whatever. That is with regard to
myself. With regard to my partners, I can say the same; I have been
making inquiries about it. My father knew there was such a man upon the
coast, but I did not know even that, though I have managed all this
business. Our house never had a letter from the man, or knew any thing
about him.” Then it is asked, “You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in
any way?--No, nor any knowledge of him. Then in the next answer it is
said, ‘Zulueta, the gentleman in London, to whom the vessel was sent,
and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner, is a name well known
on the coast in connexion with the slave trade?’ Now what is known on
the coast I really cannot pretend to say, but I believe that not many
persons can say that which I can say, that neither myself, nor my
father, nor my grandfather, nor any body in our firm, has ever had any
kind of interest of any sort, or derived any emolument or connexion from
the slave trade. My father had at one time an interest in a bankrupt’s
estate at the Havannah, upon which he was a creditor. There were some
slaves on the estate, and they formed part of the property assignable to
the creditors, and my father got the slaves assigned to him; because the
other gentlemen and the creditors were not of the same opinion, he got
them assigned to him, and made them free; and that is all the connexion
we have ever had with any slaves in the world. I do not know how far
that may be considered irrelevant to the point, but I state it because
we are here mentioned three or four times as connected with slave
dealers, as a name well known in connexion with the slave trade. That
sort of statement is rather a difficult thing to deal with.” “If it is
meant to insinuate by these observations that you ever had any other
connexion with the slave trade, than being the shipping agent of goods
which were sent to a man who was a dealer in slaves, you entirely deny
it?--I assure the Committee, that although I have a general notion as to
what interest Blanco and Martinez have in slaves, yet, if I was put upon
my oath to make any particular statement, I really could not, because I
do not know it. Of course I believe it; but my personal knowledge
amounts only to that which the knowledge of what we read in a newspaper
amounts to.”

Now, gentlemen, we know too the trade of these parties in the Gallinas.
If the prisoner believed that these goods were sent out for the purpose
of carrying on the slave trade, and he did send them out, and you are
satisfied that the name of Jennings was used as a mere cover, and the
whole affair shows his knowledge, then I apprehend he is guilty within
this indictment; and it is no defence to say, “If I were put upon my
oath, I could not swear that the parties were slave dealers, because I
do not know it.” If these goods were sent out in order to accomplish the
trading or dealing in slaves, if that was the object of it, the statute
says it is criminal, and the party is liable to punishment, for that is
all that is ever done in England: the parties who engage in the actual
transactions must necessarily reside in Africa. What was meant to be
prevented, was the sending any thing out from this coast that could be
so used. It is not sufficient to say, “I believe these might be used for
the purpose of slave trading:” that would not affect him.

Then he is asked, “There was nothing upon the face of the transactions
which you had with those parties, which spoke of a connexion with
traffic in slaves?--Nothing whatever.” Why, would any human being
believe that there would be any thing said of the kind? That would of
course be kept secret. The vessel would not reach her destination, if it
was avowed that she was going out for the purpose of slave trading. “It
is well known, that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of
business in Cadiz to insure operations in slave trading. My house at
that time were underwriters, and it was notorious that a policy of that
kind would never enter the doors of our house; and nobody would come to
offer such a thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both here and
in Spain, that we set our faces distinctly against having any interest
of any kind in the slave trade.”

Then it is put as a question: “It is further stated, ‘It appears that it
is a regular thing sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if
they come to England to him, he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out
again to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ Have you any
observation to make upon that?--It is all untrue, the whole of it; I
never received a vessel from those gentlemen; there has been nothing of
the kind.”

The question is: “Have you any thing further to state upon the
subject?--There are several things I have marked; for instance, such as
this, ‘You are not bound to suppose that a man will make a bad use of
that which he purchases.’ If I wished to put my statement upon that
footing, I should have done with it in a moment, for I knew nothing of
the use they were put to. I bought goods, but as to what use was made of
them I knew nothing whatever. But that is not the position which I wish
to assume. It is said here, that we sent goods or vessels to Pedro
Blanco. To that I say, that we never sent either goods or vessels to
Pedro Blanco.” Now that is certainly very extraordinary, for a very
little while before, when the question was put to him, “Have the goods
that Mr. Martinez has ordered to be sent to the Gallinas been all sent
to the same individual?” he answered “No, to different individuals,
sometimes to Pedro Blanco, who was for a certain time an agent of Pedro
Martinez.” Then here he says, “We never sent goods or vessels to Pedro
Blanco.” “In answer to Question 5474, it is said by Mr. Macaulay, ‘I
stated, that it appears that it is a regular thing sending vessels to
him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England to him he sends
them to Cadiz, and they get out again to the Havannah and come again
into the trade. My answer was intended to describe only the course of
that particular transaction, and not to apply to any other case.’ I
never received a single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor
any body for us.” “Then that statement is entirely untrue?--Totally,
from beginning to end; we never did so; and nobody for us, and nobody to
our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in the most distinct
manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay is asked, ‘Have you any
thing further to say with regard to the connexion of Zulueta with the
slave trade?’ The answer is, ‘I would refer to his connexion with the
Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case it appeared that the
vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from London.’ That is the same
vessel as the Augusta, which I have already explained; it formerly bore
the name of Gollupchik.” Then the Chairman says, “Have you been
concerned in the purchase of vessels frequently for Pedro Martinez or
Pedro Blanco?--We have sometimes bought such vessels here as we could
resell at the Havannah, such as the Arrogante, which we have bought.”
“Upon orders?--Partly on orders, and sometimes on our own account on
speculation.” “For what particular trade were they calculated when they
reached the Havannah?--I think for the same trade which they were
calculated for when they were sold here.” “For the conveyance of
merchandise?” The answer is, “As well as anything else. They were sold
here publicly.” There is no doubt that vessels which are fitted for
carrying goods may also be adapted for carrying slaves. Then Mr.
_Forster_ asks the question, “If it was legal for them to be sold here,
you considered that it was legal for you to buy them?--I never had any
doubt of the legality of buying here, or of selling them again
afterwards.” “Mr. _Wood_. But the questions appertaining to the carrying
on of the slave trade do not confine themselves within strictly legal
grounds, but they have other more important considerations attaching to
them?--As to that point there may be a difference of opinion; I would be
very sorry indeed, for the sake of catching the approval of other
persons, to make a disclaimer of any particular set of opinions
whatever; but I believe the only point with which the Committee have to
do, is the legal point. As to the moral point, it seems to me, that I am
to judge of that; upon that point, I think I have stated quite enough,
having stated distinctly that I never had any connexion, nor derived any
profit from the slave trade whatever.”

There are then several questions: in answer to which he states, “That he
never had any thing to do with slave transactions.” Those I leave to my
learned friend to read. Then question 10451 is, “Had you ever employed
Jennings before?--Jennings had had charge of vessels before, chartered
by Martinez, and hence the connexion between Martinez and Jennings.
There are some captains in all trades that make a great deal of
difficulty about every thing, and others that do not; of course
merchants like to deal with those that do not, more than those that do.”
Then the Chairman says: “It would appear from Question 5087, that your
name is supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper as
connected with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page 38, in
Class B, Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred to in the
answer, and see if there is any trace of your name in that
transaction?--I do not find my own name there; I only find an allusion
at the bottom to the name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in no way
connected with me, and stating a circumstance which I never knew. In
Question 7965*, it is stated, ‘The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her
way out from England?’--The answer is, ‘Yes, and landed part of her
cargo at Cadiz, although it was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.’
Now Captain Hill, who has given this answer, must have known why she
touched at Cadiz, and why she discharged part of her cargo; for it must
be in the log-book of the vessel. It was because she was nearly wrecked
in her passage; she put into Cadiz in distress; and there she landed a
part of her cargo, which was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the
benefit of the underwriters. Now that has not been stated here; but I
think Captain Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of
the vessel which he took.” “And the log-book he must have read?--I
should think so; because if he has not done that he has done nothing.
All I mean to say is, that it is an _ex parte_ statement.” “It was not
intended when she left England that she should put into Cadiz?--Most
certainly not; all the facts of the case show that she went there
because she was obliged. I have not seen the log-book, but it must be
there; because in the log-book the captain is bound to enter those
things, and whoever captured the vessel must have seen the log-book of
course. In answer to Question 7967*, it is said, ‘Messrs. Zulueta must
be aware that it is contrary to law to act as agents, or otherwise, for
the shipment of goods that are to be employed in the slave trade; they
were bound to do nothing illegal; they are merchants residing in
England, and they must conform themselves to the laws of England, and
they cannot by the laws of England plead ignorance of those laws.’ Now I
and my partners are British subjects, and therefore we are bound by the
law, and we must obey the law; and I say that to endeavour to elude the
law is criminal in my estimation of things. In the answer to Question
7970*, it is stated, ‘I have endeavoured to be particular in making it
appear that this vessel was chartered to a place where there were no
constituted authorities.’ I think that in the Gallinas there are
constituted authorities. It is the first time that I ever heard that it
is illegal for any merchant to ship goods for any places without
ascertaining beforehand whether there are constituted authorities there.
I believe that if they like to send goods to any place they may do it;
and as to the fact of there being constituted authorities in the place
or not, I do not see what that has to do with the question; besides,
there have been such things as treaties made with persons at the
Gallinas, so that there must be some constituted authorities there. But
I do not know why I should be called upon to know whether there are
constituted authorities at the port or not. Then it is stated, in answer
to Question 7971*, ‘As far as I am able to give my own opinion, I
believe that Messrs. Zulueta were perfectly criminal; at least they had
a knowledge of what they were doing. I think I am borne out in that by
the secrecy they have endeavoured to pursue in putting in a false
owner.’” Then in answer to that observation Mr. Zulueta says, “I have
answered all that before: I state again, that all the secrecy and
mystery of the thing lies in supposing other things different from what
appear. Then it is said, ‘In fact there can be no want of evidence to
show that Messrs. Zulueta had for a length of time been agents to slave
dealers.’ Mr. Blanco and Mr. Martinez may have been engaged, as I have
stated, in slave operations; and I have stated that we conducted their
general business here.”

Mr. _Forster_ then asks: “Is not Pedro Blanco a partner in a commercial
house at the Havannah, who are general merchants?--Yes, I have stated
that before.”

“Captain _Fitzroy_.] Have you ever discounted any bill drawn by Pedro
Blanco on Pedro Martinez & Co. for goods delivered for them on the
African coast at the Gallinas?--I have accepted bills drawn by Pedro
Blanco and others from the Gallinas upon our house, and paid them to the
order of several houses in Sierra Leone and houses in London. I have
paid them in money that I had in my hands resulting from the general
transactions of business which I have explained. But discounting would
be this, if I had paid those acceptances before they were due, and
received some consideration for them; that I never did, but I might have
done it in the case of these bills.” “Were those bills negotiated
through your hands in payment of goods delivered at the Gallinas?--No;
they were drawn generally with the advice attached to them, saying, I
have drawn a thousand pounds upon you for account of Blanco and
Carvalho, or Blanco & Co., at the Havannah.

“Mr. _Wood_.] By whose orders were you desired to honour it; was it by
the order of Pedro Blanco at the Gallinas?--No; by the house at the
Havannah, or by the house at Cadiz; sometimes the one and sometimes the
other. Blanco had a house some time ago in Malaga, as a general
merchant, occupied in shipping the fruits of the country and oil to the
United States, &c. &c. In answer to Question 7961*, the following is
stated:--‘In one of these letters, dated Cadiz, 30th of November, 1840,
is a paragraph to the following effect:--In a letter, dated London, the
21st instant, which I have just received from Messrs. Zulueta & Co.,
merchants in London, I had the pleasure of receiving a bill drawn by you
on them for 250_l._, which I this day place to their credit, waiting
your advice of the same.’ There is here certainly a mistranslation of
some kind, because it says that this man receives a bill upon us, and
credits it to us, which is, of course, contradictory in the very terms
of it; because, if the bill was remitted to this man upon us, he would
have debited it to us, and not credited it.”--I believe it is perfectly
consistent when the letter is produced.--“But altogether there is some
confusion about it; I suppose arising from the mistranslation of the
documents, because the fact is this, the bill is one of the bills I have
already mentioned, drawn from the Gallinas upon ourselves, to the order
of a third party. It is a bill drawn at the Gallinas upon ourselves, on
account of the credit, and therefore it could never have been received
by the person in Cadiz.” That would be explained by a former answer, in
which he says, he had sometimes sent bills of lading on which he had
accepted a bill drawn from him on the Gallinas, and sent it to the house
at Cadiz. He would have just said, This is a bill drawn upon me from
Gallinas; I have accepted the bill, and placed it to your credit.

Question 10459 is: “Can you give the Committee any information upon
this: ‘The other letters,’ nine of them, ‘were all on slave business:
not a word of any innocent trade, but the whole directing how slaves
were to be shipped on board various vessels.’ How do you account for
this vessel carrying letters upon slave business?--I account for it in
this way. First of all, it is impossible for us to answer here what
letters will be put on board a vessel at Cadiz; but there is very seldom
any communication between Cadiz and the Gallinas; whatever letters there
were must have gone by such random occasions as arose. As to the fact
that whoever wrote those letters is engaged in the slave trade, the
letters will speak for themselves.”

“_Chairman._] Those letters were not prepared in the expectation of the
arrival of this vessel, because this vessel was not destined to that
port, and was only driven there by stress of weather?--Most certainly. I
will add one circumstance in proof of that. The vessel was supposed to
have been lost, from the circumstance of a boat having been found upon
the coast with the name of T. Jennings upon it, and it was supposed that
it was a boat belonging to the vessel; it was, in fact, a boat from the
vessel, but the vessel had not been lost; therefore the vessel was
quite unexpected in Cadiz by every soul. It went there from stress of
weather and nothing more. Then it is said in answer to Question 7972*,
‘I think the papers are quite conclusive to the mind of any man that
Zulueta was cognizant of what he was doing; but as far as it is an
illegal transaction, it is not for me to judge; but the Judge of the
Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone did think it illegal, and condemned
the vessel; and moreover, the man who is put forward as captain and
owner did not defend the vessel on her trial.’ Now, as to the statement
of his being a false owner, I have already stated that he was not. But
then, again, with regard to the other part of the business, the man did
not defend it, because he was prevented from defending it.”

With respect to the first part of that answer--it is stated that she put
into Cadiz from stress of weather--the evidence I shall lay before you
is, that when she received injury from the weather (and there is no
doubt there was a storm), she was within two days sail of Cork, and 18
or 19 days from Cadiz. The crew actually resisted; they did not mutiny,
but they opposed going to Cadiz; and it was only on his making the
arrangement that those persons should be discharged at Cadiz, that they
consented to go on. My version, therefore, of the affair is, that she
put into Cadiz, not from stress of weather, but from other reasons.
Ultimately she got there, and there were certain letters put on board
there when she was fortunate enough to get there, addressed to Martinez
& Co., who were engaged in this transaction, who, according to
appearance, were actually charterers of the vessel for Zulueta & Co.,
who gave directions where those goods that were on board were to go.

It appears that there was an objection to answer the question at the
moment, on whom the bills were drawn, and it was deferred to the
following day. On the next day he appeared again, when the Chairman
says, “The Committee understand that you have some further observations
to make upon the evidence which has been given with reference to your
house?” The answer is, “With reference to the destination of the
Augusta, from Liverpool to Gallinas, and the fact of its having put into
Cadiz unforeseen, and unpremeditated altogether, in consequence of
stress of weather, I omitted to mention a circumstance which will put
the thing beyond doubt, and it is this: an insurance was made at Lloyd’s
from Liverpool to the Gallinas, and it is well known that, of course, we
should have forfeited the insurance by going to any other port, except
from the peril of the sea; and the British consul at Cadiz is well aware
of the circumstance, because he is Lloyd’s agent there; and therefore he
had to interfere in the whole proceeding; without his sanction nothing
could have been done. We have called upon the underwriters upon that
account, and it has been paid, and which would not have been paid
without its being proved. I stated yesterday that the transactions of my
house with Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, with Blanco & Carvalho
of the Havannah, and with Pedro Martinez of Cadiz, had amounted in the
20 years to 100,000_l._ I was afraid of over rating the amount, but on
reference to the books of the house, I find that our transactions with
them in 20 years have amounted to 400,000_l._, out of which the
22,000_l._ that was mentioned is the whole amount of goods that have
been shipped by their orders for the coast of Africa.” No doubt,
gentlemen, that is a very serious answer when you have this fact as
coming within general knowledge: it was stated that beyond doubt they
dealt in slaves, and that the whole amount of exports from Africa, as
arising out of transactions to the amount of 400,000_l._ is stated to be
22,000_l._; and that amount of goods from Africa would, no doubt, be in
repayment for the same transactions. “Can you state how much of the
22,000_l._ has accrued within any given period; is it distributed
equally over the whole 20 years, or has it grown up in the last four or
five years?--In the last few years it has decreased, but otherwise it is
spread over the whole number of years. In such a length of time it forms
to our minds a mere speck. In the last six months our transactions with
the house of Pedro Martinez of Cadiz amount to already 30,000_l._, and
with Pedro Martinez of the Havannah, to nearly the same amount. With the
house of Pedro Blanco & Co. of the Havannah, the amount has been
15,000_l._ for what has passed in the last six months, and with the
houses generally at Cuba, throughout the island, it amounts to
100,000_l._ altogether, arising entirely from cargoes of sugar, and from
tobacco, and remittance of bills from there in carrying on banking
operations, upon which they draw again, which are negotiated in the
Havannah and sent to houses in London to cash, and remittances of drafts
on the Spanish treasury at the Havannah, and bills of lading of specie
and bullion, and such things from Mexico. I state these things only to
show the nature of our trade, and I have been particular, because as
these are large amounts I wish to show what they arise from. Another
fact escaped my attention yesterday, and it is this, that Don Pedro
Martinez is owner of several large vessels of 300 tons and 400 tons,
which are in the trade of sugar, tobacco, and such things, with us, in
England and with Cadiz.” I believe the cargo on board the Augusta was
worth about 5,000_l._; I do not know whether this may be considered as
part of this or not; you will judge whether they are to be attributed or
not to Captain Jennings. Then he says, he has bought other
vessels:--“There was the Star, Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent
from here to the Gallinas, precisely the same as the Augusta has been
sent. She delivered her cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I
believe, and from there to Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she
came back to Spain, and she was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not
Martinez, or any body connected with him; in fact, she was sold for very
little. The object of that vessel was just the same as the Augusta, to
maintain a legal trade with Gallinas; that is within my own knowledge.”

“Mr. _Aldam_.] What is the description of legal trade that was carried
on?--Sending out goods to be sold at those places, and to go to other
ports, not to carry any cargo from there to the Havannah.” “There has
been a good deal of evidence, in which it has been stated that no legal
trade is carried on with Gallinas?--I could not say what trade there is
at the Gallinas of a legal nature; but I know that those vessels would
have taken nothing, if there was nothing legal to take, from that place
to the Havannah, or to any other place; I am aware that my answers upon
this point must be deficient, because I am really very ignorant of the
trade of the West Coast of Africa.” “Do you suppose that the vessels
would be used to carry on a legal trade?--Most certainly I do; because
persons find it worth while to send goods there constantly. The
Committee will observe, that what the application of the goods is
afterwards I cannot say, but I speak of the fact of the vessels having
gone there with the intention of returning to the Havannah to bring a
cargo of some description here, to pay a freight, and then to go again
with the same kind of goods to Africa.”

“_Chairman._] You have stated before, that you have cleared out for
the Gallinas from Liverpool?--Yes.” “In carrying on operations of that
kind, should you have ever thought it necessary to exercise any disguise
as to what part of Africa you were clearing out for?--Not at all.” “You
did not imagine, that in being the instrument of sending lawful goods
to any part of Africa you were doing any thing which required
concealment?--Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof of that is, that
in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body could see our names as
consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our own names of every
thing.”

Gentlemen, no doubt this is most important, and if this had been--it is
for you to say whether it was--but if it had been a legal trade, would
it not have appeared in the ship’s papers that this had been shipped by
Messrs. Zulueta the charterers, and consigned to Mr. Martinez? In all
this statement it is said, that it is beyond all question that this was
not a transaction which ought to be concealed, for that their name would
not have appeared in the cockets, the bill of lading, and every thing
connected with it. Now, the fact is, that their name does not appear,
for it only appears as shipped by Thomas Jennings. Now, Thomas Jennings
is the captain; he makes a contract with Zulueta; he is not the person
who ships the things; but in all the ship’s papers, and every thing
connected with them, it all appears as shipped by Jennings, and their
name is not introduced from beginning to end. “Is not there a document,
officially published daily in London and at Liverpool, stating the daily
entries at the Custom-house of all goods shipped, with the description
of the goods, and the name of the port and of the shipper?--Yes, there
is.” I am not aware of any such; but there is none with Mr. Zulueta’s
name as the shipper on this vessel. “Is not this printed from time to
time in the public papers?--It is in general circulation; there is
hardly any merchant in Liverpool or in London who is not possessed of
one. The Liverpool entries are reprinted in London, Liverpool being such
an important place of business. The bill printed in London contains also
Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol.” “So that every such transaction is
perfectly notorious to every one?--Notorious to every one who chooses to
read the public papers. There is another thing which escaped me till I
came into the room this morning. As I have been in the business from my
childhood, I know every thing that is going on an it. The Arrogante,
after we sold her at the Havannah, was sent to Vera Cruz with a cargo of
Spanish paper, spirits, raisins, &c., such as is sent for the South
American trade, for the purpose of breaking the blockade of Vera Cruz,
which she did break and went in. It was asked in Question 7147, whether
the Augusta was equipped for the slave trade the second time; the answer
was, ‘She was not.’ I wish to state, that before any goods were put on
board of her, it was our express wish and order that every thing in her
that was fit for that trade should be taken down, and the vessel put in
the same condition as any other merchant vessel; and we should not have
loaded any thing in her if that had not been done.” Beyond all question:
she could not have gone out of the port of Liverpool if that had not
been done; if she had been fitted up as a slave trader, she would have
been seized before she went out of the port of Liverpool. “It is stated
in the evidence that the Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave
dealers; now we had never in our lives heard of the name of any one of
the parties to whom she was consigned.” That is a most extraordinary
thing. You will see how that is, if the letters are put in. Here are
persons shipping to the Gallinas for two years; there are five persons
there who are slave dealers, and nothing else; the prisoner has
consigned goods there for twenty years, and yet he has never known the
names of three of them as slave dealers. There is a difficulty in that
answer, because he does not remember their names before he sent goods to
them. He is asked, “You mean that the first time you heard their names
was when the order to ship those goods was given to you?--Yes, and the
circumstance of three consignees is a regular thing with distant
consignments, such as South America and Africa. There is such an
uncertainty attending the residence of parties in those places, that we
invariably put a second and a third consignee in addition, in case the
first should not be in the way.” Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “Some bills
were referred to in your former evidence drawn by Mr. Pedro Blanco upon
your house; have you any objection to put those bills before the
Committee?--Not any. And I ought to state now, as I have been looking at
the bills more closely, that they are not all drawn to the orders of
Sierra Leone houses, but to the orders of other Spaniards, and those
people endorsed them to the Sierra Leone houses. This does not alter the
case materially, but for the sake of accuracy I mention it.” “You will
put them in for the inspection of the Committee?--Certainly.--(_The same
were delivered in._)” Then it is said, “You only hesitated in giving the
names yesterday from motives of delicacy, not from any motive of
concealment?--Yes, I do not wish to withhold any thing; but I am
indisposed to introduce any name. I have no wish to conceal any thing
whatever. I have been consulting with my partners upon this subject, and
I have a request to make to the Committee. Our position is one which is
certainly an unpleasant one. I think that what I have stated will have
proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that we have not in any way
intended to elude the law.” Then there is a suggestion that it is not
necessary I should state to you, that if there is any difficulty a new
Act of Parliament should pass.

Gentlemen, I have read to you, I believe, every word of the statement of
Mr. Zulueta which is material to the question. I wished to read it,
because I wish that there should not be the slightest possible ground
for stating that I conceal any thing which he had stated in his own
favour. You are perfectly aware, that where you put in the statement of
any person against him, you take it all; you examine into the truth of
that which is said in his own favour, and the truth of that which makes
against him; you examine the correctness or incorrectness of the whole
from this. It will be for you to say, how far you are satisfied that he
had the means of knowing, and did know, that Pedro Martinez was a slave
trader, dealing in slaves at the Gallinas. If you gather from this that
he knew it, then the next question you will have to decide will be,--Was
this vessel going to the Gallinas for the purpose of supplying the
dealers with goods, the materials for carrying on their business, and
the materials for the use of the slaves while in that situation? for
there is no doubt that that will be an offence within this Act of
Parliament. You are to say, whether he did know it or not. The goods
sent were partly iron pots used for boiling their rice while in
barracoons. Then there are other goods fit for barter with reference to
the exchange of slaves, that being, as far as any evidence can be laid
before you, the only trade carried on at that place: you will say,
whether they were intended to be used for that trade. The question is,
Do you know of any other trade in the Gallinas but the slave trade? The
prisoner did not know of any other trade; he did not pretend to know of
any other. Gentlemen, undoubtedly you cannot look into the mind of any
one; you must judge from the facts; and therefore one material question
you will have to decide is, Was this trade carried on in the way in
which a person would carry on a trade who knew it to be of such a
nature--was it carried on _bonâ fide_, or with a most careful
concealment of the name of Zulueta throughout the whole of this
transaction? If you find there was concealment, you must undoubtedly, as
far as you are able, ascertain whether there was a guilty knowledge. If
a prisoner had been charged with receiving goods knowing them to be
stolen, and it appeared that he had concealed them in the way in which
an honest man would not, that is evidence; so if you are satisfied there
was a course of concealment, and that the name of Jennings, the man who
knew of the affair, was used to cover these goods, they being shipped in
the name of Jennings; if you consider that in the fair ordinary course
of trade that would be evidence of fraud, then you will consider whether
that is not proof that they were sent for the purpose of slave trading.
That is the question to which you must turn your attention. I will lay
the evidence before you: I have opened a part of the evidence, it will
be a question whether any more will be laid before you; if no more is
laid before you, you must take the evidence which will be before you,
and consider whether the goods being sent to these persons engaged in
the slave trade, with the concealment, is not evidence of the intention
of sending them. If the other evidence is laid before you, you will take
the whole, under the direction of the learned Judge, into your
consideration.

Gentlemen, there is one observation I ought to make before I close. My
learned friend has thrown out the question, Who is the prosecutor in
this case? It is quite immaterial, in point of law, who is the
prosecutor; the question is, What is the evidence against the defendant?
But you will not for a moment understand that the prosecutor wishes to
conceal himself or his name. The name of the prosecutor is the attorney
in the case, Sir George Stephen; he is the son of a gentleman whose name
has been known as long as any attempt has existed in this country, as
one deeply interested in the attempt to overthrow the slave trade, and
cause its suppression; and he is the nephew of a man to whom undoubtedly
I should say is due very great praise, it would be hardly too much to
say the greatest praise, in removing the stain which rested upon this
country--I mean Mr. Wilberforce. Sir George Stephen has no fear or
apprehension upon the subject; he has felt it to be necessary and proper
in his judgment, and the judgment of those with whom he is connected and
with whom he has acted, that some person should stand forward to bear
all the responsibility which rested upon any individual in bringing a
case of this kind before you for your consideration. He has no objection
to bear that responsibility; he has performed his duty in this respect.
But that is quite immaterial to the question in this case, which is
simply this,--Is the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty of that
with which he is charged in this indictment? And I mention the name of
Sir George Stephen, because he does not wish to shrink from the
responsibility which rests upon him. You will attend only to the
evidence, and upon the evidence you will give your verdict of guilty or
not guilty. I am sure, if the prisoner is innocent, you will give that
verdict with great satisfaction; but if he is guilty, you will not
shrink from that important duty which rests upon you in giving a
verdict--a verdict of the utmost importance to those human beings for
whose protection you are now sitting. If he is innocent, no feeling of
that description will influence you in giving a feather’s weight to the
prosecution; on the other hand, if you feel that he is guilty, you will
not shrink from saying so by your verdict.


EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.


Captain _Henry Worsley Hill_, R.N. sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant
_Talfourd_.

_Q._ You were formerly the commander of a ship called the Saracen?--_A._
Yes, I commanded her on the coast of Africa.

From what time to what time? Did you command the Saracen on the 1st of
October, 1837?--I commanded her from October, 1837, to June, 1841.

What was the general nature of the service you were engaged upon?--The
protection of British commerce, and the prevention of the slave trade.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. What was the Saracen?--She was a man-of-war, a
brig.

A king’s ship?--Yes.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you become acquainted in the course of that
service with the river Gallinas?--Yes.

How far is the river Gallinas from Sierra Leone?--For large vessels
navigating it is necessary to go round a large tract of shoals, which
makes it 150 or 200 miles; but there is a nearer navigation for smaller
ships and boats. It depends so much upon the draught of water of the
vessel you are navigating.

Is there any town on the river Gallinas?--On the river Gallinas there
are several small towns.

What is the nature of the population there?--The population of the
Gallinas consists of the inhabitants, negroes, they are all blacks; and
the European population are chiefly Spaniards.

Mr. _Kelly_. The European population is principally Spaniards?--Yes,
chiefly so.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. At the time you first became acquainted with
the river Gallinas, were there any barracoons there?--Yes.

How many barracoons were there?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. When was this he is now speaking of?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. When was it?--The river Gallinas was part of my
station in December, 1838; in fact, it was upon my station from
December, 1838, till May, 1841; and I was constantly at Gallinas during
that period.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. When were you first at Gallinas?--I called there
before that in 1837, but I did not land there.

Did you see if there were any barracoons there then?--I did not land
there. I know there were barracoons from hearsay; and I know the slave
trade was extensively carried on.

Mr. _Kelly_. Do not tell us any thing you know from hearsay.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. You did afterwards land there, and became
acquainted with the establishments there?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Is it merely to ascertain the fact of the existence
of barracoons there?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. No; they are destroyed now. They were destroyed
by Captain Denman?--It was in consequence of arrangements made by
Captain Denman. I was there when they were destroyed. I was there, and
saw the whole slave establishments; there were six or seven of them.

When you first knew the Gallinas, were there slave establishments
there?--I was merely cruizing off there to prevent the slave trade. The
slave vessels took their cargoes from there, as I have every reason to
believe.

Mr. _Kelly_. Have the kindness to confine yourself to what you know.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You have been ashore there?--Yes.

What did you see there?--The first time I was on shore there and saw the
barracoons was in November, 1840--

Mr. _Kelly_. There is no doubt of the fact of barracoons being there,
and that they were destroyed.

--I was cruizing off there for two years for the purpose of preventing
the slave trade; but I did not land to see them till 1840, and that was
in November.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. At that time how many slave establishments were
there at the Gallinas?--

Mr. _Kelly_. Do you know it of your own knowledge? Let Captain Hill
distinguish between what he saw and knows to be the fact, and what he
has heard.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Barracoons seem now to be changed into slave
establishments. Do you make any point of that?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, my Lord, I do not; it means the same thing.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Are these barracoons for the slaves?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Are the barracoons used for the purpose of
warehousing the slaves?--They are for confining the slaves before they
are exported.

Is this a plan made by yourself? (_handing a paper to the
Witness_.)--Yes, it is made from my recollection of the river; it has
never been surveyed. I made it from my recollection of the spot.

Does it give a representation of the river Gallinas and the barracoons
upon it?--Yes it does, to the best of my ability. Those places which are
marked black are where the barracoons were, which were destroyed in
consequence of Captain Denman and myself going into them and giving
directions for that purpose.

It represents them as they were before they were destroyed?--Yes.

Just mention them one after the other, and whose they were.

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not know how my learned friend intends to show that
this is evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. That will be for your cross-examination.

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not wish to charge my Lord’s notes with a quantity of
matter that is not evidence. How can this gentleman tell these were the
properties of particular parties? How can he say, upon his oath, that
these are the properties of particular parties?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Do you know who the parties were who were the
owners of these barracoons?--The first place we landed at was
Angeline’s, called Dombocoro; to the best of my belief it was his. I may
go into a house and not know who is the owner; but that it was
Angeline’s I understood from himself.

Mr. _Kelly_. This I must object to. If my learned friend thinks it
necessary to address any question to Captain Hill as to facts that took
place, from which your Lordship or the Jury may infer that any
particular individual was the owner of any particular place or places, I
cannot object to it; but when it is sought to be given in evidence
against Mr. Zulueta, who was never at the place in his life, and never
saw any of the parties, and something is to be built upon the reputation
that existed as to the property of these individuals, I submit to your
Lordships that direct evidence should be given of the fact; and I must
object to the question, what was generally understood as to the
ownership of these barracoons. Any thing he saw, from which an inference
may fairly be drawn, I cannot object to; but I do object to any thing he
prefaces, by saying, “I understood so and so.”

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. The mode of ascertaining who is the owner of
any establishment, is by going there and seeing who is taken to be the
owner.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. I understood that Captain Hill had gone in there
and seen some person there?--No; I learned at Dombocoro.

Mr. _Kelly_. That is not evidence.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. If you wish to show that A. B. is the owner of any
house, you must show it by specific evidence; but there is no point here
as to parties being the owners. One is called Señor Antonio’s, and
another by another name. I do not see why any dispute should be made
about it. If you wish to charge the prisoner with the specific fact of a
particular party being the owner of a building or piece of ground, it
must be proved by legitimate evidence.

Mr. _Kelly_. I wish to deal fairly by my learned friend, and to save
time, which is the object of us all. My learned friend, in his opening
speech, stated that certain parties were notorious slave dealers: now
what may be notorious to any gentleman who hears all the tittle-tattle
that may be spoken at the place is one thing, but what was known to the
prisoner is another thing. The notoriety there is not evidence against
the prisoner. The question will arise, if the fact is proved, whether it
was known to Mr. Zulueta in this country? Let us have the fact there,
and not what was known there?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. How many barracoons were there at this time?--I
had better explain that the barracoons are extensive buildings of
themselves; and the buildings, necessary for the parties to live in to
attend upon the slaves, are numerous. At Dombocoro there may be fifty or
sixty houses, storehouses, and places for the people to live in who look
after the slaves. Tiendo covers a very large space of ground.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I may take it that each barracoon is a slave
building, and that there are storehouses for stores?--Yes; the
barracoons themselves are like large barns to keep the slaves in, and
they contain five or six hundred slaves sometimes.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Are there any other buildings but the
barracoons and the houses for the attendants?--At Dombocoro there are
none other. At Tiendo there is a town just adjoining it: the slave
establishment is towards the point. At Jaiera I saw nothing but the
slave establishments. At Carmatiendo there is a large slave
establishment, and the reputed owner is--

Mr. _Kelly_. Never mind the reputed owner.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Any body might prove that an island was called Juan
Fernandez without proving that he was seized of it in fee.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Is there any thing but a slave establishment
there?--No, I saw nothing else: and the same at Camasuro; and I saw the
same at Paisley: and at one or two of the islands there were some small
slave establishments likewise.

Do you know of any other trade or commerce which is carried on there but
the slave trade?--None other; and I think I was in the whole of the
slave establishments I have mentioned. I went over the whole of them
before they were destroyed, and saw no signs of any trade but the slave
trade.

Having been cruizing off there for some years, should you have known it
if there had been any other commerce carried on but the slave trade?--

Mr. _Kelly_. I object to that question, it is asking the witness to come
to a conclusion, from being on the coast of Africa, that he had become
acquainted with the whole of the commerce. I am quite sure that the last
answer of the witness cannot be correct.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. I submit to your Lordships that my learned
friend cannot be correct in stating that the witness is not correct.

Mr. _Kelly_. I will prove it.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I have taken down the substance of what he has been
saying, and it is this: He mentions five or six places where there are
barracoons with the appurtenances; and “except at one or two, where
native towns are near, I saw no sign of any other trade but the slave
trade.” You were cruizing off there to watch the trade?--Yes.

Did you know of any trade but the slave trade?--No, the native king told
me there was no other.

Mr. _Clarkson_. Never mind what the native king told you.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. We cannot even take the word of a king, so extreme
is our repugnance to hearsay evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Do you know a merchant there of the name of
Ignatio Rolo?--He was on board the Saracen for some two or three days.
Captain Denman had taken a slave vessel--

Do you know of your own knowledge what his occupation was there?--I
never saw him buy a slave, nor did I see him sell one; but as far as
knowing the course of trade, I should say he was a slave dealer, and
solely and only a slave dealer; but I never saw him buy one. Jaiera was
his slave establishment, and there was no sign of any thing but the
slave trade.

And there he resided himself?--I never saw him there. I understood from
him that he did: in the first instance he denied it.

Mr. _Kelly_. Do not tell us what he denied. I must once for all take his
Lordship’s opinion whether this course of evidence can be persisted in.
I am extremely sorry to consume time, but it is essentially necessary
for the interests of justice that the prisoner should be protected from
answers of this kind. It seems that Captain Hill thinks it his duty,
instead of answering the question put to him, to state any thing that
occurs to his own mind.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I cannot say that he seems to give answers quite
connected with the subject; but he is not so well acquainted with what
we exclude in evidence as you are.

Mr. _Kelly_. I only wish once for all, if he would be good enough to
understand, that he is not to repeat what he heard; what he saw no one
can object to; what conversations he had with other people can form no
ground of charge against a party not upon the spot. --I was speaking of
a conversation I had with Ignatio Rolo himself, he acknowledged to me he
lived there.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. We cannot admit that.

Mr. _Kelly_. I am not blaming Captain Hill, but I am only reminding him
of his duty as a witness not to repeat whatever he heard.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. He has not stated whatever he learnt from any
party: if you push that to the extreme point, how is a witness to be
allowed to say that he was examined in Court by Mr. Kelly?

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not push it to that extent.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Did you see Ignatio Rolo in any occupation--No; the
way I saw him was this, Captain Denman had seized a slave vessel, and he
had sent it up in charge of a prize officer and crew.

Mr. _Kelly_. If I cannot induce Captain Hill to confine himself merely
to answering the questions, I must object. It is singular that when your
Lordship puts a question, and Captain Hill has answered it, he goes on
to enter into a story about Captain Denman and a slave vessel. I object
to that; we cannot go into evidence of what Captain Denman had done
about a slave vessel; all he knows is mere rumour.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. When was it you first saw Ignatio Rolo?--I
myself landed there in the month of November, a day or two previous to
our going into the river Gallinas, in order to make some arrangements
with the chiefs, owing to the interruption that had been offered to us.

Was there any establishment there called by his name?--None; but Jaiera
was the name of the establishment.

Did you ever see him there?--No.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You saw him somewhere?--Yes, he came on board a
slave vessel, and was there detained by the prize officer.

What is Ignatio Rolo?--To the best of my belief he is a Spaniard; an
European, to the best of my knowledge. I never saw him in Spain.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Do you know a person named Don José Alvarez
there?--I was not personally acquainted with him; I only knew him by
name.

Did you know a merchant named Don Ximenes?--I saw him at Sierra Leone;
and I learnt from him--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Are you going to prove that the river Gallinas was
a slave trading place?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Yes, my Lord.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. There is enough evidence of that.

_Foreman of the Jury._ We are quite satisfied of that.

Mr. _Kelly_. There is no doubt that where there are barracoons, there is
slave dealing; but whether these individuals were slave dealers I do not
know. Let that be proved in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you fall in at any time with a vessel
called the Golupchik?--Yes.

When was that?--I fell in with her several times, and chased her; and
ultimately captured her in April 1839.

Under what colours was the Golupchik then sailing?--Russian.

Who was it had the command of her?--It was Thomas Bernardos.

Of what nation was the crew composed?--They were Spaniards principally;
there might be a few Portuguese.

Was there any thing in the fitting up of that vessel, which enabled you
to judge in what trade she was engaged?--She was fitted up for the slave
trade.

Have you any doubt of it?--No.

What was the nature of the fittings up?--I have the report of the Mixed
Commission Court, which would be the best evidence.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, it would not.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. What were the fittings up, which to your eyes
indicated her as a slave vessel?--She had more water-casks than are
necessary for an ordinary trading vessel.

What is the size of them?--They are large vessels; they are called
leagers.

They are called leagers?--Yes; but any vessel may have a leager; but she
had a larger quantity than any ordinary merchant vessel, and that is one
of the articles prohibited to be used by our treaties with foreign
powers.

What else did you observe?--She had a sliding caboose to hold a very
large copper; that is another of the prohibited articles. She had also
gratings covered over with temporary planks; and a few other trifling
things, quite sufficient, according to our treaties with foreign powers,
to authorise me to seize her as a vessel fully equipped for the slave
trade, had she been under the Spanish flag. I seized her, believing her
to be a Spanish vessel, though under the Russian flag.

The crew were principally Spaniards?--Yes; and it did not appear that
she had been in a Russian port for two years.

What did you do with the vessel?--I sent her to Sierra Leone, and tried
to prosecute her in the Mixed Commission Court as a Spanish vessel; but
she was not received into that Court, being under the Russian flag, and
with Russian papers. I afterwards determined to send her to England,
that the Court of Admiralty might dispose of her, as I felt satisfied
she could not be a Russian vessel.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You sent her to England to be condemned?--Yes, and
before that I obtained from Bernardos--

Mr. _Kelly_. You are not asked what you obtained from Bernardos.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did Bernardos go in her?--Yes. I tried her a
second time in the Mixed Commission Court.

We cannot enter into that. Did you afterwards see the same vessel again
under another name?--Yes.

When was that?--In February 1841.

Where was she at the time?--Close to the Gallinas; at anchor at
Gallinas: she anchored as I went on board.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Under what name?--The Augusta; and under the
English flag.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Are you quite certain it was the same vessel
you had captured before?--Yes, quite certain.

Who did you find in command of the vessel at that time?--A man of the
name of Jennings.

In consequence of any suspicions you entertained, did you make
application to him for the ship’s papers?--I asked for the ship’s papers
directly I went on board--

Mr. _Kelly_. I must object to any thing that passed between the witness
and Captain Jennings; the fact I do not object to.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You do not object to the fact of his asking for and
getting the papers?

Mr. _Kelly_. No; but it must be the fact alone. I never interpose when
the Captain states facts.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Did you ask for the ship’s papers?--

Mr. _Kelly_. To that I have no objection, and I do not object to the
question of my learned friend; but it is the only way I have of warning
Captain Hill not to give us other people’s statements.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you obtain the papers in the first
instance?--Yes; on going on board it is my duty to demand them, and I
received them on board.

Were there any other papers subsequently given to you by Jennings, or
did you receive them all at once?--I received other papers afterwards; I
received the ship’s papers in the first instance.

Mr. _Kelly_. Confine your answer to the question.

--It is necessary to explain.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, not at all.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. You received some papers in the first
instance?--Yes; the vessel’s papers on demand. I had demanded them, and
on being refused by Captain Jennings to answer a question which he was
bound to answer to the commander of a British man-of-war, I insisted
upon its being answered, and said I should detain the vessel till it
was; and that question was to whom did the vessel--

Mr. _Kelly_. Here I must interpose; and unless Captain Hill is to be the
sole judge of what is to be admissible evidence, I ask your Lordship to
interpose, or to hear me and dispose of my objection. I cannot complain
of my learned friend; he puts nothing but perfectly regular questions.
Captain Jennings is not my client here.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You gave back the ship’s papers to Captain
Jennings, and afterwards you insisted upon having these papers, or
having some more?--I insisted upon having the question answered to whom
the vessel was consigned.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. He has a right to ask that; that is a question
which the captain is bound to demand of him, to whom he is consigned.

Mr. _Kelly_. I am quite well aware that in your Lordship’s hands I am
quite safe; and if Captain Jennings had committed a murder on this
occasion, it would not upon your Lordship’s minds produce any influence;
but it is impossible to tell, knowing that Jennings was the captain of
the vessel, and that the prisoner at the bar may have had some hand in
the fitting it up, what influence it may have upon the minds of the Jury
if we are to have conversations or recognitions, supposing there to have
been any made by Captain Jennings; and all this done in the absence of
Mr. Zulueta, who had no knowledge of it or control over it. If I at all
understand it to be your Lordship’s impression, that any thing said or
done by Captain Jennings is evidence, having made the objection I have
nothing further to submit to your Lordships; but I do conceive, that
nothing done by Captain Jennings long after the vessel sailed, and long
after the offence, if any, was committed, is admissible. I do feel it my
duty to ask, whether evidence is to be received of what was said and
done by Captain Jennings months after the departure of the vessel from
this country?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not entertain either of those two opinions.
You do not put two cases which exhaust all other possible cases, but you
say if I am of opinion that every thing said and done by Captain
Jennings is evidence, you say no more; you say nothing. But I do not
think that the thing is evidence, because Captain Jennings says it; nor
do I think we can say, that nothing that Captain Jennings said can be
evidence in the course of the trial. But with respect to what we have to
decide, it is not whether there is such a large and general rule as
that, but whether this question falls within any rule that excludes it.
I think it does; I think what Captain Jennings said on that occasion is
not admissible in evidence. If Captain Hill demands some other papers
from him, that fact may be given in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you afterwards receive some other papers
from Captain Jennings on board?--Yes, I received a packet.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Is the clerk here from the Court of Admiralty?

Mr. _Kelly_. I take for granted that the papers to be produced in Court
are the papers given to this gentleman by Captain Jennings.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes, they have been produced before; we shall
want them in a moment.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. What steps did you take upon receiving these
papers?--I took the papers on board my own vessel on purpose to read
them. It was towards the close of the evening I received them, and I
sent an order on board the Saracen that an officer and a certain number
of men should be sent to me, and I entrusted that officer with the
charge of the vessel.

Did you, in consequence of the view you took afterwards, detain the
vessel?--Yes, I detained the vessel.

She was afterwards taken, I believe, to Sierra Leone?--Yes.

Did you prosecute her there?--

Mr. _Kelly_. I must object to all this--

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. I thought that that might be taken as a fact;
the evidence of Mr. Zulueta before the Committee is in evidence; and
there it is stated that the vessel was condemned, because Captain
Jennings had no funds to defend her: I thought I might take that as a
fact.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, nothing of the kind; I object to any evidence of the
proceedings in Sierra Leone respecting this vessel. Mr. Zulueta, as it
appears by what is in evidence, namely, his own statement before the
Committee of the House of Commons, was the agent of Messrs. Martinez &
Co. for the purchase of this vessel, and afterwards the shipment of the
goods, but was no party at all to any proceeding, judicial or
otherwise, which took place in Sierra Leone. Now judicial proceedings,
in which there is a judicial sentence, are no doubt evidence, and may be
very important evidence against the parties to those proceedings; but I
apprehend as that was a proceeding to which Mr. Zulueta was no party,
they are not evidence against him here.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. We need not argue that; I only put the question
in order to trace the vessel.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. At present he says the vessel was sent to Sierra
Leone; that was all, I believe?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, he was going on to talk about the proceedings in Sierra
Leone.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. There were some proceedings there?--She was
condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court there.

Was she sent to England afterwards?--I have seen nothing of her since.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

Though you were for some two or three years cruizing upon the coast of
Africa, it was not till November 1840 you landed at Gallinas--I landed
upon the island there for half an hour previous to that time.

With that exception, I believe you had not landed there before
that?--No.

You have spoken of slave establishments; are there not villages or
towns, whatever names are given to them up the river?--It is necessary
to mention--

You will greatly oblige me if you will answer the question. Is it the
fact, that there are several towns and villages up the river?--It is
necessary for me to explain. If you know nothing of the river Gallinas
that question may imply more than I can answer. The river Gallinas
extends some distance into the interior as I believe: I have been up it
ten or a dozen miles, and I know that there is the native village of
Mera, another of Tardia, and another of Tinda.

That is exactly what I am asking.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is a very harmless statement.

Mr. _Kelly_. I was going to ask him how far he had gone up the
river?--At least twelve miles.

As far as you have gone, there were towns?--There were villages.

Was the river navigable further up?--Do you mean further than I went?

Yes.--I cannot say; I should think not from the appearance of it, except
by canoes.

It is navigable for canoes, so that the population of the place can pass
further up?--I cannot say.

Did you ever see canoes higher up?--I could not see them.

If you were ten miles up, you can say if you saw canoes beyond that
distance?--I did not see any. I think from the appearance of the river
as high as I went, it is navigable for canoes; but I never saw any
there.

You were upon this coast for the protection of British commerce and the
prevention of the slave trade?--Yes.

Did not that British commerce consist among other things of the
exportation of the merchandise of Britain to various places on the coast
of Africa?--Certainly.

Do you not know that British merchandises, sometimes in British vessels,
and at other times in other vessels, were exported to a very
considerable extent to various parts of the coast of Africa?--Certainly,
I do.

Now with respect to the Gallinas, do I understand you to say that no
British merchandises were exported there, except for the purposes of the
slave trade?--Any British merchandise exported there from the Gallinas?

No, I said imported into the Gallinas.--That question was not asked me.

Do you not know that British merchandise to a considerable extent was
from time to time exported to the Gallinas in a lawful manner?--I have
known English vessels arrive at the Gallinas and part with a little of
their cargo; but I never knew an instance before the Augusta of a vessel
arriving at the Gallinas consigned to deliver her cargo there.

I ask you, whether you have known of various British vessels, containing
British merchandise, arriving there for a lawful purpose?--I have known
one or two English vessels dispose of a part of their cargoes there; but
I doubt its being for a legal purpose, because I am satisfied there is
no export from the Gallinas but slaves, and therefore I do not think it
could be lawful.

You say you have known them land part of their cargo there?--I have
known them sell part of it.

And you gave as your reason for doubting whether it was for a lawful
purpose, because you are not aware of any merchandise that is exported
from there in return?--I said I should doubt whether it was lawful,
because there was no produce in exchange for it.

Have you never known an instance of ivory and palm-oil being exported
from Gallinas?--Never, and I believe it never was during the time I was
there.

I am asking your experience; I will come to your belief presently. You
say you doubt whether British merchandise has ever been landed there for
lawful purposes; is that so?--I have given my reason for doubting it.

Is it so, that you doubt whether it was ever landed for any purpose?--I
am speaking of the time I was there.

I am asking you about your own experience; of course that must be while
you were there. You say you have never known any British produce landed
that you did not doubt the legality of its purpose; is that so?--Yes;
because there was no produce to be lawful given in exchange; no produce
that I met with.

Allow me to ask you, was there any thing illegal in the landing of
British produce for the use of the native chiefs, or the inhabitants of
those towns and villages you speak of?--You are asking me my opinion?

Yes; you say you doubt the legality of it?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. That is a question of law.

--That is a question I cannot presume to answer.

Mr. _Kelly_. As the gentleman has given me his doubts, I wished to know
the reason for them.--I have seized this vessel, because I conceived her
freight to be illegal.

Do you remember a vessel called the Gil Blas?--I have seen her.

Did she not land goods at the Gallinas?--Yes: if she is the vessel I
mean, she was commanded by a man of the name of Serjeant, and he landed
some goods there; he gave me to understand so.

Was the Gil Blas there at the time your vessel was there?--Yes.

And you did not think it necessary to seize the Gil Blas?--No.

Do you know for whom any goods were landed?--I am only speaking from
what I understood from him when I learned it. I do not know to whom he
delivered them; but he gave me to understand he sold them to Pedro
Blanco; but I was not present. I am only speaking to my belief.

Did this man, about that time, make you any present?--Serjeant brought
out from Pedro Blanco a dozen fowls and a sheep for me, which I was very
glad of. I had never seen Pedro Blanco in my life. I had had no fresh
provisions for some time, and I was very glad to accept the fowls and
the sheep, which he told me had come from Marseilles in a vessel which
had taken some slaves. The sheep I gave to the Judge of the Mixed
Commission Court.

How long was the Gil Blas off there?--I do not know, perhaps a day.

Tell me the name of any other vessel that was out there landing goods,
which you did not seize?--I do not remember any.

Were you there at the time the Star was there?--I do not remember the
name. I do not recollect seeing her. I am sorry I have not the
boarding-book here, or I could tell you.

Do you remember the Laburnum?--No.

The Milford?--No.

Do you not know that the Milford landed a large quantity of goods at the
Gallinas?--Not to my knowledge.

Or the Sublime?--Not that I know of.

How long were you so near to the river Gallinas, or within it, as to be
able to know from your own observation what quantity of goods, if any,
was landed?--My cruizing ground was extensive. I was a good deal at the
Gallinas, because it was a notorious slave place, but I had many other
places to visit.

You are not answering my question. I ask you how long you were within
the river, or within sight of it, so as to know what quantity of goods
were landed?--It was part of my cruizing ground; sometimes I would be
there for two or three days at anchor, then I would be away a month or
two, and then back again for two or three months; sometimes I was
continually there.

Can you give me any idea of the population upon these banks of the river
with which you were acquainted? You say you went twelve miles up; what
was the extent of the whole population?--I can only answer from guess. I
should say, at Tiendo, the population might be eight or nine hundred;
at Tardia, one or two hundred; at Mena, seven or eight hundred. There is
another native town, which I do not know the name of, further down the
river; but it is not thickly populated by any means.

You say you were stationed upon the coast of Africa for the protection
of British commerce: as far as your experience goes, was not that
British commerce to the coast of Africa exceedingly serviceable to the
natives?--That depends upon what way it is employed. If it is to be
employed in the slave trade, it is doubtful whether it is serviceable.

I am not asking you a speculative question of that description: you were
there for the protection of British commerce, and it is a plain
question. I ask you, in your judgment, founded upon your experience, was
British commerce serviceable to the natives upon the coast of
Africa?--Are you taking the whole of the coast of Africa, or confining
it to the Gallinas?

I am confining it to the parts you are acquainted with?--That was all
the coast of Africa, from Portendique round to Madagascar; if you are
taking in all that, undoubtedly British commerce must be a great benefit
to Africa.

Let me ask you another question, and that I may not take you by
surprise, I may tell you that I am taking it from the book in which you
gave your evidence; I ask you, from your experience upon the coast of
Africa, whether, in many places, a lawful trade was not carried on to a
considerable extent by some persons, who likewise carried on the slave
trade?--By the same persons, or in the same places?

I say the same persons?--I have not seen the persons trading, and I
cannot tell.

Though you have not seen them trading, you may be able to answer the
question?--I do not hesitate in telling you, that in many places on the
coast of Africa, the same trade was carried on both for slaves and in
exchange for the produce of the country, but at the Gallinas I do not
think there was any trade of that kind.

In many places, the same trade was carried on in the lawful trade and
the slave trade by the same persons?--Yes; lam speaking of hearsay; but
I am as confident it was not so at the Gallinas, as one can be confident
from having been at the place.

The experience which leads you to think it has not been so at Gallinas
is from your own knowledge, being on the spot?--I have already stated I
have been a great deal there, and during that time I saw no other trade,
nor the sign of any other trade, than the slave trade.

We are here dealing with a gentleman who was never at the Gallinas, and
I am asking you a question founded upon your experience: you say you
believe no lawful trade was carried on there, as there was at other
places; I ask you, whether the knowledge you have acquired, which leads
you to suppose that European trade was carried on, was derived from your
own knowledge of the persons?--Yes.

Allow me to ask you, are the officers of the navy in your own
distinguished situation entitled to share in the value of the vessels
which they seize, and which happily for them are condemned?--Yes they
are; certainly.

To what extent: suppose you were to seize a vessel and cargo of the
value of 10,000_l._, what would be your own share?--I should imagine the
vessel in question--

I want to know, if you seize a ship and cargo of the value of
10,000_l._, 5000_l._ each, what is the share, if that vessel is
condemned for being engaged in the slave trade, that the commanding
officer seizing it is entitled to?--You must tell me the port she is to
be condemned in; it makes a considerable difference; if it is in the
Mixed Commission Court, that makes a very considerable difference, or if
it is in the Vice-Admiralty Court.

Take it as being condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court?--Half the
proceeds go to the Crown, and the other half to the captors, after all
the expenses are paid.

You say half goes to the Crown, if condemned in the Vice-Admiralty
Court?--This vessel--

I am not asking you about any particular vessel.--It depends upon the
different Acts under which she is condemned.

Forget for a moment this vessel the Augusta, if you can, and suppose a
vessel under British colours is seized in the African seas by an officer
in your own situation, and is condemned in the English Vice-Admiralty
Court for a breach of the English law, how is the value divided?--Half
goes to the Crown, and the other half, after the expenses are paid, is
divided amongst the captors; the admiral gets one-sixteenth, and the
captain one-eighth of the remainder.

Suppose she is condemned by the Mixed Commission Court?--I believe it is
nearly the same in the Mixed Commission Court; but half goes to the
nation under whose flag she is sailing.

The Mixed Commission Court is a court composed of commissioners of two
nations, or various nations, and who have to determine the cases of
foreign vessels not British, Spanish for instance?--Yes; I think that is
the division after the nation under whose flag she is sailing; but under
the Act that was passed authorising us to seize Portuguese vessels, and
to prosecute them in the Vice-Admiralty Court, I do not know how the
proceeds were divided.

It is a Mixed Commission Court which decides upon the Spanish or
Portuguese ships; and the British Vice-Admiralty Court decide upon a
vessel under the British flag?--Yes.

Are not Spanish vessels prohibited from being navigated by British
captains? Did you ever see a vessel under the Spanish flag navigated by
a British captain?--I never recollect seeing one.

Now, as to the vessel in question, the Augusta; you say when she bore
the name of the Gollupchik, she was in every respect fitted up for the
slave trade?--Not in every respect; I do not think she had a slave-deck
laid.

I correct myself: she was in many respects fitted up for the slave
trade?--Yes.

And that led you to seize her?--Yes.

When she came to England, and was claimed by the Russian authorities,
do you know whether they succeeded in their claim?--I know nothing of
her; I sent her to England.

You do not know whether she remained in English hands, or was delivered
up to the Russian government?--I was on the coast of Africa at the time.
I have received nothing from the Vice-Admiralty Court in respect of her.

To a certain extent, to the extent to which you have described her, she
was, when you seized her under Russian colours, fitted up for a slave
vessel?--Yes.

When she bore her name of the Augusta, and was in the hands of Captain
Jennings, was she then fitted up for the slave trade?--Not in my
opinion; and I did not seize her for that, but for her freight: at least
I saw nothing; I do not know what might be under her cargo.

I did not ask you what you did not see; it is the very thing I have been
objecting to a hundred times over: I ask you what you did see. You have
said two or three times that you were three years upon this coast; to
what extent of coast did your cruizing extend?--From December, 1838,
until April or May, 1841. The Gallinas was within my station in the
first instance. I had charge of the station under Admiral Palmer. Then
there was another officer appointed.

I do not wish to go into the whole history of your service; but have the
goodness to confine yourself to the question: over what extent of coast
did the whole performance of your duties extend?--It depended upon the
nature of the orders I received.

Was it altogether 1,000 miles of coast or 500 miles, from 1837, when you
began, till 1841? Was the whole extent of coast, over which at various
periods your service extended, 1,000 miles?--From October, 1837, till
December, 1838, I was on the coast at different periods from Sierra
Leone as far as Madagascar: but from December, 1838, until I left the
coast of Africa in June, 1841, I was confined to the coast between Cape
Palmas, Portendique, and the Cape de Verd Islands: from December, 1838,
till June, 1841--

What extent of coast is that?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. How many degrees of latitude is it?

--It is about 1,000 miles I should say.

Mr. _Kelly_. During that period you acquired some experience, I presume,
in the nature of the British commerce carried on upon the coast of
Africa: let me ask you, whether the sort of articles of British
commerce, exported to Africa during that period, were not gunpowder,
muskets, tobacco, brandy, and cotton goods?--Oh, yes.

And iron articles?--I do not think it is possible to distinguish the
articles intended for the slave trade, from the articles intended for
legal commerce.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The articles sent in both instances are welcome to
the African consumers?--Yes; I am speaking of the West Coast of Africa;
I cannot speak to other parts of the coast; I do not think it is
possible to distinguish them.

What people want in Africa is determined by that which they receive, and
whether they pay for it in coin or in produce only, the same thing would
be welcome?--Yes.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Just as if you were to ask, why do people give bank
notes in England for guineas or sovereigns: it is just what they want.

Mr. _Kelly_. With regard to these articles you have mentioned, when
exported to various parts of Africa, is the return made sometimes in
doubloons or money, and sometimes in ivory, dye-wood, palm oil, and
other commodities produced there?--If you will let me answer the
question in my own way, I can do it more satisfactorily. Where goods are
landed, and doubloons are obtained in exchange, the doubloons come from
the Spaniards, and I never knew a Spaniard engaged in any trade upon the
coast of Africa but the slave trade: when you get produce in exchange,
it is more likely you get that from the natives.

Do you mean to say, that the Spaniards who trade upon the coast of
Africa do not give produce for the merchandise that goes there; I am not
speaking merely of the Gallinas?--I think I know of but one, and I do
not know whether he is a Spaniard or not. I can mention his name, it is
Carrote; I think he exported palm oil as well as slaves; but he told me
he was an agent to Pedro Blanco.

Do not tell us what he told you: what I ask you is, whether a return is
not sometimes made in ivory and palm oil, and dye-woods?--The question
calls for an answer which I cannot give in a satisfactory manner.

You do not do justice to your own understanding.--I wish to give you
every information.

You never saw any of the house of Zulueta & Co. in the course of your
travels on the coast of Africa?--Never to the best of my recollection.

Do you know any of them?--No: I saw Mr. Zulueta before the Committee of
the Privy Council for the first time.


Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_.

You have been asked if you saw any slave fittings when you seized the
Augusta; did you take up any of the cargo?--No, I did not; I went into
the hold.

Do you know whether the slave fittings were what could be taken to
pieces and stowed away?--The hatches were grated when I first seized
her. When I seized her the second time she had new hatches and no
gratings at all. I saw nothing to induce me to believe she had slave
fittings when I seized her as the Augusta, though I had heard that.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The learned Serjeant is asking you not what you
heard, but what you looked for; you searched to see if there were slave
fittings?--Yes; so far as going down into the hold. I did not disturb
the cargo; I do not know what was in her.

You did not find any leagers?--No.

Are you able to say whether she was or was not fitted for the slave
trade?--If she was equipped for it I should have seized her at once; but
she was not.

You saw enough of her to see that she was not equipped for the slave
trade?--Certainly; she had not slave equipments, leagers, hatches with
open gratings, or irons, or coppers, or any of those things.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. How long were you on board the vessel?--The
first day a couple of hours, and the next day about the same time. I was
on board her three or four times.

Can they get the equipments after they come into port when they
discharge their cargo?--Yes, in many places they can; I can give you an
instance of an American vessel--

Can the fittings be obtained there after the discharge of a vessel like
the Augusta?--

Mr. _Kelly_. Where?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. At the place where the cargo is
discharged.--The only way in which I can answer that question is this;
if an agent at Gallinas expects a slave vessel to come out without
equipments, he may take care to procure them from other vessels, and may
have them perfectly ready: I can give an instance of that--

Mr. _Kelly_. Never mind that.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. How long would it take to put on board slave
equipments in a vessel of the size of the Augusta?--A very short time:
they may send out the water-casks filled with water in two or three
canoes; and if they do not choose to lay down a slave deck, they put
mats upon the casks, and it is done in a very short time. They may
embark 500 slaves in a couple of hours or upwards and be off.

_Foreman of the Jury._ One of my brother jurors wishes to ask this
question of the witness through your Lordship: when he went on board the
Augusta, whether he found any thing on board her to warrant her being
supposed to be fitted out as a slave vessel?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. He says he did not; that has been pursued for some
time; and now in answer to questions put to him, the gentleman was
saying, though she was not fitted out in that way, that her goods might
be landed, and slaves might be put on board, in a few hours.--I can
say--

Mr. _Kelly_. I object to these speeches: I object to this gentleman, who
thinks because he has seized this vessel that if any thing falls from
the Jury, or from one of her Majesty’s judges, that he may begin making
a speech. There has been a great deal said that is not evidence: that
every body must feel; but it is impossible to stop him, although a
gentleman as respectable as himself is under trial.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. You have been asked about the share which the
captain has in the capture of a vessel of this description; do you
accurately know what share you would have under the circumstances?--Yes;
what I have stated is the share: half the proceeds go to the Crown, and
after the admiral has had his share, the remaining half is divided.

What would be your share of this vessel the Augusta?--I believe the
proceeds amounted to about 3,800_l._; one-half goes to the Crown, and
there are the expenses of the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, which are not paid.

Have you got any thing?--No, not a sixpence.

Do the expenses swallow up?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. 1,900_l._ is the half; the captain gets one-eighth
of fifteen-sixteenths?--There are several hundred pounds to come out of
it for the Privy Council appeal, that has not been paid yet.--

Mr. _Clarkson_. You must not say any thing, unless you are asked a
question.

Mr. _Kelly_. I shall let him talk on till he is tired after what I have
said.


Mr. _John Brown_ sworn. Examined by Mr. _Payne_.

Do you come from the Admiralty Court?--Yes.

Do you produce any documents?--Yes, I do.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. The first document we want is the letter of the
20th August, 1840, from Zulueta & Co. to Captain Jennings?--Will you
allow me to hand you a schedule of the different documents; they are
numbered according to that. (_The Witness handed in the same._)

Mr. _Payne_. Nos. 14 and 17 are what we want. (_The Witness handed in
two papers; one being a letter, dated 20th August, 1840._)

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_ (_to_ Captain _Hill_.) Look at this letter and
see if it is one of the letters you found on board the Augusta?
(_handing the same to the Witness_.)--Yes, that is one; there is my
handwriting upon it.

(_To_ Captain _Hill_.) Look at this also (_handing another paper to
him_), the signature appears to be cut off, and say if it is in the same
state as when you found it?--Yes, it is in the same state as when I
found it on board the Augusta; the signature was then cut out.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_ (_to_ Mr. _Brown_.) Now produce the
charter-party, Nos. 11 and 12. (_The Witness produced the same._)

(_To_ Captain _Hill_.) Just look at these two papers (_handing them to
the Witness_), and see if they are two of the papers which were found on
board?--Yes, they are.

Mr. _Kelly_ (_to_ Captain _Hill_.) You have looked at these three or
four papers, and you say they are the papers you found on board the
vessel?--They are papers given to me by the master: I did not find them
by searching.

Were they given to you on board the vessel?--Yes, by the master.

Did you put any mark upon them?--Yes, you will see a mark on the back;
that is what I looked at in the first instance when they were handed to
me.

Is this it? (_pointing to a mark on the paper_.)--It is a pretty large
number upon the paper: that is my handwriting.


Mr. _Abrao De Pinna_ sworn. Examined by Mr. _Payne_.

Will you look at this letter, and tell me if you know the handwriting of
the postscript at the end? (_handing a paper to the Witness_.)

Mr. _Kelly_. What is the date of it?--24th of September, 1840.

Mr. _Payne_. Whose handwriting is that postscript?--I presume it to be
Mr. Zulueta’s.

Do you believe it to be?--Yes.

Mr. _Kelly_. Which of them?--The father.

Mr. _Payne_. Do you believe it to be his writing?--Yes.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You say the father; is that the prisoner?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. No, the father of the prisoner.

Mr. _Payne_. Look at that (_handing another paper to the Witness_), and
tell me if you know the handwriting; that is, the 20th of August?--It
looks like the handwriting of Zulueta the son.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. What is the date?

Mr. _Payne_. The 20th of August, 1840. Just look at this memorandum on
the charter-party; look at the signature to that charter-party: do you
know the handwriting of that document?--I suppose that one to be the
signature of Mr. Zulueta the son.

Do you believe it to be so?--Yes; the other I do not know.

  (_The Letters and the Charter-party were handed in._)

Mr. _Payne_. Do you know the handwriting of the body of that first
letter of which I showed you the postscript?--I did not pay sufficient
attention to it. With your leave I will look again. (_It was again
handed to the Witness._) I do not know it.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

I believe you are the notary to the Spanish consul in this city?--I am.

Have you known the house of Zulueta for any length of time?--For some
years.

During that time has the prisoner Pedro de Zulueta, like the rest of his
firm, maintained a high character for integrity and propriety of
conduct?--The highest, the very highest character; and unimpeachable to
the best of my knowledge.

To the best of your knowledge, from their character and the character of
their dealings, do you believe them to be wilfully capable of violating
the law?--

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. No, I object to that question.

Mr. _Kelly_. Has their character been that of violators of the law, or
the reverse?--As far as my knowledge goes, I should say that it was
perfectly impossible that the house of Zulueta & Co. should be violators
of the law.

Have you ever had any transactions in business with that house?--Yes.

Do you know that they act as agents for various houses in Spain, the
Havannah, and other places?--Yes.

Do you know that they have for a great many years carried on business to
a great extent indeed?--Yes, I do.

Perhaps you may happen to know that vessels under the Spanish flag
cannot be commanded by English captains?--

Mr. _Payne_. Do you know any thing about it?

Mr. _Kelly_. Do you know that?--My impression is, that that is the case.

How long have you been a notary?--I have been admitted about twenty
years.

Are you a native of Spain?--A native of this country.

Where did you acquire your knowledge of the Spanish language?--In this
country.

Have you had a good deal to do with the commercial and maritime affairs
of Spain?--Yes, very largely; my connexion is almost exclusively
Spanish.

In your experience, have you ever known a Spanish vessel, or a vessel
under the Spanish flag, commanded by an English captain?--Never.


Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

Who are the partners in the firm of Zulueta, do you know?--The father
Don Pedro Antonio Zulueta, and the son Don Pedro Gonzalez Zulueta. I do
not know that I can go any further; I do not know that there is another
partner.

Mr. _Kelly_. There is another son Moriarte?--I do not know that he is a
partner; I believe he is.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Besides being a notary, do you carry on the
business of a merchant at all?--No, not in the least.

How do you become possessed with your knowledge?--In my notarial
capacity I have often had to prepare bills of sale of ships, and various
documents connected with shipping, and that is the only way I obtain my
information.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. We will read these documents; the one signed by
the prisoner at the bar first of all.

Mr. _Kelly_. Take them one at a time; they stand under very different
circumstances. Let me look at it. (_It was handed to Mr. Kelly._)

  The same was then read, dated London, the 20th of August, 1840, signed
  “Zulueta &. Co.,” and directed “Captain Jennings,” Portsmouth.

  “Sir,--In reply to your favour of yesterday, we have to say that we
  cannot exceed 500_l._ for the vessel in question, such as described in
  your letter, namely, that excepting the sails, the other differences
  are trifling from the inventory. If you cannot therefore succeed at
  those limits, we must give up the purchase, and you will please act
  accordingly.”

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. We propose now to read the one in which there is
a postscript from the father.

Mr. _Kelly_. I feel that this letter is no evidence against the prisoner
at the bar. It is a letter written in a handwriting not proved; the
signature does not appear at all; but the postscript was in the
handwriting of the prisoner’s father. I need hardly say that that is no
evidence against the prisoner; but I have not the slightest objection to
their reading it. I only add these few words, that because I consent to
this being read, it is not to be taken that other documents, if there
are any others under different circumstances, are admitted.

  _The following Letter was read_:--

  [“London, 26th September, 1840,” the signature cut off, addressed
  Captain Thomas Jennings, Portsmouth.

  “Dear Sir,--We have received your letter of yesterday, whereby observe
  that the sum we have remitted you will not be sufficient to cover all
  the expenses to clear the ship. We much regret you have omitted
  mentioning the sum you require, which prevents our remitting you the
  same by this very post, thus causing a new delay in leaving that port,
  so contrary to our wishes; you will therefore write to us to-morrow,
  that we may receive your reply on Monday morning, informing us of the
  amount necessary to finish paying all your accounts and expenses, to
  remit you the same by Monday’s night post, in order that you maybe
  able to sail for Liverpool on Tuesday or Wednesday at the furthest.
  You must not omit stating the amount required; and waiting your reply,
  we remain, very truly, dear Sir, your obedient servants.”

  Postscript. “According our Liverpool house notice, you will go there
  to the Salt-house Dock.”

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Now put in the charter-party, and the paper
referred to in it.

Mr. _Kelly_. Put in one at a time; you cannot read two documents at a
time.

  [The same was handed in, dated London, 19th October, 1840, signed
  Thomas Jennings; for Pedro Martinez & Co., of Havannah, Zulueta &
  Company.

Mr. _Kelly_. All these documents appear in the printed Appendix, which
it would be convenient to hand up to your Lordship.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Is that the joint Appendix on the appeal to the
Privy Council?

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes.

Mr. _Clarkson_. The number of the document is 11, on page 5.

  _The same was read as follows_:--

  “It is this day mutually agreed between Mr. Thomas Jennings, master
  and owner of the good ship or vessel called the Augusta, of the
  burthen of       tons, or thereabouts, now lying at the port of
  Liverpool, and Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co., of Havannah, merchants:
  that the said ship being tight, staunch, and strong, and every way
  fitted for the voyage, shall with all convenient speed load from the
  factors of the said Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. a cargo of legal
  goods, which the said merchants bind themselves to ship, not exceeding
  what she can reasonably stow and carry over and above her tackle,
  apparel, provisions, and furniture; and being so loaded, shall
  therewith proceed to Gallinas, on the coast of Africa, or so near
  thereunto as she may safely get and deliver the same; after which she
  may be sent on any legal voyages between the West Indies, England,
  Africa, or the United States, according to the directions of the
  charterers’ agents (restraint of princes and rulers, the act of God,
  the Queen’s enemies, fire, and all and every other dangers and
  accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation, of whatever nature and
  kind soever during the said voyage, always excepted.) The freight to
  be paid on unloading and right delivery of the cargo, at the rate of
  100_l._ sterling per calendar month that the ship may be so employed,
  commencing with this present month; all port charges and pilotages
  being paid by the charterers; and        days on demurrage, over and
  above the said laying days, at        pounds per day. Penalty for
  non-performance of this agreement 500_l._ The necessary cash for
  ship’s disbursements to be furnished to the captain free of
  commission: the charterers to be at liberty of closing this engagement
  at the end of any voyage performed under it, on settling the freight
  due to the vessel; the captain being indebted to the charterers in
  certain sums, as per acknowledgment elsewhere, the freights earned by
  the vessel to be held as general lien for such sums, and in any
  settlement for such freights, the said advances to be deducted from
  the vessel’s earnings.”

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. The next document is the acknowledgment--

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not understand how this addition to the charter-party
is evidence.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is at the top of page 6?

Mr. _Kelly_. It is a memorandum: you propose to read this?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes.

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not see the importance of it; but I do not see how it
is evidence.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Do you object to it?

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes, my Lord. I will not say any thing of the purpose for
which it is offered in evidence, or the object of it. The charter-party
is signed by the prisoner at the bar himself, on behalf of the house, as
agents for the house of Martinez; but with regard to this document,
which my learned friend calls a “memorandum of charter-party,” it is the
sheet of paper in my hand, signed “Thomas Jennings,” and signed by
nobody else: it is not shown to be in the handwriting of the prisoner,
nor ever to have been in his hands, nor that he had any thing to do with
it: it is a paper signed by Captain Jennings, and found by Captain Hill
on board the vessel, or delivered to him by Captain Jennings on board
the vessel. What evidence is that against the prisoner at the bar? I do
not know what the paper is worth; but I do not know how your Lordships
can admit it. It may be a document treasonable in its nature, or it may
have been written the day before it was delivered to Captain Hill.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. There is some doubt about this: our opinion is,
that in the present stage of the case this document is not admissible.
There is certainly a reference in the charter-party to the captain being
indebted to the charterers in a certain sum, acknowledged elsewhere,
the freights being held as a lien against those debts. This
charter-party is dated London, 19th of October; the paper proposed to be
put in evidence is dated the 21st of October, so that it may not have
been in existence at the time when the first paper was signed; it is
therefore hardly to be referred to as a document mentioned in the
charter-party. Whether something may arise to make the custody of Mr.
Jennings evidence against Mr. Zulueta, is a question not now necessary
to be decided: but the question is, whether in the present stage of the
cause this is admissible. There is a reference certainly to an
acknowledgment elsewhere. The proper and natural custody of that
acknowledgment would be either the house of Zulueta & Co., or Pedro
Martinez & Co.; it is an acknowledgment of a debt to them, and it is
found in the custody of the debtor; it is proved by the signature of
Zulueta & Co., and they or their principals are the parties who would
have the custody of it; they may produce it if they wish to repel any
inference which may arise from it, but at present we think it not
admissible in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. We call for that paper mentioned at the end of
the memorandum; we have given you notice to produce it.

Mr. _Kelly_. If you mean to call for any paper, just put in your notice,
so that we may see what document it is.


_William George White_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

Just take that in your hand. (_Handing a paper to the Witness._) Are you
a clerk to Sir George Stephen?--I was employed by him.

Did you serve a copy of that notice upon any body, and upon whom?--Yes,
I did serve a copy of it.

Upon whom?--Upon Messrs. Zulueta and Messrs. Lawford & Co., and Mr.
Jennings, or left it at the office: I either served it on the parties,
or left it at the office.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

There was a question put to you, which my learned friend did not give
you time to answer; are you a clerk to Sir George Stephen?--No.

How came you to be employed in this matter?--I happened to be in his
office, and he asked me to serve it.

What are you?--A clerk in a wine-merchant’s counting-house.

When did you serve this?--Will you allow me to look at it again? By all
means. (_It was again handed to the Witness._)--I served one copy on the
20th on Messrs. Zulueta & Co.

The 20th of this month?--Yes, and the 21st on Messrs. Lawford & Co., and
on the 23rd upon Thomas Jennings: it was not signed or dated.

You have not answered the question; I wanted to know when you served
that paper, of which that is a copy, either upon Mr. Zulueta, or Messrs.
Lawfords, his solicitors?--On the 20th of October on Messrs. Zulueta &
Co.: the copy was without any date or signature.

Who gave you it to serve?--I had it from Sir George Stephen.

Did he tell you why it was without any signature at all?--No.

He desired you to go and serve it?--Yes.

Now I perceive that that one has a signature; when did you serve upon
either Messrs. Zulueta & Co., or Messrs. Lawford & Co., a notice with a
signature?--Upon the 26th of October I served all three with a copy.

That was yesterday; what time was it?--I think that Mr. Jennings was
about--

I am not asking you about Mr. Jennings; but upon my client, Pedro de
Zulueta, or Messrs. Lawford, what time did you serve it upon
them?--About five o’clock I served it.

Upon whom?--Not upon Mr. Zulueta himself.

Upon the solicitors?--No; not upon the solicitors themselves.

I am speaking of the one with a date and a signature; when did you serve
either Mr. Zulueta or his solicitors?--The 26th.

Was that yesterday? Does your recollection enable you to say?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It was either yesterday, or yesterday twelve
months, or two years ago?--It was the 26th of October, 1843.

Mr. _Kelly_. Will you tell me at what hour you served it?--Upon whom?

Upon either Messrs. Lawford & Co. or Messrs. Zulueta. First, did you
serve it upon either? Leave out Captain Jennings. Did you serve a copy
of that paper, signed and dated, upon either Mr. Zulueta or Messrs.
Lawford?--No; I did not.

You only served it upon Captain Jennings?--Yes; that is all.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. As far as the signed paper goes, there was no
service upon Mr. Zulueta?

Mr. _Kelly_. No.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. He did serve something upon them which was not
signed.

Mr. _Clarkson_. Nor dated.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Let us look at it; it may be a very good notice,
though not signed. (_It was handed to his Lordship_).

Mr. _Kelly_. I am not going to raise any objection to it; but I shall
make some observations upon it.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. The name was in the instrument, though it was not
signed by Sir George Stephen?--Yes.

Mr. _Kelly_. Was that so?--Yes.

When did you serve a copy besides that?--I served a second copy of it at
the general office of Zulueta & Co., and you will find the words
“General Office,” written upon it.

Mr. _Kelly_. Now just refer to your notice, to produce any document you
propose to call for?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. When you say you left it without date and
signature, was it served in this way, the blank day of blank, with Sir
George Stephen’s name upon the back of it?--Yes.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The non-signature of a notice to produce is not
worth inquiry; a dot to an _i_, or a cross to a _t_, would be equally
available.

Mr. _Kelly_. It is my learned friend who renews the subject. I ask him
to point out the document.

  (_The Notice to produce was read, specifying among other documents,
  the additional memorandum of Charter-party, &c._)

Mr. _Kelly_. I have no such document. I do not know of its existence.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You call for the document referred to at the end of
the memorandum of charter-party?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, my Lord, they call for it by a particular description;
it may be that document; but according to that description, as far as I
know or am instructed, we have not got it. The document referred to in
the terms of the charter-party is supposed to be an acknowledgment of
the debt from Captain Jennings to Martinez and Co.; that might be in the
possession of Messrs. Zulueta--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It would be in the possession of Zulueta & Co., or
Martinez & Co.?

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes, my Lord; if in the possession of Martinez, of course I
have not got it.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You call for the additional memorandum of
charter-party of the 21st of October 1840?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes, or the 19th of October.


Mr. _William Thomas_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

Are you a clerk in the bank of Messrs. Glyn, Mills, & Co.?--Yes.

Are they the bankers of the prisoner Mr. Zulueta?--Yes, they are.

Did you pay any sum of money of 650_l._ for him upon his account, in
August 1840? (_The Witness referred to a book_).--On the 29th of August.

Was there a cheque?--A cheque or bill; I cannot say which.

Mr. _Kelly_. I presume that is kept by yourself, and in your
handwriting?--Yes.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. You return the cheques?--Yes, we do.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. We have given them notice to produce any cheque
of that date.

Mr. _Kelly_. Now, what is it you call for?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. For that cheque for 650_l._

Mr. _Kelly_. Does it purport to be a cheque signed by the defendant?--I
cannot tell that, it might be a bill made payable upon our house on
their account.

Mr. _Kelly_. I am quite prepared to produce any document in the
handwriting of the prisoner at the bar, which is in his possession; but
as to any document that may bear the signature, or be in the handwriting
of any other member of the firm, that I shall not produce unless that
member of the firm is made a witness to show the circumstances
accompanying the document; unless it passed through the hands of the
prisoner. If you prove any cheque in the handwriting of the prisoner, I
will produce it if I have it, and if not, I shall not object to
secondary evidence of it.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. You say that that is in your writing, have you
any book by which you can ascertain whether it was paid through a cheque
or bill?--No, certainly not.

None whatever?--No; I could not tell whether it was a cheque or a bill.
I cannot tell which; there is no book in our house that will tell us
that.

On whose account was it paid?--

Mr. _Kelly_. I object to that: I do not want all the payments made by
this witness; we are upon the question if you can give secondary
evidence of the cheque.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am going to see on whose account it was paid.

Mr. _Kelly_. I object to any evidence of bankers paying a sum of money
on account of the firm, or on account of any other person, unless the
document is in the handwriting of the prisoner at the bar, or the
payment proved to have been made to his orders. What is to prevent, by
the order of the partner in Spain, of which he never heard, this person
being charged with felony?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I submit that the evidence is sufficient; here is
an express statement in the printed evidence.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is not in evidence yet.

Mr. _Kelly_. I consider it in evidence; my learned friend may refer to
any part of that book; I consider that that is in evidence now.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Very well.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. He first states he managed all the business. In
answer to Question 10432 he was speaking about the transactions with
Africa, he was examined about the Augusta, and Mr. Kidd, he says, “My
father knew there was such a man upon the coast, but I did not know even
that, though I have managed all this business.”

Mr. _Kelly_. That relates to a business upon which another insinuation
was made, and which has no more to do with it than this.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My learned friend assumes that this has no
relation to it; he is quite mistaken in that. The question is, what is
the meaning of the term, “this business,” it is not the business of the
man of the name of Kidd; he says he never heard of him; but the question
is, whether it is not the business of the Augusta and the trade with
Africa; he says he manages all that business. I submit, if he takes upon
himself to say he managed “all this business”--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. What are the words?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. “All this business.”

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I think the fair inference is, that the Mr.
Zulueta, who came before the Committee, was the person who knew best
about the matter suggested against them relating to the Augusta, and he
came to speak to the matter of the Augusta, either solely or among other
things; if so, “this business” must mean that.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, not if your Lordship looks at the context; he comes
forward voluntarily, understanding there were charges against his house,
not because he knew more about it than any body else, for he knew the
least about it, but because he spoke English best. There is nothing
from which you can infer in this evidence that Pedro Zulueta knew all
that had passed through the house.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is not very satisfactory to select a man who can
speak English, but did not know much about the matter.

Mr. _Kelly_. I mention that in answer to your Lordship’s observation,
“that he knew most about the matter.”

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The Committee must have taken that to be the fact.

Mr. _Kelly_. If your Lordship thinks it must fairly be supposed to refer
to that matter, then the question is whether that makes it evidence; I
will call your Lordship’s attention to what he says: The _Chairman_ asks
him, “Is there any other part of the evidence which has been given that
you wish to observe upon?--It is asked here in question 5086, ‘Who was
he?’ The answer is, ‘The name is mentioned in the Parliamentary Papers
as being connected with the purchase of a slave vessel, Mr. Kidd; and it
is mentioned in connexion with that of Mr. Zulueta, of London.’” There
was some former transaction of the purchase of a slave vessel, in which
Mr. Kidd was a party. He goes on to say, “Now, as to Mr. Kidd, the very
first thing I ever knew or ever heard of his name, was to see it here. I
never heard of his name at all. I never had a letter from him or through
him, or knew any thing of the man whatever. That is with regard to
myself. With regard to my partners, I can say the same; I have been
making inquiries about it. My father knew there was such a man upon the
coast, but I did not know even that, though I have managed all this
business.” What business can that relate to, but the business in which
Mr. Kidd’s name was mentioned, which was the purchase of a slave vessel?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I should think not: his father knew there was such
a man upon the coast; “I did not know that, although I had that
management of the business” which would lead me to know all the men on
the coast, that is to say, all the coast business; that is the way I
understand it, I confess.

Mr. _Kelly_. I cannot conceive that it is so; but it is for your
Lordships to decide. Supposing that it is, I do not know how that makes
this entry in the book evidence. Your Lordships will look at the next
question: He is asked, “You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in any
way?--No; nor any knowledge of him.” Then he goes on with the same
business; he was never alluding to the principal business, that of the
Augusta.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. You will find he gives there an account of the
whole transaction. Mr. _Forster_ says, “You advanced the money to
Captain Jennings for the purchase of a vessel; Jennings transferring the
vessel to you as a security for the amount so advanced?--That is just
the description of operation, which is a very general one in business.”

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_ (_to_ Mr. _Thomas_.) Whose handwriting is
that?--The handwriting of a Mr. Daniel, in our office.

Mr. _Kelly_. I submit that this relates to the business of Mr. Kidd.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It struck me otherwise; but at the same time you
seem so extremely satisfied with your own view, and my view is just as
it struck me, that you stagger me by your positiveness.

Mr. _Kelly_. I should not like your Lordship or the Jury to be misled as
to the amount of interference by this gentleman in the business. Suppose
it is so, that he had the management of the fitting out of the Augusta,
how does that make evidence of an entry in the banker’s book of the
payment of a sum of money? He cannot say to whom he paid it, or on whose
account? How can that make it evidence upon a charge of felony? I do not
know the nature of it, but I am quite sure it is quite consistent with
Pedro Zulueta, having done all he has admitted to have done before the
Committee, that he never heard of that payment.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. In whose handwriting is the signature to the
charter-party?

Mr. _Kelly_. It is the signature of the prisoner that has been read.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not think you are in a situation to put in
this evidence. This witness paid across the counter to somebody, upon
something which they produced, a sum of money, and the thing then
produced you call for.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. We call for the document upon which it was paid,
and we are going to take another step to show that the money so paid was
applied to this vessel. Your Lordship has got the statement that they
advanced the money for the purchase of the vessel.

Mr. _Kelly_. There is no doubt that the house of Zulueta & Co., on
account of Martinez & Co., paid for this ship. My learned friend says he
calls for that document. He calls for a document he has not shown to be
in existence. Let him prove the existence of the cheque; and then the
question arises, whether secondary evidence is admissible.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Can you say whether it was paid through a cheque
or draft?--No, it is impossible.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. He says it was paid through an acceptance upon
their house, or upon a cheque upon their house; that it was something
purporting to come from Zulueta & Co., but that does not bind the
prisoner; that cheque so purporting to come from Zulueta & Co. was sent
back to Zulueta &, Co., and notice was given for the production of it?

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes, my Lord, notice has been given to produce the cheque
or draft; that does not mean a bill of exchange accepted at Cadiz, where
they had a house, or at Liverpool, where they have another house.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Cheque or draft would apply to a bill.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. If it refers sufficiently to the contents of it.

Mr. _Kelly_. Read the words of the notice, and we will see.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. “And also a certain draft or cheque,” &c.
(_Reading the terms of the notice._)

Mr. _Kelly_. I make two objections to this evidence; the first is, that
no such cheque is proved to be in existence; and secondly, if there
were, such cheque is not proved to have been in the handwriting of the
prisoner at the bar, and therefore it is not admissible. I ought to
add, as the notice to produce has been referred to, and is now upon the
table, that the notice calls upon the prisoner, Mr. Zulueta, to produce
all the books, documents, and accounts of his house, between certain
dates, at all relating to the transaction in question; and all letters
written, and copies of letters written by this house, or any body for
them in relation to this matter. My Lord, every document there mentioned
is here in Court, and in two minutes ready to be put upon the table.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. To try you, I call for the paper referred to in
the charter-party.

Mr. _Kelly_. The greater part are in Spanish, and the prisoner at the
bar can distinguish them, but the clerks who kept these books, the
corresponding clerk, and the clerk in whose handwriting they are, are
ready to speak to any thing my learned friend may call for from the
beginning to the end.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I call for that letter referred to in the
charter-party.

Mr. _Kelly_. Put the documents upon the table.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. You need not go through that performance. Will
you produce the receipt mentioned in the charter-party?

Mr. _Kelly_. I have said I have it not.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. There is a letter mentioned here: “We have
received your letter of yesterday.” Will you produce that? Captain
Jenning’s letter of the 25th of September, 1840?

Mr. _Kelly_. Certainly.

Mr. Serjeant _Talford_. Mr. Jenning’s letter is in English.

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes; I know that.

  _The same was produced and read, as follows_:--

  “Portsmouth, 25th September, 1840, Messrs. Zulueta & Co.:-- Gentlemen,
  I am in the receipt of your favour of the 24th instant, and beg leave
  to acknowledge the favour you have conferred on the house of Messrs.
  Grant, Gillan, and Medley, and have acknowledged the same to the
  parties mentioned; at the same time beg leave to mention this port is
  different from many ports in England for men, and we have to give the
  month’s advance under favour in consequence of the many vessels of war
  wanting men, so that I have agreed with the men as I consider you will
  deem necessary; and from the heavy charges of the different tradesmen,
  and all other expenses I formerly mentioned, I do not consider the sum
  you have remitted sufficient to clear this port: under such
  circumstances, you will please to favour me with your advice by return
  of post, who I shall draw upon for the remaining balance, and hoping
  my accounts, when seen, may meet your approbation, I remain, your
  obedient humble servant,

  THOMAS JENNINGS.”

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. This is in answer to that.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The letter of the 26th of September is the
answer:--

  “We have received your letter of yesterday, whereby observe that the
  sum we have remitted you will not be sufficient to cover all the
  expenses to clear the ship. We much regret you have omitted mentioning
  the sum you require, which prevents our remitting you the same by this
  very post, thus causing a new delay in leaving that port, so contrary
  to our wishes. You will therefore write to us to-morrow, that we may
  receive your reply on Monday morning, informing us of the amount
  necessary to finish paying all your accounts and expenses, to remit
  you the same by Monday’s night post, in order that you may be able to
  sail for Liverpool on Tuesday or Wednesday at the furthest. You must
  not omit stating the amount required, and waiting your reply, we
  remain, very truly.”

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. That is the directing him to go to Liverpool.

(_To_ Mr. _Thomas_.) On the 29th of August; have you a memorandum of the
notes you paid on that day?--Yes.

The numbers of the notes?--Yes I have.

Mr. _Kelly_. While we were discussing this point, my learned friend
called for something else, which I now produce; I do not know that your
Lordships decided it. I had objected to the entry in the banker’s book
being given in evidence against Mr. Zulueta, unless it was proved that
that entry was in some way or other made known to him.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am going to show that certain notes were paid
to some person or other, and paid for this vessel; and these letters are
evidence to show that he was the owner of the vessel.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. There is a certain document taken to the bank,
and notes paid for it.

Mr. _Kelly_. Then I object upon this ground. This is an indictment
against Pedro Zulueta. I have not the least objection, that where
documents are in existence, and members of the firm are connected with
them, that they should be called to explain them; but I do object to any
thing being given in evidence, done under the order of another person,
unless it is proved to have come home to the knowledge of the prisoner.
There is no proof that that entry ever came home to the prisoner, that
he ever saw the notes, or that it was by any order signed by him or
known to be his signature that these notes were paid, and therefore I
object to its being any evidence against him. One can suppose a case
like this. It is entirely unlike a mercantile transaction, where notice
to one is notice to all the firm. If an action was brought against any
one, a document affecting mercantile matters, the act of one partner is
the act of all; and where it is a civil action or liability, the act
done by the father would be evidence against the son, his partner, and
that, though the son was not in England at the time, but was in Spain,
and had no notice of the proceedings. Now let us try that: here is a
transaction respecting the payment of bank-notes, and if, because it is
supposed to be done by the house of Zulueta, it is evidence against this
particular member of the firm, without any proof that it was done by
him, it would be equally evidence against a member of the firm who was
in Spain during the whole of the time; and it might have pleased Sir
George Stephen to have selected him as a subject of prosecution; he
might have been indicted for equipping this vessel and the other acts
charged in the indictment; and if an act done by one member of the firm
is evidence against another, it would be evidence against him. I
apprehend that, supposing this payment of money to have any thing to do
with this transaction, which I apprehend does not appear, unless it is
proved it was done with the defendant’s knowledge or by his order, it is
no evidence against him; and no act done by another member of the firm
is any evidence against him. There is no proof that he saw these notes,
or gave any order; and under these circumstances, upon this criminal
charge, I submit it is not evidence against him.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am aware of the necessity of the accuracy of
the evidence to convict a party on a criminal charge; but I apprehend
there is abundant evidence to establish that the notes given were the
notes paid for the purchase of the vessel. It is not a case where you
have no evidence of Mr. Zulueta having taken a share in the purchase of
the vessel; you have evidence of his control over the purchase in his
lending the money for the purchase, and that he interfered in the
purchase of the vessel. You have also a letter written by him to Captain
Jennings in respect of it, and I am going to show that Captain Jennings
was present when this sum was paid for the purchase. I am going to trace
it to two individuals, Bernardos and Jennings, and I am going to show
that these notes were for the purchase of this vessel, and that the
prisoner at the bar interferes with the vessel afterwards, as if he was
acting as interested in it. I have put in two letters, one from the
captain communicating to him as owner, giving an account of the
transactions, and asking upon whom he is to draw for the amount
required. The letter from Mr. Zulueta states that he will pay all the
disbursements; he regrets the captain did not give him the amount, and
requests him to go to the Salthouse Dock. In addition to the control
over the actual purchase, he states that the money was paid for the
purchase, he exercises a control over it, and directs the amount. Then
you have the previous letter of Captain Jennings, and you have in these
two letters a distinct act of ownership over the vessel, directing where
she is to go, and distinctly exercising dominion over her. The question
undoubtedly is, whether Captain Jennings was nominally appointed as
master, he not being substantially the owner, and whether Mr. Zulueta
did not from the beginning to the end transact the business of the
vessel. That is for the Jury. I show he exercised control over it, and I
show that this money was delivered to a person, and paid in purchase of
the vessel. I submit it is quite clear that I am entitled to show that
it was paid by these bankers.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. I submit that there is another ground on which
this evidence is admissible. Pedro Zulueta, the prisoner, has undertaken
to give an account of the transaction, and the account given in
substance in the evidence is this:--That his house was authorised by
Martinez & Co. to advance a certain sum out of the funds in their hands
for the purchase of this vessel; that that sum was lent in advance to
Captain Jennings by Martinez; that Captain Jennings became the
purchaser, and was _bonâ fide_ the owner of the vessel; that is not the
precise evidence, but the substance. We propose to show that that
account is not true; that the price of the vessel was not 500_l._; the
extent to which they were authorised to advance, but 650_l._ That that
650_l._ was a sum paid in some sort; that it is debited to the account
of Martinez & Co.; that that sum was advanced out of the funds at a time
when it was impossible that they could have had any communication with
Martinez & Co., at the Havannah, to advance beyond the sum of 500_l._,
which was stated to be the sum. Having taken that account, as given in
the evidence, we are entitled to show that, in giving this account, the
prisoner gave a false account as to a part of the transaction.

Mr. _Kelly_. If it is competent to my learned friend to give evidence of
the falsehood of any statement made before the Committee, I challenge
them to show the falsehood of any one statement made, with all the
facilities I have given them with the books and documents of the house.
But that is not the question: the question is, whether, because Mr.
Zulueta has given certain evidence before a Committee of the House of
Commons, in which he has stated his participation to a certain extent in
the transaction in question, and in which he has stated the general
effect of the transaction, any act done by any other member of the firm,
or any one connected with the house, is to be made evidence against him.
I apprehend, upon the plainest and clearest principles in the law of
evidence, it is not; and in order to illustrate my argument I will
merely put this case: Mr. Zulueta states, before the Committee of the
House of Commons, and truly states, that his house, for a house at
Cadiz, negotiated the purchase of this vessel, and the shipment of these
goods. As far as that statement goes, for better or worse, it is
evidence against him. But my learned friend says, therefore whatever was
done by any other member of the firm, as a part of the transaction, is
evidence against him. Let me suppose that the prisoner at the bar,
having, by a letter read in evidence, authorised the purchase of the
vessel; and, in addition to that, which is not yet in evidence, but may
be had, directed that his correspondents, in Liverpool should ship goods
for a certain place on board the vessel. Having been charged with the
knowledge of the secret object and destination of the vessel, suppose
his partner, unknown to him, had given some secret instructions to
disregard the charter-party--Whatever orders my son, or my house, may
have given you, take all these goods to the Gallinas, or any other slave
dealing port, and barter them for two hundred slaves--and yet, upon the
argument of my learned friend, that would be evidence here. My learned
friend says, the prisoner has admitted he negotiated the transaction;
and, therefore, any thing done by any member of the firm is evidence
against him; that any thing done by any member of the firm, or any thing
done by any body connected with the firm, would be a part of the
transaction. To say that any thing done, which may be a felonious act,
for aught I know, and though in relation to this transaction, not in my
knowledge, to make that evidence against him, would be to indict one man
for a felony committed by another, because he was a partner of that
other, and because that house was concerned in the transaction out of
which the felony arose.

  (_The Judges conferred together._)

Mr. Justice _Maule_ (_to_ Mr. _Thomas_). I think you stated, that the
order upon which the money was paid on the 29th of August, was returned
to Zulueta & Co.?--Yes, it was.

When was it returned?--We have no particular periods; but when the
pass-book is called for, the vouchers are in the pocket of the book.

There was a pass-book between you and Zulueta & Co.?--Yes.

In that pass-book were all the payments entered?--Yes.

And this amongst the rest?--Yes; but I would not state whether it was a
draft, or a bill at twelve months date.

It would state the account upon which it was paid?--Yes.

And you would with that send back the draft or order upon which it was
paid?--Yes.

When was that done?--I cannot say when the book was called for: it might
be upon the following day, or in the course of a fortnight or so.

It would be in the course of a fortnight?--It might be so, I cannot say:
there are parties who do not call for their book in a year, or not at
all.

Zulueta & Co. do not call for their book for a year?--No, I do not say
that; they would have it frequently.

Did you return it with the vouchers in the pocket of the book?--Yes.

Did you do that frequently?--Yes.

When was the payment made?--The 29th of August, 1840.

You said the book was returned to them frequently?--Yes, I imagine so,
that they would call for it: they call for it, or send for it.

When it is called for, it is put into the hand of the caller, and sent
away?--Yes.

About how frequently?--It depends upon circumstances; some persons send
frequently.

Do, for God’s sake, put out of your mind all other customers of your
principals, but Messrs. Zulueta?--It is not my department, and I really
do not know how frequently they send.

I have taken it that they had it returned frequently?--I imagine so; I
think so.

That is, you think so, from knowing it?--No; from the general custom of
merchants of their standing.

What you do know is this: that the payment is entered in the book; that
the course is to return the book: whether it has ever been returned you
do not know?--No, I do not; of my own knowledge, I do not: I believe so.

I thought it might probably appear that Messrs. Zulueta & Co. had this
cheque.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Are either of your principals here?--I am not
aware of it.

Not in obedience to the subpœna?--I am not aware of it.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You had better postpone it till to-morrow; you will
be able to get at it by that time?--It is not in my department.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. What is the name of the person in whose department
it is?--In that of the receipt-clerks.

Give me the name?--Mr. Hayburn.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. As this extreme rigour of proof is insisted upon,
you may have twenty clerks?--I have no doubt that Messrs. Zulueta had
the book away frequently; but I do not know it myself.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Suppose we had an earthquake every three years, one
would say that was frequently. If a man got a dinner only once a week,
one would not say that that was frequently. It depends upon what it
is?--I do not know how often it was.

Do you mean once in ten years, or what?--Almost daily.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I think now, assuming that Mr. Kelly does not raise
any question as to the fact of the pass-book going back with the
vouchers, it being now taken that the draft whatever it was, or order,
upon which this money was paid, having been returned to Zulueta & Co.
before the notice to produce was given to the prisoner, that notice
naming the cheque or order mentioning the date and mentioning the sum,
and it containing the subsequent clause, “all other papers, &c.,
relating to this matter,” supposing instead of being a cheque or draft
it was an acceptance for a sum made payable at their bankers, the
subsequent part of the notice to produce is to be drawn in aid of the
previous part, and that taking the two parts together it amounts to a
reasonable notice to the prisoner to produce the paper, if in his power,
even if it was an acceptance and not a cheque or draft. Then the
question comes to this, whether the document here is admissible in
evidence against the prisoner. The prisoner is a member of the firm in
England, not absent in Spain as he might be, but he is in England
attending to this matter; and notice having been given by the bankers of
Messrs. Zulueta by the return of the vouchers that they had paid such a
sum of money upon such an account, that that amounts to a statement to
each of the partners of Zulueta & Co., and it is reasonable to suppose
that they were acquainted with the statement in the pass-book and that
document, and that they amount together to this, that it is the same as
if you could show this gentleman had said to Zulueta & Co., on such a
day I paid to such a person such an amount for your house: and we think
the witness may be interrogated as to the account upon which he paid
this money.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. On whose account did you pay that
650_l._?--Zulueta & Co.

On what day?--On the 29th of August, 1840.

What were the numbers of the notes?--47,194, dated the 9th of March,
1840, 100_l._; 41,674, the same date and amount; 48,204, 9th March,
100_l._; 36,020, 25th of May, 1840, Liverpool Branch Bank of England,
100_l._; 46,243, 9th March, 100_l._; 38,288, 9th March, 1840, 100_l._;
1,364, 50_l._, August the 8th, 1840.


Mr. _Emanuel Emanuel_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

I believe you reside at Portsmouth?--Yes.

Did you know a vessel called the Gollupchik?--Yes.

Was she sold by auction, or in any way?--Yes, by auction.

Were you the purchaser?--I purchased her for a friend.

What amount did you give for her?--600_l._

And there were the auction expenses?--And the auction expenses.

Did you afterwards sell the vessel?--Yes.

To whom did you sell her?--I sold her to two parties who came together
to purchase her.

Do you know their names?--Captain Bernardos and Captain Jennings.

What was the day of the month?--That I cannot tell you exactly.

Was it in August 1840, about that time?--I could tell you; I think it
was in June.

Just tell me, if you can by any means?--I can tell you by the day I
received the money, which was the same day I sold her.

Have you any memorandum made by yourself?--No, by my clerk, of the
number of the notes.

Did you see the entry the day it was made?--Yes.

Mr. _Kelly_. That is not in your own handwriting; when was it made?--The
same day as the letter was posted.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. What was the day?--It was sold in September last.

Did you keep a memorandum of the numbers of the notes you
received?--Yes, that is the only memorandum that was kept.

Tell me the numbers of the notes?--The numbers, as they are entered
here, are single 100_l._ notes, J. B., March the 9th, 1840; J. B.,
48,204; J. B., 47,194, same date, 100_l._; J. B., 46,243, 9th March,
1840, 100_l._; J. B., 41,674, same date, 100_l._; J. G., 36,020, May 25,
1840, 100_l._; J. G., 38,288, May the 9th, 1840, 100_l._; then there was
a note for 50_l._, No. 1,364, 8th August, 1840; making a total of
650_l._

Were there any papers or documents you received or delivered in respect
of the vessel?--I received no documents; she was sold by public auction.

Did you give any?--No, I only gave an order to the ship-keeper to
deliver her up.

Have you got that letter?--No, it was not a business transaction, it was
merely for a friend.

Had you the bill of lading, or any thing?--No.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

Who originally sold her?--She was advertised to be sold by auction, at
the Exchange Rooms, by Mr. Robinson.

Do you know who he was?--An auctioneer at Portsmouth.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. To whom did you pay the money for your
purchase?--The money was originally paid by a cheque from the party by
whom she was purchased, who attended the sale himself to bid for her;
that cheque by some accident was not presented at the place where it
ought to be; it came back to me and I paid it myself.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You paid the auctioneer?--I paid the bankers myself
finding there was a mistake, and it was immediately repaid to me.

That cheque was given to somebody?--To the auctioneer; not that cheque
of mine, but the cheque of the party who purchased her.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am now going to offer in evidence the papers of
the vessel, the cockets that were on board the vessel. I am going to
call for those, as my learned friend wishes me to call for one thing at
a time.


Mr. _John Brown_ called again. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_.

Have you the cockets there?--Yes, I have.

There are seven of them; No. 5 is the document we want. (_The Witness
produced the same._)

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. These are the cockets; they are not objected to;
they are in page 30 of the book.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_ (_to_ Captain _Hill_). Were those found on board
the vessel, and delivered to you?--Yes.

They were delivered to you by Captain Jennings?--Yes.

Mr. _Kelly_. Do you propose to read all these documents?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. No. There is one entry made of plate-glass, upon
which a drawback is to be obtained by the person who ships it; all the
rest are in the same form. Now, No. 7. (_Mr. Brown hands that in._) Now,
the bill of lading: hand that to Captain Hill.

Mr. _Kelly_. There is no occasion to trouble Captain Hill. I do not know
how it is important, but I do not see how it is admissible; it is not in
his handwriting, nor contains his name; it is found in the vessel early
in 1841, many months after he sails. How is that evidence against the
prisoner? The charge is, that the prisoner at the bar did equip and use
the vessel for the purposes of the slave trade; that the prisoner at the
bar shipped goods on board the vessel for the purposes of the slave
trade. I need not refer to the letters in evidence or any other
document; but here is a document purporting to be a bill of lading, not
bearing the signature of the prisoner or any of the firm, nor seen by
any of them, but found many months afterwards on board the vessel: how
can that be evidence against him? Is that the only document found? There
may be treasonable papers found there, and how can they be evidence
against Mr. Zulueta, unless it is proved it was done by his orders.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I suppose the object of the evidence is to show
that there was no mention in these papers of Mr. Zulueta having any
thing to do with it?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I ought to say there is the name of Zulueta and
Co., the Spanish house at Cadiz.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. There is nothing found on board the vessel to
indicate any concern that the Zuluetas in London had in freighting the
ship or shipping the goods. I suppose it must be taken for granted,
unless it is shown on the part of the prisoner that Mr. Zulueta’s name
was in the document, that it was not his.

Mr. _Kelly_. The prosecutor is to make out his case that the prisoner at
the bar equipped the vessel for the slave trade.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Employed it for that purpose.

Mr. Justice _Maule_ (_to_ Captain _Hill_.) Did you find any document
mentioning the house of Zulueta in London?--None, but the papers before
the Court.

And none of those mentioned any house in London?--The letter read is the
only one.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. We now produce certain letters found in the ship,
not the ship’s papers. There is one in which the name was cut out, the
letter authorising Captain Jennings to purchase the vessel; except that
in, there is nothing to show they had any interest, or that they shipped
the goods.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. These are all the papers found on board?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Now we are going to offer certain other letters.

Mr. Justice _Maule_ (_to_ Captain _Hill_.) Are these all the papers you
could get?--Yes, these are all I could get.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am going to offer the letters objected to in my
address; we are going to show letters giving directions.

Mr. _Kelly_. My learned friend should not state the contents of the
letters.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I have stated nothing injurious to the prisoner,
only enough to call the attention of the Judges to them. I am going to
prove the handwriting of them.

Mr. _Kelly_. The evidence at present is, that Captain Hill found on
board the vessel, or that the master delivered to him, certain papers,
those you now produce; you say nothing about the contents, but you are
going to prove the handwriting?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes.

  (_Mr. Brown produced certain other papers, which were handed in._)

Mr. _Brown_. That packet contains nine enclosures.


Mr. _Sebastian Gonzalez Martinez_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant
_Talfourd_.

Do you know Pedro de Martinez, of Cadiz?--No.

Have you had any correspondence with him?--Never.

You are not acquainted with his writing?--Not at all.

Where have you lived; at Hampstead?--Yes, at Hampstead.

What is the name of your house at Hampstead; has it a name?--Yes, it
has.

What is it?--Bellasise Park.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Do you know the gentleman in this dock?--Yes, I do; I have known him
since he was a child.

What character has he borne in this city for integrity and good
conduct?--Most excellent; he has been a good son, a good father, and a
good husband, and a most honourable merchant.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I thought we should have been able to prove the
handwriting. These letters are addressed to the correspondent to whom
the vessel was consigned, giving directions in respect of the vessel,
and there are instructions as to what is to be done with the cargo. Your
Lordships will probably look at them; there is no actual signature.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I have heard enough of them.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. They are in Spanish; there is no name signed to
them at all; there is the letter M, and there are directions in respect
of the cargo which is on board. Now I apprehend we have two things to
prove, and to give in evidence to your Lordships and to the Jury; the
one is, what was the object of the vessel, what was to be done with her
cargo, what was the object of her freight? There is the captain found on
board, who delivers up the ship’s papers, and among others the
directions to the consignees as to what is to be done with the cargo,
and general instructions.

Mr. _Kelly_. I have three times heard my learned friend make an
assertion to your Lordship, which I beg leave to deny. I am certain my
learned friend is speaking under instructions false in themselves. He
has never read the letters; I have. They have been before another Court
in a proceeding to which this gentleman was no party, and I undertake to
say they do not refer to the disposal of this cargo or this vessel in
any way; and it is cruel in the extreme that such statements should be
made in the hearing of the Jury, which they will never forget; and that
those statements will remain when your Lordship rejects them, as you
will do. I have read them all, from the beginning to the end; they were
before the Privy Council, and I say they do not relate to it.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I have read them from the beginning to the end; I
do not put my judgment against Mr. Kelly’s; but he asserts that they do
not, and I assert that they do: whatever is in these letters I have
carefully abstained from stating it in any way which shall injure the
prisoner at the bar.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Mr. Serjeant Bompas does not state that they
contain any direction to employ the goods in slave trading.

Mr. _Kelly_. I deny that they contain any direction to employ the goods
in any way.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is rather favourable to the voyage that there
should be a document so produceable and regular, as instructions to the
persons interested in the cargo: where there was nothing to conceal,
persons would have those instructions.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. When we come to matters of assertion, I yield to
my learned friend; but when we come to the examination of documents, and
to decide whether they are evidence, then we look at the evidence. It is
absolutely necessary, if they are directions, that your Lordships should
look at them to ascertain whether they are so or not, and in that way I
should not have the slightest objection to submit them to the Court:
they are at page 7; and there is one document I will call your attention
to, in which there is a distinct direction as to what is to be done with
the cargo on board; as far as that is necessary these are directions,
or, as your Lordship says, there are none.

  (_A printed copy of the Letters was handed to their Lordships._)

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. If your Lordships look at the general direction,
you will find it in page 7, “I have to request,” down to the words “so
very precious.”

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Does that refer to any mention of the Augusta
before that?

Mr. _Kelly_. Not at all; it refers to the vessel Urraca.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. The vessel first in question was the Urraca, not
the Augusta.

  (_Their Lordships referred to the printed Letter._)

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. If your Lordships will look at the bottom of page
38, you will see a paragraph beginning “From my preceding
communication.”

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. He dispatched that ship?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Are there any other letters to the consignee
relating to this ship, unless these do?

Mr. _Kelly_. I hope your Lordships will not take that for granted upon
my learned friend’s statement: there are a great variety of documents,
of the existence of which the prosecutors are perfectly aware; they have
given no notice to produce them, and they would lay the matter open
before the Jury.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I hope your Lordships will not give the least
credit to these statements of Mr. Kelly; they deserve no credit.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. There are documents, Mr. Kelly says, which we shall
see in due time.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. There are papers here, and we wish every one to
be put in, no doubt. The form in which we put it is this: that if a
letter is directed to consignees giving directions, that is evidence of
what is to be done with the cargo, they are directions in respect of it;
and the question whether Captain Jennings was the owner of this vessel,
or whether it was used as a cover under his directions, is a question
for the Jury. That Messrs. Zulueta, on behalf apparently of Martinez,
entered into a contract of charter-party with him there is no doubt,
according to the statement and admissions in this examination; and they
also ship these goods on board the ship of Captain Jennings: they were
shipped for the consignee; they were the agents. What was to be done
with those goods? The only way that can be ascertained, is by the actual
order to the consignees in respect of them.

The second question will be how far Mr. Zulueta was implicated in it,
and that will be shown by the conduct pursued, and the concealment he
practised; but the question is, what was the object of it? What was to
be done? If we see he employs this vessel to accomplish a particular
object, we say it was for that purpose. My learned friend says, how can
you give in evidence any thing that took place after the vessel left
England? How can you say that it was employed for that purpose, except
by something done in England? Suppose I show that these goods were
ordered by an individual to be used for the purpose of the slave trade,
and suppose I can show they were so used, that is, after they were sent.
But I am to show by the conduct of Mr. Zulueta that that was the object.
They are two separate things; how am I to show that was the object? I
show the bill of lading by which they were consigned to certain
persons; I show a letter directing those persons how to apply them.
Suppose there is no signature to any one of these letters, does that
prevent their being given in evidence? You must expect there will be
concealment, if there is an illegal voyage; but if these are the orders
upon which they are to proceed, how is it to be said that that is not
the object of the voyage? I must show what was the object: how is it
possible to show that? It is only by showing the orders given in that
respect; there is no other way of showing that that was the purpose,
except showing something after the vessel left. My learned friend has
said many times, how can Mr. Zulueta be affected by any thing that took
place after the vessel left England. Suppose a vessel was sent from
England for the express purpose of receiving slaves, and did receive
slaves; if I can affect him, I must show that it was done afterwards; if
it was for slave transactions, I can only show by the directions and
orders given to the parties to whom they were consigned what was to be
done with them. They were shipped in the name of Captain Jennings by Mr.
Zulueta: but what is to be done? If Captain Jennings was the agent of
Messrs. Zulueta, the fact of ordering these things to be done would be
evidence against Mr. Zulueta. It would be for the Jury to say whether
Captain Jennings was employed, or was the real owner of the vessel;
whether the owner or the captain. If we could show written orders to
dispose of the goods, how could that be done but by putting in the
document? If I could show Captain Jennings’s coming to the Gallinas, and
stating he must apply these things in a particular way, can he turn
round and say I have no instructions? Yes, these are your instructions;
and no concealment in the case of a crime can prevent them being given
in evidence, because, in that case, the captain is safe in taking out
papers not giving general instructions as to the whole of the cargo: but
if there is concealment, if a party hides himself, and acts in another
name, and you find that vessel with certain documents on board giving
directions what is to be done with the cargo, is it to be said that
those documents are not receivable in evidence in respect of that cargo?
If it is so, it is not possible to give evidence against any one who
does not go to Africa to do it. It is nothing to show they sent out a
vessel with that object. First, I show that in fact the directions were
to send them for the purposes of the slave trade, and I show next that
it was so used. If you show it was not so used, if you cut off the
latter part, if you say the directions were on board to be so used, I
submit it is evidence when the captain gives up the directions to the
consignees as to how they are to treat these goods; and therefore, my
Lord, I say it is no answer to say they are not signed. If I do not show
by Mr. Zulueta’s conduct that he had some guilty knowledge--

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not take the objection that they are not signed.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I do not show that they are signed by Mr.
Zulueta, which he says is necessary: in point of fact, I say it is
immaterial, because, if a person whom Mr. Zulueta never heard of, had
given directions in respect of these goods, that they were to be used
for the purpose of slave dealing, he having shipped them, the only
question is, did he ship them for that purpose? How do you show that?
By his conduct. That he did employ the vessel is proved: he chartered
it, and that is the only purpose. I submit that the only way is to show
the directions at the time which they were to receive; I submit that the
directions are evidence; and the last question is, whether Mr. Zulueta
did it with that object.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. In this prosecution there are two propositions
which the prosecutors are bound to establish; the first is, that this
vessel was employed for an illegal purpose; and, secondly, that Zulueta
was conscious of it at the time he entered into this contract. Those two
propositions are separate and distinct. It is true you cannot establish
the second without the first; but it does not follow that you cannot
give all the evidence to establish the first without interfering with
the second. You must establish the felony, before you show the receipt
of the goods. There the object and purpose for which the vessel was
fitted out are part of the transaction, and must be shown by legitimate
means. It is said by my learned friend, that if Mr. Zulueta was guilty
of the offence, he was guilty of it at the time he dispatched the vessel
from this country; but it does not follow that all the evidence is to be
confined to this country. No one can suppose that, if a vessel is fitted
up with these leagers and other fittings, it was not intended to be used
on deck in some other than legitimate trade; and, whether she was driven
in by stress of weather or not, if she was turned into a slave trader,
is it to be said that instructions what was to be done with her, whether
they consisted in writing, in words, or acts, are not evidence? I grant
it does not establish the guilt of the prisoner, but it is a step to it;
and if we are excluded showing the nature of the directions to the
consignee of the vessel, who must be known to the prisoner, we are
prevented from showing any painting or any alteration done after the
ship left this country. They are not evidence as the history of any
other slaving transaction, or any other history or confession; they are
not for that purpose evidence against the prisoner; but they are
evidence against the prisoner in so far as they are acts done in respect
of the dispatch of the cargo, and the employment of the vessel.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not think it is necessary to trouble Mr.
Kelly. It seems to me that Mr. Serjeant Talfourd is quite right in
saying there are two things to be proved: one, the body of the offence,
the slave trading, or the intention to do it, the taking the voyage; and
the other is the participation and knowledge of the prisoner in it; and
I think it quite true, that it might well be that the first matter might
be established, and established completely, quite consistently with the
innocence of the prisoner, and yet, notwithstanding, that these papers
might be admissible in evidence upon this trial. There is no rule that
requires, that in order that a matter may be given in evidence upon a
trial between parties, that the evidence should be such as in itself is
sufficient to prove the case; if so, all other evidence would be
excluded. I admit it is quite competent to the prosecutor to prove,
though he has not fixed the knowledge of the prisoner, any fact
constituting any suspicion, or a plausibility. I think he might do that:
but here the objection is not so much to the subject of proof, slave
trading, as the medium of proof--the document seeking to establish
it--this being a document not at all traced to the prisoner, nor any
body in privity with him; it is merely found on board the vessel, and is
not a document that can be read against him. It is not a statement
accompanying any act done, it is found on board the vessel, found by
some one who may be an agent or accomplice of the prisoner, and handed
to Captain Hill. I think the mere circumstance of handing it to Captain
Hill does not remove the objection of want of privity between the
prisoner and the paper: I think it cannot be given in evidence. If the
vessel sailed without any instructions, no doubt it is a very strong
circumstance against the honesty and legal purpose of the voyage: if she
is in a latitude, where slave trading is carried on, it affords an
observation against the legality of the voyage.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. I am of the same opinion: I think the document
is not admissible, for the reasons stated by my brother Maule.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_ not objecting, the prisoner was admitted to bail,
and left the dock.

  [_Adjourned._


  SECOND DAY.
  SATURDAY, 28TH OCTOBER, 1843.

  The names of the Jury were called over.--All present.

  The Defendant took his place within the Bar.

  The Witnesses on both sides, except those to character, were directed
  to withdraw.


(_Joseph Bankes was called, but was not in attendance._)


_William Thomas Onion_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

Do you reside at Portsmouth?--I do.

Did you know a vessel called first the Gollupchik, afterwards the
Augusta?--I did.

Did you know a Captain Jennings?--I did.

Did you know his mate also?--Mr. Mottley.

In consequence of your knowing one or both of them, were you
occasionally on board the vessel?--I was on board sometimes, almost the
whole time.

Were you ever applied to to sail in the vessel?--Not directly.

Was any application made to you to join the vessel going any where?--An
observation was made, but not a direct application.

You say you were on board; did you see the captain when he received any
letters?--Yes; I generally saw him receive letters.

What is your occupation at Portsmouth?--A teacher of navigation.

Were you employed to teach anybody in that vessel?--I was giving Mr.
Mottley instructions.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. What is the name of the gentleman?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Motley: M-o-t-l-e-y.--No; M-o-t-t-l-e-y.

You say you saw the captain receive letters; did you see him do any
thing with any part of the letters?--He generally used to cut the name
out.

Mr. _Kelly_. I must object to this. What can we have to do with all
this? Here is a witness, of whom we never heard till to-day, to speak to
what Captain Jennings has done with certain letters he received. How can
that be made evidence against Mr. Zulueta, the prisoner at the bar? Any
thing, which Mr. Zulueta authorised the captain to do, which he
directed, or which he sanctioned after it was done, is evidence against
him; but on what conceivable principle are the minds of the Jury to be
perplexed and overloaded by circumstances taking place, which occurred
in his absence, over which he had no control, and of which he had no
knowledge till he hears it three years and a half afterwards?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not know, at present, how it can be made
evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I do not know how it can be said that nothing is
evidence against a person, unless he is present at the time. I conceive
this is evidence on the same ground, as if the captain bought slaves
with money sent by Mr. Zulueta for the express purpose of buying slaves,
it would be evidence against him. The question is, whether from Mr.
Zulueta’s conduct, it is not evident that he sent this vessel for slave
trading; that must appear from all the facts: but here we have the
confirmation, that there is one of Mr. Zulueta’s letters actually found
on board the vessel with the name cut out. We shall prove also another
letter, which the captain received. There is all that practice of
secrecy, which shows at the time the vessel had been purchased by Mr.
Zulueta, when Mr. Jennings was acting as captain of that vessel. We are
to show the nature of the transactions of that vessel, and of the
prisoner. One thing is, that there was a universal concealment.
Supposing we could distinctly show that Jennings was going to the
Gallinas for the purpose of dealing in slaves, then we might show, by
Mr. Zulueta’s conduct, that he knew that was the object of the voyage;
but in order to show what was the intention, we must show what passed;
and if we cannot show the conduct of the captain on board that vessel,
at the time he is the captain of that vessel, which we say there is
evidence that Mr. Zulueta purchased; if we cannot account for that
letter which is produced, in Mr. Zulueta’s handwriting, with the name
cut out, and give evidence when it was cut out, and how it was cut out,
it appears to me excluding us from a means of giving evidence of the
facts. If this be not evidence, it is utterly impossible to prove any
combination for the purpose of dealing in slaves, unless the prisoner
charged says so himself, or is present when they say it. If they employ
agents, and he is only one of the parties, I must show the acts of the
parties: but here is a letter from on board the vessel, with the name
cut out. I am showing that this person received letters while he was at
Portsmouth from Zulueta, and that he cut out the name of the person
writing those letters. I submit to your Lordship that that is evidence.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. We think the evidence is not admissible. It is very
true, that you might prove slave trading by the captain of the vessel,
although you did not show the prisoner to have been present at the time;
but it does not follow that every thing which tends to show slave
trading, and which would be admissible against the captain of the
vessel, would be admissible against Zulueta. I do not think that follows
with respect to the evidence now offered. In my opinion it does not
necessarily tend to prove slave trading; it amounts to an admission on
the part of the captain, that the letter he had received was from a
correspondent, whom he desired to conceal; it amounts therefore to no
more, if so much, as if Captain Jennings had said to this witness--This
is a letter from a person from whom I am desirous of concealing that I
have received letters. I think this is not evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. You say you were on board that vessel frequently,
giving instructions to Mottley, and occasionally with the captain; did
you see any thing on board that vessel in a bag at any time?--I saw some
deck-screws; I found them.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You say you saw them; do you mean that you found
many, or only a few?--It was one bundle, wrapped up in canvas.

A bundle of deck-screws, wrapped up in canvas?--Yes.

How many?--About twenty, or two-and-twenty.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Will you explain what you mean by
deck-screws?--Screws that are formed for placing a temporary deck for
slaves, to go through the deck, and fasten to a beam to ship a deck.

To screw it on, and then take out the screws and move the deck?--Yes.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Whereabouts did you find these?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Where did you find them?--In a secret place at
the back of the cupboard.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The cupboard; in what place?--In the cabin of the
ship.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. How came you to be looking there?--A boy, in
putting the soup-tureen into the cupboard, happened to put it too far,
and the tureen fell over; he told me--

Mr. _Kelly_. Tell us what you saw, not what he told you?--Consequently I
got over and recovered the tureen, and I said, “Here is a store--”

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Never mind what you said, but what you saw: you
got up, and recovered the tureen?--Yes; and in searching about, I found
these.

Did you do anything with them, or leave them there?--I put them on the
table, and Mr. Mottley opened them.

What was done with them then?--They were put into a cabin abaft by the
boy.

About what time was this, as near as you can tell?--About the middle of
September, 1840.

Did you see any thing else in the cabin at all?--I have seen some
shackles amongst the ballast.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. How many?--Oh, I do not know; it was mixed with the
ballast, and one thing and another.

Have you been at sea yourself?--Some years.

How long have you left the sea?--About four years.

Did you see any false tops, any covers for the tops of cabins?--False
tops, yes; all the bed places were false tops.

Just tell us what you mean by false tops?--A vacancy between the deck
and the lining.

Was there any opening to them?--Yes.

Just describe it?--About four inches I suppose, so as to enable any
thing to be stowed away there.

When it was stowed away, was it possible to be seen to be stowed away,
or concealed?--No; it was concealed.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. All the bed places you say were with false
tops?--What they call lined, between the deck and the lining, leaves a
vacancy.

Mr Serjeant _Bompas_. Was there any thing to open or shut? Will you
describe how anything could be put in?--A piece of, I do not know what
you call it, a piece of furniture came over the facing.

Do you know what is the moulding?--A kind of moulding, and there was
this vacancy.

To any body who came into that cabin and saw that, was that
perceivable?--Not at all.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

What are you now by business or trade?--A teacher of navigation.

Were these articles, of which you have spoken, articles calculated for
the carrying on the slave trade?--I presume so.

Will you allow me to ask in what way you have acquired your knowledge of
what is fit for the slave trade, and what is not?--A representation of
Mr. Mottley himself, who was on the slave trade on the coast for years.

It was by the representation of Mottley, who was on the coast for years,
you acquired this knowledge?--Yes, that was the way.

That leads you to suppose that these were calculated for the use of the
slave trade?--Yes.

Did you know that the Gollupchik had been sent to England to be sold by
reason of its having been fitted up for the slave trade?--I heard so.

Was it not perfectly notorious through Portsmouth?--I believe she was
not condemned, but it was said so.

You are a teacher of navigation; do you know whether before a vessel
clears out from a British port for the coast of Africa, she is not
examined by a Custom-house officer, to see whether there are any
articles used for the slave trade?--I believe she is.

These articles you saw were at Portsmouth, before the vessel went to
Liverpool, where she received her cargo?--Yes.

Do you live at Portsmouth?--I do.


_Joseph Bankes_, the elder, sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_.

Do you live at Portsmouth?--Yes.

What business do you there carry on?--A cooper.

Do you remember the Gollupchik being at Portsmouth in the year
1840?--Very well.

While she was there did you go on board her?--Yes.

Were you employed to do any thing on board that vessel with the water
casks?--Yes.

The leagers?--Yes; large casks for leagers; double leagers.

About what size were the casks?--There were different sizes; but those
casks we are now speaking about would contain nearly a thousand gallons
each.

How many were there?--About a dozen.

Were they entire on board when you first went on board the vessel?--Yes.

Where were they?--They were on one side the kelson, full of water.

Who was in command of the vessel at that time?--A person of the name of
Mottley, apparently to me assumed the command.

Did you see Jennings there?--Yes.

Do you know a man called Bernardos?--No, I do not.

Did you receive any directions, I do not ask what they were, to do any
thing with the casks?--

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not understand here, how this is evidence against Mr.
Zulueta. The cause has lasted quite long enough, without our having all
the directions given by all persons.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. My question was simply: Did you receive any
directions from any person? I put that, and was putting it in the most
unexceptionable manner.

Mr. _Kelly_. I will not object; go on.

--I received directions at my own shop, from a person calling himself
Mr. Jennings.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you, in consequence of any directions you
received, go on board the vessel?--He took me on board the vessel the
same day, in the shipwright’s boat.

In pursuance of any directions you received, did you do any thing?--I
numbered each cask, beginning at 1, 2, 3, and completing each.

Each stave?--Yes; and then took the heads off the staves, put them on
the inside of the staves, put them up together, and formed them into
stacks.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. When you went on board, you found some staves and
heads of casks?--I found the casks.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. He found the casks, and took them to pieces.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You found the casks in the state of casks?--Yes,
they were stowed in the hold of the vessel, full of water.

How many casks?--I think of the larger kind there were about twelve.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. About how many smaller ones?--I should say
there were about fifty of the smaller kind.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. What did you do with the large casks?--Razed the
staves of the large casks. I numbered each stave, stave by stave, till I
had completed the circle of thirty or forty staves.

Did you mark them with chalk, or what?--I razed them with a proper
razing iron.

Razing is scratching a mark?--Yes.

What did you do with them?--Took the hoops from them and put them
together, and put them in close packs as we do sugar-casks.

You emptied the water?--Yes, emptied the water and took the casks to
pieces.

You put the parts of the casks together as correctly as you could, to
enable them to be put together again?--Yes.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Where did you leave them?--I left them stowed
in the ballast, after the ballast had been taken out and limbers cleared
out of the bottom of the vessel and stowed them on the top of the
ballast in packs.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Each cask in a pack?--Yes, in a separate pack.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you do any thing with the smaller
ones?--Yes, some of them, and others I repaired for water for the voyage
for the present crew.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You did the same with some of the smaller ones, and
repaired others for water for the crew?--Yes, just so.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. How long did it take you to do this?--About
three weeks; from the 8th of September to the 19th we were positively
engaged entirely in that work.

Did you see any thing else that attracted your attention, while you were
engaged on board the vessel?--Yes.

What was it?--In two of the smaller casks, which we came to in the tier,
our attention was attracted by a noise in the cask; it proved to be a
quantity of what we call shackles when I was in the West India trade: we
did not count them, but there might be from one to two hundred pair.

They were in the cask?--Yes.

Can you tell how many there were?--We did not count them, but I should
consider from the weight and height of the cask, there were nearly two
hundred pair.

Was any thing done with those while you were there?--Not that I saw.

Then they were left in the place where you found them?--Yes, they had
been in the vessel before.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. What did you do with that cask?--We restowed it
again.

Did you take that cask to pieces?--No.

How could you see the shackles?--Because we took the head out.

Did you put the head in again, or leave it so?--I left it so; but I
believe my son did the remainder.

You do not know whether it was done or not?--No.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

This was in September, between the 8th and 19th; you were eleven days
about this?--That was the time that we were specially engaged on the
large casks.

Was it necessary to hammer them to separate them?--Of course, we took
all the hoops off.

That makes a good deal of noise?--Sometimes it does.

Had you any person to help you?--I had my own son, and the ship’s crew
at times, at any time I wanted to get the large casks out of the hold.

How long was this after the vessel had been sold, and these casks in
her, by public auction, as a condemned slaver?--I did not know she had
been sold; I heard of it.

When did you hear of it?--Some time before, in August, I heard it.

Did you go to the sale?--No.

Do you recollect the vessel leaving Portsmouth?--Yes; that was two or
three days after.

She left in ballast for Liverpool; did she not?--They said she was going
to Liverpool.

Perhaps there was a doubt about that; did any persons come on board her
to see her?--I did not see any persons particular; there were comers and
goers, such as persons who do come on board to vessels, such as
watermen, and men coming on board wanting to go out as men in the
vessel.

Any body else that you remember?--Not that I know of.

Just describe: the hold of the vessel had been fitted with these large
leagers which you speak of?--Yes.

Those you took down, where did you put them?--We stowed them on the top
of the ballast, in the wings, any where, where there appeared to be
room.

What was the ballast of the vessel?--Iron ballast.

Where do you say you saw the shackles, which you assume to be a hundred
or two hundred in number?--On the starboard side.

That is where you left them?--Yes.

Did they form part of the vessel’s ballast?--I should say not.

What was the ballast?--The ballast was pigs of iron, such as are used on
such occasions.

Have the kindness to tell me, whether or not you left those shackles on
the top of the ballast?--I left them in the hold, on the starboard side.

On the top of the ballast?--Yes.

Were there any persons on board the vessel at the time you went
away?--Yes, the ship’s company.

Any body else?--Not that I know of, except two shipwrights.

Were they two Portsmouth shipwrights?--I believe they were.

What were their names?--Case the elder, and Case the younger.

Are they here to-day?--No, they are not.

Had they been working on board the vessel?--Previous to me, and after I
left her also.

Do you recollect the names of any other persons who bad been working on
board her?--No, I know there were two others; but I do not know their
names.

What were they?--Scrapers, and caulkers, and so on.

Portsmouth men?--I believe so.

Who called upon you to come here and be a witness?--The King’s
solicitor, Mr. Greetham.

When?--Last Thursday.

Was that the first time you ever heard of being called here?--Oh, dear
no; I had heard of it being talked about before.

Was that the first time you were called upon to attend?--Yes, positively
to attend.

Did you communicate to Mr. Greetham that there were shipwrights, whose
names you knew, working on the vessel, both before you were on board and
afterwards?--No, I never mentioned it to any person.

You were never taken before any magistrate on this subject, were
you?--No.

So that the party accused had no opportunity of knowing that you, or any
person who comes with you, were about to attend?--No.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not think it is convenient to put speeches,
containing inferences to be derived from the evidence: it was the old
practice, I am well aware, when speeches could not be made, and a very
fair one then.

Mr. _Clarkson_. You have stated to the Jury what you saw of the vessel
when she was at Portsmouth; can you give any account of what was on
board her when she was at Liverpool, and whether there was any thing of
the nature you have described?--No, for I never went to Liverpool.


_Joseph Bankes_, junior, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Payne_.

Are you the son of the last witness?--Yes.

Did you assist your father at Portsmouth on board the Augusta?--Yes.

Mr. _Kelly_. Is it only to confirm the other witness? I do not dispute
that.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I thought the intention of the cross-examination
was to break in upon that witness.

Mr. _Kelly_. Certainly not; you misunderstood it, then.

Mr. _Clarkson_. You may stand down, Sir.


_Henry George Moon_ sworn. Examined by Mr. _Payne_.

Are you clerk to Mr. Vandenburg, the Russian consul at Portsmouth?--I am
clerk to him, but he is not the Russian consul.

Do you remember the arrival of the Gollupchik at Portsmouth?--I do.

On the day of her arrival, did you go on board her?--I went on board
with Mr. Vandenburg.

Do you remember the day of her arrival?--I think it was the 10th of
June, 1839.

Who was the captain of the vessel at that time?--Thomas Bernardos
described himself as captain.

Did he act as captain?--The vessel was under the charge of an officer of
Her Majesty’s customs at the time; I forget the officer’s name.

Did you receive any letter from Bernardos to put into the post?--I took
a letter on shore, addressed to Messrs. Zulueta & Co.

What did you do with it?--I put it into the post.

From whom did you get it?--From Captain Bernardos.

Mr. _Payne_. Here it is; “A Letter addressed by the said Thomas
Bernardos, addressed to Messrs. Zulueta; posted at Portsmouth, the 10th
day of June, 1839.” We call for that.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Was that the same day you got the letter?--Yes, the
same day.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

You saw nothing of the vessel, I presume, when she sailed on the
voyage?--Her voyage out, do you mean?

Yes, when she sailed from Liverpool?--No, certainly not.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Of course not.

Mr. _Kelly_. You know that ultimately this vessel was given up to the
Russian government?--Yes, I do.


_Thomas James Clark_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

How old are you?--Nineteen.

Are you a sailor?--Yes.

How long have you been a sailor?--Several years.

Did you sail on board the Augusta?--Yes.

Where did you enter on board?--At Portsmouth harbour.

Where did you enter for?--To go to Liverpool, at first.

At that time you entered only to go to Liverpool?--That was all.

Did you continue on board?--Yes.

You went from Liverpool in the vessel?--Yes.

Where were the sailors hired generally, at Liverpool or Portsmouth?--At
Portsmouth some were hired.

And afterwards went on with the vessel, as you did?--Yes.

How many men were on board about, I do not wish to know exactly, when
you sailed from Liverpool?--About twenty-one or twenty-two.

What was your occupation on board the ship?--I was shipped as a boy, a
cabin-boy.

Had you any thing to do with the loading of the vessel, or not?--I was
acting as a cabin-boy.

You had nothing to do with the loading of the vessel?--No.

Do you remember any storm arising after you had left?--Yes; after we
left Liverpool we had a very heavy gale of wind, which lasted some time.

How shortly was that after you sailed?--I do not know; it might have
been several days.

Do you remember about how far you were from Cork or Falmouth?--Not a
very great distance.

Do you remember whether the wind was fair for going to Cork or
Falmouth?--Yes; it was a fair wind back, if the skipper had been
disposed to run back.

Did anything take place in the ship about going back?--Yes, there was a
great disturbance with the crew; they said the vessel was not safe to go
to where the skipper sailed to.

Where was she going to?--The coast of Africa: he said he would not go
back, that he should lose his crew if he put back.

Mr. _Kelly_. They said it was not safe to go to the coast of
Africa?--Yes.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Where did he sail for at last?--Sailed to Spain.

Was the wind fair for Spain, or not?--I do not know.

How many days were you before you got to Spain?--We were some time
before we got to Spain.

Can you tell whether it was a fortnight or three weeks, or between the
two?--I dare say it was a fortnight, or more.

You know the port in Spain; Cadiz, was not it?--Yes.

Were any of the men discharged at Cadiz?--Yes, the best part of them.

Do you know whether that was arranged before they went to Cadiz, at the
time of the storm?--It was all the captain’s misconduct.

What was?--Their leaving of us.

How long did you remain at Cadiz?--We remained there, I do not know
exactly the time, a month, or it might be two months.

Was any of the cargo discharged at Cadiz?--Yes; the best part of it was
moved out of her into small vessels.

There was some tobacco that was damaged, was there not?--Yes.

Did some part remain?--I do not know.

You acted as cabin-boy, we understand?--Yes.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

You were on board this vessel at Portsmouth?--Yes.

Do you recollect a number of large water-casks, and a good many small
ones, that there were on board the vessel at Portsmouth?--Yes.

That Bankes and his son were working at for some time?--Yes.

You sailed with them on board from Portsmouth to Liverpool?--Yes.

Were not they sent out at Liverpool, and sold to Mr. Toplis, the agent,
who shipped the goods?--I know very well they were put on shore.

And the vessel sailed without them?--I am not very sure whether they
were put on board again.

Did you ever see them again?--No.

Were there not some iron bolts and screws, which had been on board the
vessel formerly, made up and thrown overboard while the vessel remained
at Portsmouth?--No, not to my recollection.

You do not know any thing of that kind?--No.


Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

Do you remember any thing about the quantity of water that was actually
on board; had they much or little water?--When they sailed from
Liverpool they had a great quantity of water.

Were the water-casks carried all the way or not?--We had several great
puncheons on deck at the time of the storm; we knocked one or two of the
heads in to help the vessel; one or two of the casks went overboard.

You had been at sea before?--Yes.

Had you a less or a greater quantity of water?--

Mr. _Kelly_. How often had he sailed, and had he been on the coast of
Africa?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. How often had you been at sea before?--I had been
to North America before.

You had never been to Africa before?--No.

You do not know what is usual on the coast of Africa?--No.


The Honourable Captain _Denman_, R. N. sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant
_Talfourd_.

Were you commanding on the African coast at any time?--I was commanding
on a district of the African coast.

Did that embrace the river Gallinas?--The river Gallinas was within the
district.

How long, while you were on that coast, were you acquainted with that
river?--I was myself constantly in sight of the river for a period of
eight or ten months.

Had you also, besides the period you were opposite that river, other
opportunities of observing what was going on there?--Whenever I was not
there myself, I left a vessel to watch the place and report to me what
occurred.

We have heard there were some slave factories, barracoons there?--There
were no less than six slave factories on the shore.

According to your observation, what was the trade carried on
there?--There was no trade whatever but the slave trade; exclusively the
slave trade.

You did not yourself know the proprietors of the barracoons?--I did not
know any of them personally.

Did you ever see any of them in their warehouses?--No, except one.

Who was that?--I believe it was Martinez, but I am not certain: the name
we knew him by was Pedro Fernandos.

Mr. _Kelly_. You will state what you do know?--The name we knew him by
was Domingo Fernandos.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you know Ignatio Rolo?--Yes, I have seen
him at Gallinas.

What did he do at the Gallinas?--He was landing from the Saracen when I
saw him.

That was the vessel commanded by Captain Hill?--Yes.

Did you ever see him on any of those factories?--I never saw him, except
at the factory at which he landed.

Did he land at the factory?--He was landed in a man-of-war’s boat.


Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

Had you means, while in the river Gallinas from time to time, of
ascertaining how many towns or villages there were as far up the river
as you went?--There were, to my knowledge, some three or four or five
towns on different branches of the river.

How high up did you go yourself?--I went up about ten or twelve miles, I
suppose.

You say that as far as your knowledge extends there was no other trade
there but the slave trade?--My positive knowledge is that there was
nothing but the slave trade there.

Do you mean to represent that you knew all the ships containing British
merchandise consigned to that place, and what became of the merchandise
which was landed by the ships? Have you no doubt that you knew enough of
what took place at that place, to be aware what became of the
merchandise landed from every ship?--The question involves two or three
points; I must answer in the first place, that every vessel that landed
cargoes there I knew of.

During what period?--During a period of ten months most particularly.

What ten months was that?--From the month of March or the month of
April, 1840, until the month of February 1841.

Have you never heard of a ship, called the Supply, landing merchandise
there to the value of between 13,000_l._ and 14,000_l._?--Not during
that period. I beg not to be misunderstood; I do not deny that vessels
have landed cargoes there to a large amount, but I say the slave trade
is the exclusive business there: there is no produce.

That is inference, perhaps, hardly warranted by your premises: is there
any thing in the nature of the case to prevent the importing merchandise
for consumption by the natives on the spot, and is it not consumed by
the natives?--I say no produce is exported.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The question is, what was done with the
merchandise; was it given in exchange?--There were two articles of
import, which are the one eaten, and the other used by the slave traders
to buy slaves.

Mr. _Kelly_. What I understood you to say was, that you are not aware
that there is any produce exported; but I ask whether articles are not
imported to be consumed by the natives?--I do not mean to say a few
hundred weight or a ton is not exported, but nothing to be called
produce or exports.

You do not say there are not a few hundreds of tons?--I say not a
hundred weight.

That was the case during the ten months you were there?--I have known
the Gallinas since 1835. I was in charge of that station during two
years; during that time I was ten months stationed at Gallinas, and had
reports from the place.

When you say there is no trade carried on there but the slave trade, do
you exclude from your observation the shipments of goods from England
landed there and sold for money? for consumption there, sold for
money?--If you put that question again, I shall understand it.

I wish to ask you, as you state that there is nothing but the slave
trade carried on, that there are no exports, whether the trade may not
consist of landing goods and selling them for money, as well as
purchasing goods there, and carrying them away?--Just so.

Do you mean to exclude or include the fact of merchandise being landed
there, and purchased there, and paid for in money, so that a stranger
carrying it there, and selling it and receiving his money, would be
doing what of course was perfectly lawful?--My answer is, that a person
landing his goods there would not be able to procure a return, but that
all the goods would go for the purchase of slaves, and nothing else:
that is my reason for saying nothing but the slave trade is carried on
there.

I will call them all slave traders, if you please. Do you mean to say a
man may not purchase a quantity of goods which he may barter for slaves;
may he not sell a part of them also to the natives?--The natives have no
means of paying for them, except by the exchange for slaves: there is no
produce.

As regards the shippers from this country; supposing that a man were to
ship, not as agent, but on his own account, a cargo from this country,
receiving money for what he exported, do you mean to say there would be
any slave trading in that?--I should say not of necessity.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Suppose he comes away in ballast, if such a
transaction happens?--I have never known of such a case; there was no
English trade during the time I was there.

Mr. _Kelly_. Do you mean that no English vessels went there?--Oh, yes;
English vessels passed and had some little proceedings; the Augusta, for
instance, was a vessel I always suspected.

Whatever took place at that place, the Gallinas, for some years before
you do not know?--I know from the statement of the natives that there
was no trade.

I ask you, do you know of a vessel, called the Supply, having landed and
disposed of merchandise at the Gallinas to the amount of 13,000_l._ or
14,000_l._?--There was no such vessel there during the two years I was
there; certainly not during the ten months.

This is a place to which trading of the nature to which I have referred
may have taken place at a time previous to the time you mention?--The
trade of the nature I describe has taken place since 1835.

I will give you the dates; I will mention the year 1837; do you know of
a vessel called the Milford, having landed and disposed of goods to the
amount of 6,000_l._ or 7,000_l._ at the Gallinas?--No, I was not there
at the time; but that does not alter the case, for the slave trade
existed there.

I do not ask you as to the existence of the slave trade, but whether
there has not been lawful commerce and ships coming away in ballast?--I
know that 800 tons of goods were landed during the time I was there, and
that none of the vessels went away except with money or goods, and
except when they were consigned for cargoes from the Havannah, which was
the case in nine cases out of ten.

According to your experience some vessels do carry commodities to a
great extent, and receive payment in actual money and sail away?--Yes,
those are exceptions, but such cases do occur.

Others would go and carry their goods there and receive slaves?--No,
that is not the system. The freight of the vessel is consigned from the
Havannah to a slave factor, Rolo, for instance, at Gallinas; she sails
again in ballast, the freight is all paid to Havannah; that is the
general rule.

From what, according to your sense of the word “slave trade,” do you
make out that that vessel was at all engaged in the slave trade?--I do
not say that vessel is of necessity engaged in the slave trade, for I do
not think it is of necessity that persons know what they are about, but
I say that the consequence of it is the slave trade.

You mean that those merchants and mercantile persons are carrying on the
slave trade?--Precisely so.

A person living any where else, and exporting produce there, might very
well export it and get his money for it, without at all knowing to what
purpose that should be applied?--Certainly, that is very possible.

With respect to this place, called the Gallinas, I am quite sure that
you have given the account of the place as you believe it to exist; had
you not a hand in destroying the factories there, which is the subject
of one or two actions against you at this moment?--There are actions
brought against me for the destruction of slave factories.

When did the event take place? I do not ask whether you had any thing to
do with it of course, but when did the event take place?--About
November, 1840.

Has your experience led you to various other parts of the coast of
Africa, where the slave trade is carried on?--Yes.

Are not there certain parts of the coast where there is a lawful trade
as well as an unlawful trade?--In almost all places, the Gallinas is the
exception.

Is your knowledge, that the Gallinas is the exception, obtained from
your personal presence on the spot?--It is obtained from my personal
presence on the spot.

So that any person, in England or elsewhere, might export commodities to
half a dozen places along the coast of Africa, and might as well export
there without knowledge as any other place?--With the distinction that
there is no other trade carried on there.

How is a merchant carrying on business in this country, receiving an
order for 5,000_l._ worth of goods from the Gallinas, to know that the
Gallinas is an exception to other places?--I think if he does not know
any thing of the character of the parties, he may be ignorant of the use
to which they are applied.

You mean the character of the party to whom the goods are to be
sent?--Yes.

What would the character of the person, to whom the goods were sent,
have to do with the fact how the person in this country is to know that
the Gallinas is the exception, and that the goods are not going there to
fair persons as well as to other persons?--If he knows the person to
whom the goods are shipped at Gallinas, I should suppose he would know
there was nothing but slave trading carried on.

That is, if he knew as well as you who have been on the spot; are there
not many persons who carry on the slave trade, who also carry on a very
extensive lawful trade?--Undoubtedly.

Then how is a gentleman in England or America, who exports his
merchandise on those orders, to know the use to which they are to be
applied?--If he knows any thing of Gallinas, he will know the object to
which they are applied.

If he does not know?--If he does not know any thing of Gallinas, he is
not necessarily guilty of doing any thing which is wrong.

When a vessel is under the English flag, and manned by English sailors,
is there not a far greater facility as to search, and as to fair trial
and condemnation, than if it is a foreign vessel?--Yes, when there is
suspicion of the slave trade; it depends upon some of the treaties.

Is there any thing at all to restrict or prevent your searching every
vessel under the English flag, commanded by an English captain, and
manned by an English crew?--Nothing at all, if we suspect.

You do it without opposition?--Yes.

When a vessel is seized which is English, it goes without any delay
before an English tribunal?--Yes.

When it is a foreign vessel, does not it go before a Mixed
Commission?--It depends upon the nature of the treaty; under some of the
treaties it would go to the tribunal before a Mixed Commission.

A French vessel would go before a French tribunal?--Yes.

A Spanish before a mixed tribunal?--Yes.

And a Portuguese?--Yes.

When was it you first sailed for the coast of Africa?--I left England in
February, 1840.

Did you before that know the Gallinas?--Yes, I knew it in 1835.

You had been there in 1835?--Yes.

You went there first in 1835, in the discharge of your professional
duties? Before that time were you aware there was such a place?--No, I
knew nothing about the coast of Africa.

You did not know that the Gallinas was a place where slaves were more or
less dealt in than any other place?--I had no reason to know any thing
about it till I went there.


Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_.

Nor the trade any where else I presume?--No.

How many merchants are there at the Gallinas to whom goods might be
consigned?--I believe they are all agents; there are no actual
merchants.

How many people are there?--There are twenty or thirty Europeans
altogether.

Were there persons to whom goods would be consigned, except those in
slave factories?--There was not another white man.

Have the natives, in any of those villages, any means of paying for
British produce?--They have no means of paying but by slaves; the
country does not produce any produce.

You have been asked, whether a merchant here may not ship to the coast
of Africa without knowing the nature of the trade there; do you think a
merchant who had exported for twenty years could be ignorant?--It is
impossible he could fail to know the nature of the trade.

Mr. _Kelly_. My Lord, my learned friend has called for a letter, which
the witness says was put in the post on the 10th of June, 1839.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I thought it was 1840.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, 1839, four years ago. The letter has been most
carefully looked for, and is not in existence. A few days ago, Mr.
Lawford looked carefully for it, with the assistance of some of Mr.
Zulueta’s people, and they are utterly unable to find it. I shall not
consider him a witness, if my learned friend wishes to examine Mr.
Lawford as to that matter, he may. The effect of it has been stated. If
he wishes to ask those persons who are aware whether such a letter had
existence, and whether it is not lost, I will produce them, in order to
afford him the opportunity of putting the question.


Lieutenant Colonel _Edward Nichol_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant
_Bompas_.

Have you become acquainted with the coast of Africa?--A long time.

How long?--Since the year 1822.

Had you any official employment upon that coast?--I was governor of the
Isle of Ascension, and afterwards of Fernando Po, five years at each
place.

In that situation, was it your duty to attend to the coast in other
parts besides Fernando Po and the other place where you were immediately
governor, and to make a report upon it?--It was.

Did you receive reports from the officers of the navy, or others, with
respect to the various parts of the coast?--I have received reports from
upwards of 200 officers of the navy, and masters of merchant ships on
different parts of the coast, and have sent a small schooner attached to
my command at Fernando Po, to make reports of the different slave
trading stations and what was going on there.

Did you know the river Gallinas?--Yes.

Have you been there yourself?--I have.

For what period has it been within your observation?--Since 1822; I
visited it in 1822, in His Majesty’s ship Victor.

Up to what time?--We did not stay long; we were chasing a slaver off the
port.

How long had you occasion to know that place?--From that time to 1834;
from 1822 to 1834; I left the coast in December, 1834; I have had
continual communication with it since.

During that time what was the trade carried on at the Gallinas?--The
slave trade.

Was there any produce exported from the Gallinas at all?--Not a particle
that ever came to my knowledge, or under my observation, or from the
information I have received.

Was the country round the Gallinas a country producing that which was
fit for export or usually exported?--Nothing but stones and trees,
hardly what would subsist the people living there.

Did you know of the existence of slave establishments there?--As
notoriously as that this Court is here.

You have seen them yourself?--Yes, certainly, and had reports from the
officers I sent there.

Were you there more than once?--No.

Did you know any persons residing there? Did you know Pedro Blanco?--I
knew him from reports; they kept out of my sight, they did not come near
me.

Was it part of your duty to suppress the slave trade as much as
possible?--That is the duty of every British officer.

It is necessary I should ask you whether it was part of your
duty?--Certainly. I had no authority to seize slave ships though, but to
give information to His Majesty’s squadron; and I believe I did that to
some good amount.

It was your duty to obtain information of what was going on along the
coast, and to communicate it to the naval officers, to enable them to
seize the vessels?--Certainly.

What was about the distance of your station from the Gallinas?--About
1500 miles I should say, except when I have been running down the coast.
Fernando Po is a long way from the Gallinas.

But you have been running down the coast and obtaining reports?--Yes,
both by myself and my officers.

Had you the means of ascertaining the way in which the slave trade was
carried on?--I had.

What was the course; was it by barter or money?--You cannot get slaves
for money. I never saw a slave got for money. They cannot be got without
British manufactured goods supplied by the merchants.

They get British manufactured goods and barter them for slaves?--That is
the general course of dealing for slaves.

They are brought from the interior of Africa to places where the trade
is carried on?--Just so.

Are the slaves brought to the Gallinas for the purpose of being bartered
for the goods there?--It is the most notorious and infamous slave port
on the coast of Africa. There is a continual drain of slaves from all
parts of the country to it; there is nothing going on there but the
slave trade, any man sending goods there must know that.

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not know why we are to listen to these speeches, or
even to this evidence. Unless something of this, so well known to this
gentleman so constantly visiting that spot, had been communicated to the
prisoner at the bar before the transaction in question, I am at a loss
to know how he can be affected by it. I dare say there are many persons
in this Court, whose geographical knowledge may have extended as far as
the Gallinas, who never heard of such a thing until they heard it upon
this occasion; and I do not know how notoriety to people on the spot can
be evidence against the defendant, who has never been on that spot, and
never had any communication of any kind with any person on the spot.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I hardly know how many objections are to be
raised; to show the nature of the trade I must call these witnesses.

Mr. _Kelly_. I have no question to ask you.


Mr. _John Brown_ called again. Examined by Mr. _Payne_.

Will you produce enclosure No. 18? (_The same was produced_).

(_To_ Captain _Hill_). Will you look at that, and state whose
handwriting you believe it to be?--I believe this handwriting to be
Bernardos’s, but I did not see him write it; I have some writing I saw
him write in my possession.

From the knowledge you have acquired, seeing him write, do you believe
it to be his writing?--Yes.

Have you had that paper in your possession before?--This is one of the
papers I found on board the vessel when I seized her.


Mr. _James Brodie_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.

I believe you come from the Post Office?--Yes.

You have been accustomed to see the post-mark on letters?--I have.

Have the goodness to look at that, and tell me whether that is the
post-mark, and the date of it?--It is.

What is the date?--The 23rd of September, 1840, as far as I can judge.

Mr. _Kelly_. This is the letter about which we have already had a
discussion?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am not aware of any discussion about it at
present.

Mr. _Kelly_. Are you about to offer it in evidence?

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes.

Mr. _Kelly_. Then I object to it; I do not understand the principle on
which it is offered. This is a letter which Captain Hill proves to be in
the writing of Bernardos, written to Captain Jennings, and dated
September, 1840. That is sought to be given in evidence against the
defendant. There is no proof that he ever saw or heard of the letter in
the whole course of his life.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Your Lordship will find the letter No. 18.

Mr. _Kelly_. It is a letter, I understand, which is printed at page 35,
in the Appendix to the Appeal Case, at the top of that page.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. It is a letter written by one of the parties to
the other of the parties who were engaged in paying the money for this
vessel, which was received from the prisoner at the bar. It is a letter
from Bernardos, your Lordship will see, describing the voyage.

Mr. _Kelly_. You had better not speak of the contents of the letter; it
is before their Lordships, and for the purpose of deciding the point of
law, my Lord may look at the letter. I cannot help complaining of the
course taken, which is not correct or usual. My learned friend takes the
opportunity of stating, in the hearing of the Jury, something of the
contents of that letter, which is before your Lordships, and of which
your Lordships may possess yourselves while we are discussing whether
the contents of it are to be stated in Court at all. If your Lordships
hold it admissible, it will then be read; but, for the present, you may
read it yourselves, and hear the argument upon it.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I cannot argue, without referring to the contents
in some degree. I am quite sure that I am in your Lordships’ judgment,
that in referring to the contents of the letters, I have abstained from
using one single expression which could have an effect until your
Lordships decide. I have not made use of a word which can justify the
slightest possible degree of observation of my learned friend’s in the
fair argument on the admissibility of the letters; I have gone only as
far as was necessary for the purpose. As far as I have referred to their
contents, I am quite sure your Lordships will be of opinion I have
governed myself by the most careful attention not to say any thing which
was unnecessary. It is important to ascertain where the vessel was to
go. This is the person who paid the notes received from Mr. Zulueta for
this vessel. I ask your Lordship whether that is not evidence of his
being an agent of Zulueta in respect of this vessel. He writes to him
upon his arrival in this vessel; he is employed to pay for this vessel,
to purchase it; there is a communication from the one to the other of
these two persons, so employed to purchase this vessel, in respect of
the vessel and the trade--I say no further than that--and also giving
instructions. I ask your Lordship if it is not open to me to prove where
the vessel was to go to, having shown the communications which took
place between the parties in respect of her going. This contains the
actual instructions. The same rule exists as to evidence in criminal
proceedings as applies to evidence in civil cases. The question has been
before the House of Lords as to instructions given by one party to the
other, and the judgment was set aside on that very point of
instructions.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not know what case you refer to.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. There was one case as to Chambers’s bankruptcy,
where the directions were considered a fact, and as such given in
evidence in order to show that there were directions given. We know that
it is necessary to have a certain quantity of water provided for the men
going on that trade. This letter does not refer to supply of water, and
therefore I use that simply as an illustration. Can it be said, that if
a person employed to engage in a certain trade, employed by the person
upon his trial to purchase a certain vessel, going to a certain place
for a certain object, gives instructions in respect of what is necessary
for the trade carried on at that place, that is not matter to be given
in evidence on the trial? The object of that is to ascertain for what
purpose she went there. I apprehend I have clearly connected these two
persons and the prisoner. Supposing I could give this distinct evidence,
that the prisoner knew of it, would not that be admissible? Do I not
give evidence for the Jury to determine whether he was cognizant of
these transactions? Is not that part of the case for the Jury to
determine, whether by his conduct it is evident he did know what took
place? I apprehend this is a part of the proceedings between two
persons, both of whom have been employed by the prisoner; they proceed
onwards with the knowledge of the prisoner in the prosecution of that
voyage, which was ultimately accomplished, or would have been
accomplished, if she had not been taken. This is one part of that
proceeding, and it is for the Jury to say whether there was, on the part
of the prisoner, a guilty knowledge of the proceeding or not. If there
was not, there will be an acquittal of the prisoner. If there was that
which amounts to a guilty knowledge of what took place, I apprehend it
is impossible to exclude this which is evidence, and which may be
important evidence, in showing that there was a guilty knowledge. This
letter is found passing from one to the other; is proved to be posted
while she was at Portsmouth in preparing for the voyage, and is found
afterwards on board. But we prove the period of its transmission by the
post-mark.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I don’t think this is evidence. I am the more
satisfied in excluding it, that I do not think it of the smallest
importance; it does not prove any thing which is very material but what
is already in proof.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. That, my Lord, is the case on the part of the
Crown.

Mr. _Kelly_. My learned friend having stated that this is his case, I
feel it my duty to take your Lordship’s opinion whether there is any
evidence to go to the Jury in support of this charge; and I will, in
doing so, call your Lordship’s attention to what the charge is on the
indictment, and in respect of the Act of Parliament, to which my learned
friend has hardly alluded. The indictment charges the defendant with
having employed (there are several words used, but I take the more
general words), with having employed a vessel to accomplish a certain
object, that object being trading and dealing in slaves. That the
defendant was a party to the purchase of a vessel there is no doubt. The
great question here is, whether there is any evidence at all,
notwithstanding the great length of time this case has occupied, whether
there is any evidence at all that the defendant, Mr. Pedro de Zulueta,
had any intention of employing that vessel, or those goods, for the
purpose of the vessel or the goods being used in the dealing in slaves.
Now, where is the evidence? I reject, as your Lordship will, all that
was mere matter of observation on the part of my learned friend. The
evidence against Mr. Pedro de Zulueta consists in this--that he wrote a
letter on, I think, the 20th of August, by which he authorised Jennings
to give a certain sum of money for the vessel; the vessel was afterwards
purchased, and the defendant puts the name of his firm to the
charter-party of that vessel--the charter-party, by which Jennings
having become the purchaser of the vessel, charters the vessel to the
foreign house of Martinez & Co., for which the house of Zulueta & Co.
were agents--Martinez & Co. thus become the charterers of the vessel,
Jennings, on certain terms contained in that instrument, being the
captain of the vessel.

It is said, also, that the defendant dispatched the vessel; that he
shipped goods on board the vessel. My Lord, with regard to the whole of
the rest of the case, as to his using, employing, equipping, or
dispatching; as to his shipping the goods by the vessel; as to his
interfering in any way in respect of the vessel or the cargo, that
depends entirely upon his own evidence before the Committee of the House
of Commons. That is evidence against him; that evidence I need not go
into at length; that evidence, taken together and stated shortly, is
this:--I am a member of the firm of Zulueta & Co.; that firm, including
myself, did purchase this vessel, did cause it to be dispatched in the
way stated, did cause certain goods to be shipped on board the vessel.
We acted as agents for Martinez & Co., the goods being consigned to
correspondents of Martinez and Co., named by Martinez & Co.; but as to
the purpose for which that was done, as to the vessel itself, or any
goods on board that vessel, being used for the purposes of the slave
trade, I declare, though I admit that my house did dispatch the vessel,
and did ship the goods, we had no idea or any suspicion that the vessel
or goods could be intended for any illegal purpose whatever. That is the
whole of the evidence, with this addition, that three gentlemen have
been called, whose public duties have for some years past led them to
the coast of Africa, and among other places to the Gallinas, who have
stated that which has come within their personal observation--the place
itself, and the dealings carried on at the place, having been familiar
to them for a considerable time past. They state that they knew very
well that it was a slave trading place. There is no evidence that the
defendant, the prisoner at the bar, ever was at the Gallinas in his
life; on the contrary, the evidence is the other way. There is no
evidence that the defendant ever gave any instructions or authority,
directly or indirectly, to Jennings, or to any other person, to use the
vessel or to use the goods for the purposes of the slave trade, or for
any other illegal purpose. There is no evidence that any communication
was ever made by the house of Martinez & Co., or any other house, to the
defendant, Pedro de Zulueta, that the vessel or goods were to be
employed in the slave trade, or that any such illegal object was in
contemplation.

Now, my Lord, what is the effect of the statute? The statute declares
that slave trading, of a particular description, shall be illegal. The
statute proclaims it a felony in any British subject to employ or equip
a vessel, or to ship goods, for the purposes of the slave trade. That
it may be taken on the admission of the prisoner himself, by his
evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons, though there is
no other evidence, that he did employ the vessel, and that he was
concerned in the shipping of goods, I admit; but where is the evidence
that he did those acts, or that he participated in those acts, for the
purpose of those goods, or that ship, being employed in the slave trade?
If this be so, if your Lordships hold that it is evidence to go to the
Jury, that because a mercantile house in this city executes the order of
a foreign correspondent, and sends out a ship with certain goods, which
may be lawfully shipped, but which it is possible may be improperly
employed, that therefore it is to be taken that they were to be
unlawfully employed, and that therefore there is evidence to go to the
Jury that he dispatched the vessel, and shipped the goods, in order that
they might be unlawfully employed, I do not see how any mercantile house
in this kingdom can trade in ships or goods, or execute any order, at
the instance of any house in any part of the world, where either from
that house personally dealing in the slave trade, or having
communication with parts of the coast of Africa, it is possible that the
ship, or the goods, may be applied to the unlawful purposes of the slave
trade. If, without any proof of the party having used the ship, or the
goods, for the purposes of the slave trade, without any document under
his hand alluding to the slave trade, where all that is done is
perfectly lawful, because it is possible that other persons, to whom he
may have consigned his goods, may apply the ship, or the commodities, to
the uses and purposes of the slave trade, that is to be held to be a
case for the Jury that they were so intended, I do not know how any
trade can be carried on. I submit, therefore, that here there is no
evidence to go to the Jury of Mr. Pedro de Zulueta, the prisoner at the
bar, having used this ship, or having shipped these goods, for the
purpose of their being employed for the slave trade. I can easily
conceive that a case might have been made out. The prosecutors seem to
have been aware that communications had taken place between Messrs.
Martinez & Co. and the house of Zulueta & Co., and they have called for
the production of letters. I can easily imagine that a case might have
been made out, inasmuch as Mr. Zulueta has stated that he purchased this
ship by order of Martinez. But the prosecutor is bound to make out that
case: he is not to raise a suspicion, and then to call upon the prisoner
to clear himself from it: he must prove his case. He might call for any
letters that had taken place between Martinez and the prisoner at the
bar; for any communications between the prisoner at the bar and the
captain of the vessel. If they had been produced, he might have
established from them that something had been proved that established
this offence. Then there might have been a case to go to the Jury; but
the case here is one in which the prosecutor alleges, that Pedro de
Zulueta himself employed the vessel, and shipped these goods, for the
purpose of their being employed in the slave trade. The question is, the
slave trade being prohibited by law, whether he is concerned in the
intent and design of their being so to be used; whether there is any
evidence that he knew of the slave, trade being carried on there;
whether there is any evidence that he knew that these goods would be
employed, or might be employed, for the purposes of the slave trade. I
submit there is no case calling upon him, I will not say for an answer,
but even for observation; I submit that it would be extremely unsafe
where the prosecutor has the means of proving if there has been a guilty
knowledge on the part of the defendant, if it is the fact that the
intent of the proceeding is something illegal, and where the prosecutor
might prove it by direct evidence, that he should content himself with
proving that a ship was dispatched which might be used for the purposes
of this trade, leaving it to the defendant to prove the negative of
that, and to give in evidence all the documents which may have taken
place, merely proving that it is possible that the ship the defendant
dispatched might be so employed. I submit to your Lordships that is a
dangerous doctrine, that it is contrary to the practice of the Court,
and that there is no case in which the charge would not apply equally to
every merchant in the kingdom who exported goods which might, after they
left this country, be applied to an illegal purpose.

  (_The learned Judges consulted together._)

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Mr. Kelly, you may go to the Jury.

Mr. _Kelly_. My Lord, after what has fallen from your Lordships, of
course I shall not hesitate to address the Jury upon the evidence which
has been offered by my learned friend. There are one or two points,
however, to which I would call your Lordship’s attention, and bring the
terms of the statute under the attention of the Court; which, I
apprehend, will be fatal to the prosecution, without troubling the Jury
with observations which may extend to a considerable length of time, and
which I shall feel it my duty to bring before the Court.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Do you mean something in arrest of judgment?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, my Lord; on the effect of the evidence.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I cannot think it is at all right that the question
whether the case should go to the Jury should be twice put.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, my Lord. I say, supposing even that the charge is well
made, that it is not an offence within the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It comes to the same thing; I cannot see what you
mean to say to the Court, except that the indictment is bad. That you
state you do not propose to say?

Mr. _Kelly_. It is not that which I first contended.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You did not propose to say that, and you now
propose to say that the indictment is bad?

Mr. _Kelly_. My Lord, there is one point on which I do contend that the
indictment is bad, though that is not the point to which I would call
your Lordship’s attention. I was first about to submit to your Lordship,
that the offence charged upon the evidence is not a felony within the
Act of Parliament.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. That it does not support the indictment?

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It appears to me that that is exactly what you have
been saying before.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, my Lord, the point is altogether and totally different.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It may be a different reason, but it is the same
point.

Mr. _Kelly_. I am sure your Lordship will see that it is different, when
I come to explain.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is going for a nonsuit?

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes, it is in effect, my Lord; but if the Court will
indulge me with a few moments of time, they will see that the Court is
under a mistake, and that the point is most grave and proper for the
consideration of the Court, and totally apart and distinct from that I
have already submitted.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. All I want is that you should explain. Sometimes,
when gentlemen are moving for a new trial, they are asked whether they
move for a new trial on the point of misdirection, or the verdict being
against evidence; I do not say it is imperative they should state
distinctly, sometimes a gentleman might not feel prepared to state that?

Mr. _Kelly_. I will answer your Lordship’s question in as few words as I
can. The point I make is this:--The charge is, that of fitting out a
vessel to accomplish the object of trading in slaves, or slave trading
at Gallinas, which I submit was not an illegal object: that supposing
for a moment the facts were to convince the Jury that the defendant had
fitted out this vessel, in order that Pedro Martinez & Co., or any other
persons, might trade in slaves at Gallinas, that is not a felony within
this Act of Parliament.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Do you mean to say, that proof would not support
the indictment; or, that supporting the indictment, it would not amount
to felony? One of those things it must be.

Mr. _Kelly_. I say both: it would not support the indictment, and it
would not amount to felony.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Inasmuch as you say it would not support the
indictment, that is going on the very ground you have gone on before,
only giving another reason. If you do not see that--if you tell me you
do not think it--I will hear you.

Mr. _Kelly_. I beg to state with the most perfect sincerity, I do not
feel that.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You mean to insist that the indictment is not
supported, having previously insisted that the indictment was not
supported?

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes; but on a totally different ground.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not say you are not entitled, not on the same
ground to say that the indictment is not supported, but you are not
entitled to say that the indictment is not supported twice over; that
you cannot put forward one set of reasons, and when they are overruled,
put forward another set of reasons; for if you could, in case they were
overruled, you might then put a third.

Mr. _Kelly_. If I had had the slightest idea that it would be deemed
inconvenient that I should submit one point for your Lordship’s
consideration, and ask for a decision on one before I proceeded to the
other, I should have submitted both; I have only to ask your Lordship’s
pardon for the course I have taken.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I am quite sure that you must see that where there
are several grounds for making that motion, it is desirable that they
should be all stated in the outset, for otherwise they might split into
separate motions. The universal course is, that all the grounds should
be stated, and the unity of the object preserved; and the Court yields
with apparent reluctance to a different course. The object you now have
is to induce the Court to rule that there is no evidence to go to the
Jury. That, you have before submitted; you say you have a different
reason, but that different reason does not raise a ground for the Court
hearing the application repeated. I only regret you did not take the
course which the Court thinks the best. If you insist upon it, I shall
feel bound for the convenience of the Court, not to allow an old and
very able counsel to do that which would not be fair in ordinary cases;
but if you say you have made some slip or omission I will hear you.

Mr. _Kelly_. That is really so. If your Lordship will pardon me one
moment, I will take what course your Lordship thinks most convenient for
practice.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You omitted something?

Mr. _Kelly_. Yes, my Lord; I will state what is quite unconnected with
the objection I have taken. This indictment charges the prisoner with
having equipped a vessel, and shipped goods, in order to accomplish an
object, that object being the exercising of the slave trade, and it is
framed upon the Act of Parliament of the 5th of George IV, chapter 113.
Now, my Lord, by the 2nd section of that Act of Parliament, slave
trading by certain persons, and under certain circumstances, is declared
to be unlawful. By the 10th section of the Act, it is enacted that if
any person shall among others, equip a vessel, or ship goods, in order
to accomplish any of the objects theretofore declared to be unlawful, he
shall be guilty of a felony. That is the felony charged in this
indictment, namely, that the prisoner at the bar equipped a vessel, and
shipped goods, in order to accomplish one of the objects declared to be
unlawful, namely, that of trading in slaves. Now, the point is this: the
charge, supposing it substantiated by evidence, is this--that the
prisoner at the bar equipped this vessel, and shipped these goods, in
order that they might be used in the slave trade, in order to accomplish
the object of trading in slaves at Gallinas, in Africa. The Gallinas is
not a British settlement, and is not a British colony, and therefore
that species of trading is not declared unlawful by that Act of
Parliament; the trading declared by that Act of Parliament to be
unlawful must be a trading by British subjects. The trading, in order to
be unlawful within the meaning of this Act of Parliament, must be a
trading by British subjects; and moreover, at the time when this offence
is supposed to have been committed, it must have been a trading at some
colony either in Great Britain, or some colony or settlement belonging
to Great Britain. That will appear from another Act of Parliament,
passed to remedy the defect under the former Act of Parliament; your
Lordships will see, that by the 2nd section of the Act of Parliament,
the terms are general.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. What Act are you upon Mr. Kelly?

Mr. _Kelly_. I am now on the 5th of George IV. By clause 2, it is
provided, “that it shall not be lawful (except in such special cases as
are hereinafter mentioned) for any persons to deal or trade in,
purchase, sell, or barter, or transfer, or to contract for the dealing
or trading in, purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of slaves, or persons
intended to be dealt with as slaves,” and to do a variety of other acts
which are by that section declared to be unlawful. Now, my Lord, though
the words are general, “that it shall not be lawful for any persons to
deal or trade in slaves,” the legal effect of them is, that it shall not
be lawful for British subjects to deal in slaves; and your Lordship will
see by the subsequent Act of Parliament it also means, that it shall not
be lawful for British subjects to deal in slaves, either in Great
Britain, or in the settlements or colonies of Great Britain, and that
that Act of Parliament did not extend to the trading in slaves in
foreign states.

Let us take the two points of the proposition. First of all, this manner
of trading in slaves by foreigners becomes material in this view: I
presume, from the opening and the evidence, it was intended that this
ship and these goods should be taken to Gallinas, and there used by the
consignees of the vessel and the goods, either by bartering the goods
for the purchase of slaves, or selling the goods and with the produce
buying slaves. It is not material to consider now how far that is within
the Act of Parliament, but the object, which I presume is the unlawful
object with which the prisoner at the bar is charged with having
dispatched this ship, is the object that the consignees or some other
persons at Gallinas should trade in slaves by means of the ship or the
goods. I submit that is not a trading in slaves within the 2nd section
of the Act of Parliament, that though the words are general, it does not
apply to aliens as the consignees of goods, which Martinez were, but to
British consignees of goods, which in the Act of Parliament makes the
act criminal. If the act be committed abroad, it is not an offence
within the Act. A trading in slaves abroad by Rolo, by Martinez, or any
persons whose names we have heard mentioned, would not be criminal
within the Act of Parliament. The object of the charge is the trading at
Gallinas. Now, the trading in slaves any where abroad by an alien is not
an offence within this statute.

In order to illustrate this, let me suppose that the vessel had reached
the Gallinas, that the consignees of the vessel had employed it for the
transport of slaves, and had taken the goods and bartered them for a
quantity of slaves, that would not have been illegal within this Act of
Parliament. It would undoubtedly have been illegal for any British
subject to have done so within any British colony, for this Act is
binding on all British subjects throughout the British dominions, but it
would not have been illegal for Martinez or any foreigner to deal in
slaves in that place; and therefore, supposing it were proved that the
prisoner at the bar had dispatched this vessel, that Martinez or Rolo
might deal in slaves in foreign parts, that is not one of the objects
to which this statute applies, for it applies only to British subjects,
and not to foreigners.

My Lords, I need not cite authorities, they are numerous. There is one
which is precisely to the point, The King _v._ Depardo; that is
perfectly conclusive upon that subject: that is in 1st Taunton, in which
a Chinese sailor who had enlisted, or rather had become a seaman on
board one of His Majesty’s ships, committed manslaughter in the Chinese
seas, and the question was, whether he was amenable. The great point
argued by the late Lord Tenterden and Mr. Burrough was, whether that
offence, committed by an alien, was within the Act of Parliament. The
prisoner having been convicted, he was afterwards pardoned, on the
ground that an Act of Parliament, declaring any particular act to be a
felony, such act, if committed abroad by an alien, was not within the
Act of Parliament, an alien not being within a British Act of
Parliament: so I apprehend no position to be clearer than that a trading
in slaves at Gallinas by Rolo, or Martinez, or any person to whom it can
be imputed to the prisoner that he intended this ship and goods to be
consigned, the trading in slaves by any alien there, would not have been
unlawful within this Act of Parliament. If it would, the consequence
would have been that a foreigner, Rolo or Martinez for instance, who
might be lawfully, according to the laws of their own country or the
laws of that place, trading in slaves, might, by engaging in that trade
in slaves in the course of this very transaction at the Gallinas, have
afterwards been prosecuted here, and convicted here; whereas nothing can
be clearer than that these laws against the slave trade can only make
the act an offence when it is done by British subjects, who alone are
the objects of a British Act of Parliament: therefore I submit that the
object being established, supposing the case sought to be established to
be so established that Mr. Zulueta dispatched this vessel to enable
Martinez to deal in slaves, that is not an object declared unlawful by
this statute, for that would have been a trading by aliens who are not
within this statute, and the shipping of goods to accomplish that is not
within it.

But, my Lord, I go further; I have the case of Depardo, in Russell on
Crime, it is not at so much length as in the report in Taunton. The
marginal note is, “A manslaughter committed in China by an alien enemy,
who had been a prisoner at war, and was then acting as a mariner on
board an English merchant ship, on an Englishman, cannot be tried here
under a commission issued in pursuance of the statutes 33 Hen. VIII,
cap. 23, and 43 Geo. III, cap. 113, sec. 6. 1 Taunton 26.” The principle
is perfectly clear, that a person afterwards coming to the country, is
not to be treated as if he had previously been a subject of the country;
so I say here, that the trading in slaves at Gallinas, or any where
abroad by a Russian or a Pole, or any other alien, would not have been
within this Act of Parliament at all; it would not therefore be an
illegal object within this statute, and the dispatch of goods or a ship
to accomplish that object would be no felony.

But, my Lord, the case is rendered perfectly clear by the highest
authority, namely, the authority of the Legislature itself, by means of
another Act of Parliament, the 6th and 7th of Vict. cap. 98. This Act of
Parliament shows that the case is stronger than I have put; and it shows
that until the passing of this last Act of Parliament, which took place
in the present year, 1843, it was not illegal, within the statute of the
5th of Geo. IV, even for British subjects to trade in slaves, except
within the British dominions. The object of this Act of Parliament is to
extend the provisions of the 5th of Geo. IV, so as to make it, from some
day mentioned in the Act, criminal in British subjects to trade in
slaves in any part of the world, in foreign states as well as in the
British dominions.

Your Lordship will find this Act recites the 5th of Geo. IV, and recites
the second section, to which I have called your Lordship’s attention;
“whereby it is enacted (among other things) that it shall not be lawful
(except in such special cases as are hereinafter mentioned) for any
persons to deal or trade in, purchase, sell, barter, or transfer, or to
contract for the dealing or trading in, purchase, sale, barter, or
transfer of slaves, or persons intended to be dealt with as slaves,” and
so on. Then it recites all the different acts which are declared
unlawful by the 5th of Geo. IV, and then it proceeds: “And whereas it is
expedient, that from and after the commencement of this Act, the
provisions of the said Act hereinbefore recited shall be deemed to apply
to, and extend to render unlawful, and to prohibit the several acts,
matters, and things therein mentioned, when committed by British
subjects in foreign countries and settlements not belonging to the
British Crown, in like manner and to all intents and purposes as if the
same were done or committed by such persons within the British
dominions, colonies, or settlements, and it is expedient that further
provisions should be made for the more effectual suppression of the
slave trade, and of certain practices tending to promote and encourage
it; Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by
and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of
the same, that all the provisions of the said consolidated Slave Trade
Act, hereinbefore recited, and of this present Act, shall, from and
after the coming into operation of this Act, be deemed to extend and
apply to British subjects wheresoever residing or being, and whether
within the dominions of the British Crown, or of any foreign country,”
and so forth: so that your Lordship sees this Act of Parliament clearly
shows this, that before the passing of this Act, though it was declared
to be unlawful to trade in slaves, the Act meant that it should be
unlawful only for British subjects to trade in slaves any where within
British settlements or colonies, and that it required the aid of another
Act of Parliament to make it unlawful (not for aliens--for as to them it
still is not unlawful--but to make it unlawful) even for British
subjects to trade in slaves, or do the other acts referred to in this
statute. The state of the law was, that aliens might trade in slaves in
foreign parts without contravening that Act of Parliament, and that
British subjects might trade in slaves in foreign parts without
contravening that Act of Parliament. By the Act of the 6th & 7th of
Vict. the provisions of the Act of Geo. IV are extended to the case of
British subjects: it leaves the case of aliens as it was before, and it
makes it unlawful for British subjects to deal in slaves, in the
Gallinas for instance--so that your Lordship sees the objection presents
itself in this way--this is an indictment for a felony, the felony being
the dispatching a ship for the accomplishment of an illegal object, that
being the slave trading at the Gallinas; but at the time when this Act
passed, it was not illegal for foreigners to trade in slaves at
Gallinas. If it is not illegal now, it was not then illegal for British
subjects to trade in slaves in foreign countries. The present Act of
Parliament renders it illegal for British subjects to trade in slaves in
the Gallinas, or any other foreign country; but it was to come into
operation only on the passing of the Act in 1843. My learned friend
reminds me that it does not come into operation until the 1st of
November: but that is quite immaterial; it has no retrospective
operation; it was not in operation in 1840 or 1841, when it is stated
that this felony was committed by the prisoner.

Before I sit down, I would also take your Lordship’s opinion whether
there is any offence proved within the city of London. Your Lordship
observes this is not a trial under a section contained under one of the
Acts of Parliament, providing that any offence against the statute may
be laid in Middlesex. The indictment is not at all framed on that
section of the Act of Parliament; it is framed on the common law, except
so far as it is governed by the Central Criminal Court, and the venue is
laid in London. It must be proved, therefore, that a felony was
committed in London. The felony, said to have been committed, is the
equipping, dispatching, using, and employing the ship, as charged in one
set of counts; and the shipping the goods, as charged in another set of
counts. Now, the dispatching the ship was at Portsmouth, and afterwards
at Liverpool. It was dispatched at Portsmouth, went to Liverpool, was
there loaded and then dispatched, and there all the goods were shipped.
So that your Lordship sees the equipping, the using, the dispatching the
vessel, any thing that could be done with the illegal object of dealing
in slaves, must have been done at Liverpool. Neither the vessel, nor the
goods, as far as appears, were ever in London. I submit to your
Lordship, on that ground, there is no offence committed in London.
Another objection which arises on the indictment I do not trouble your
Lordship with, for it will apply in future, if necessary.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Are there any others?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, my Lord.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I think there is no ground for the second point on
the Act of Parliament of 6 & 7 Vict., cap. 98, as affording a
construction to the Act of 5th Geo. IV, cap. 113. The suggestion is,
that this Act amounts to a Parliamentary declaration, that the Act of
the 5th of Geo. IV, cap. 113, does not prohibit Englishmen engaging in
slave trading abroad. I should be very sorry to put a construction upon
that Act, which would involve so great an absurdity to it, as would be
created by its being supposed to be laid down that that which was
declared to be illegal in Great Britain, and Ireland, and the Isle of
Man, and also in the East Indies, and West India Islands, is not at all
prohibited on the coast of Africa, which is the construction sought to
be put upon this Act of Parliament. I cannot help thinking the
Legislature have expressed the intention of prohibiting English subjects
trading in slaves on the coast of Africa; and if that be so, the
construction which Mr. Kelly insists ought to be derived from the
statute of Victoria is not the true construction, or one which ought to
prevail. With respect to the other objection, we think there is evidence
to go to the Jury of Mr. Zulueta’s acts in London.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. May I call your Lordship’s attention to the 50th
section: “And be it further enacted, That all offences committed against
this Act may be inquired of, tried, determined, and dealt with, as if
the same had been respectively committed within the body of the county
of Middlesex.” If it is within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal
Court, the venue is perfectly immaterial, if it is within the venue of
the Court.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I apprehend, that if a prisoner is indicted for a
felony in Essex, within the limits of this Court, he will be tried here.

Mr. _Bodkin_. In a case in this Court where the venue stated merely the
jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, the Court of Queen’s Bench
held that indictment bad, because it was impossible to say from what
county the Jury were to be called.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. There the indictment had been tried in
Middlesex, being removed from the Central Criminal Court. It was removed
by _certiorari_ and tried in Middlesex, and it was said there was no
direction on the record to try it in Middlesex.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. But Mr. Bodkin says, if it is a London case, there
ought to be a London Jury; if in Essex, an Essex Jury.

Mr. _Bodkin_. The Court of Queen’s Bench held the locality to be
material.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. Not generally. I have stated how it became
material there, and why it is not material here. The case was removed by
certiorari, and therefore it became material.

Mr. _Kelly_. As this is the first trial under this Act of Parliament,
your Lordship will probably consider it proper to reserve the point
whether this trading is within the Act.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. The point has been very fully and ably argued, and
I think the Court has given it sufficient consideration. We have no
doubt about it; we do not consider it a point on which there is any
doubt.

Mr. _Kelly_. Perhaps the Jury will retire for a few moments before I
begin my address.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. For a few moments, not to exceed a quarter of an
hour.

  [_The Jury retired, and after a short time returned into Court._

       *       *       *       *       *

Mr. _Kelly_. May it please your Lordships.

Gentlemen of the Jury,--Their Lordships having determined that this
case is fit to be submitted to your consideration, I now proceed to
discharge the very anxious, the painfully anxious, duty imposed upon me
in consequence, of addressing you on behalf of the prisoner.

Gentlemen, _I should ill discharge that duty if I hesitated one moment
to denounce this prosecution as one of the most unconscientious
prosecutions that ever any individual has dared to bring forward in an
English court of justice_.

Gentlemen, pardon me if I should express myself in any part of this case
with any undue warmth; attribute it to the anxiety I must naturally
feel, when I know that all the interests in life, the happiness here--I
had almost said hereafter--of the young man at the bar, whose defence is
committed to my charge, depend upon your verdict upon this transaction,
upon which I, and I only on his behalf, have to address you.

He is a young man, now I believe only seven or eight-and-twenty; he is a
foreigner, born in Spain of a Spanish family; he and his ancestors are
of that country and not of this, and he has become a member of the
mercantile house of which his father is the head. He has, during the
latter years of his life, been resident in England, and has from time to
time bestowed some attention upon the business of the counting-house and
the commercial concerns in which the firm were engaged, and he has
participated but as a member of the firm in the ordinary course of
business in this transaction, which is, indeed, a very small transaction
among many very great and important ones passing through that house; and
now, to his consternation, and to his unspeakable astonishment--he, a
young man of spotless character--he, who one of the witnesses for the
prosecution has already described to you upon his oath as a good son, a
good brother, a good father, a good husband, and as an honourable member
of society--he finds himself charged here with a felony, and that upon
evidence such as I shall have in detail to call your attention to. He is
charged with a felony upon which, if from want of ability or from want
of caution in his advocate he was to be convicted, he must be
transported for fourteen years as a felon, and forfeit his property, and
forfeit his character, and be ruined for life.

Gentlemen, this is the case before you, and I do ask in the outset, is
this a prosecution which ought to be brought forward? Mr. Serjeant
Bompas, whose duty it was to state the case to you, having opened that
case--how, I shall have to remind you when I call your attention to
something which in the opening fell from my learned friend--having
opened his case fully and in detail in a speech of some two or three
hours, after he has sat down thinks it necessary to rise again and tell
you that Sir George Stephen is the prosecutor in this case.

Gentlemen, you have already heard from one of their Lordships, and you
know it is a matter of history, that the British government has long
exercised its energies and its mighty powers in putting down and
preventing the odious slave trade: you know that the powers of the
government have been wielded for many, many years past with that view,
by those who are sincerely, from the bottom of their hearts, determined
by every lawful means to put down that trade; you know that the whole
conduct of this honourable and innocent young man has been under the
consideration of the former government and the present government. The
late Colonial Secretary, Lord John Russell, whose duty it would have
been to have protected his own character, and that of Great Britain, by
this prosecution, if any offence had been committed, was a member of the
Committee, and inquired minutely and distinctly into the transaction;
Lord Stanley, also, the present Colonial Secretary, was a member of the
Committee. Both governments were regularly and fully acquainted with all
the transactions in question, and those governments, whose duty, as my
learned friend has told you, it was to do every thing they might to put
down the slave trade, so far from feeling it a case for prosecution, the
Committee themselves, and the present and the former governments, have
fully acquitted this young man, and the house to which he belonged, of
any guilty participation in this transaction, as I trust you will to-day
acquit him by your verdict. The government of 1840 and the government of
1842, the past and the present government, fully acquainted with all the
circumstances, have thought it proper, so far from dreaming that any
guilt could be imputed to this young man, to agree to a Report of a
totally different character. And a society, called “The Anti-Slavery
Society,” existing in this very town, failing to take up the
prosecution, you have this very singular fact, that Sir George Stephen,
though he put his name upon the back of the indictment, dare not put
himself in the box for me to cross-examine. You have Sir George Stephen
failing to sign his name to the notices, and you have at last the tardy
and reluctant acknowledgment of his counsel that he is the prosecutor. I
ask you, gentlemen, to recollect this: Lord John Russell and Lord
Stanley were both of them members of the Committee; both were present
when this matter was inquired into; before whom Captain Hill was
examined, before whom Captain Denman was examined, and before whom
another gentleman, Colonel Nichol, was likewise examined. That Committee
put forth the large volume which I hold in my hand, and before them this
young man voluntarily came, and was examined as to every part of this
transaction; aye, and as to the conduct, and character, and dealings of
his house, from the time it was first established. And do you believe,
if this had been a proper subject for prosecution, that the members, the
leading members of a government, the government of a kingdom which has
spent twenty millions of the public money to put an end to the slave
trade--do you think, if they had felt that this was a proper subject for
prosecution, that it would have been left to Sir George Stephen to come
forward with his own money, and with his own means--for what purposes I
cannot conceive, they must be left to his own feelings, and I do not
envy him his feelings--to be the prosecutor of an indictment, which, if
it succeeds, must for ever crush and ruin a young man, with respect to
whom I shall demonstrate there exists but at most that species of
suspicion, which ought never to be cherished against one whose character
is, as I shall prove this young man’s character at the bar to be, above
all sort of suspicion--that suspicion, which, if it does exist, may be
a fit reason for inquiry, but ought no more to be the ground for a
prosecution for felony than it ought to be the ground for a conviction
without any inquiry at all.

Gentlemen, what is the charge brought forward? Pedro de Zulueta, the
young gentleman for whom I appear before you, is, I believe, the eldest
son of his father: his father, now advanced in years, is the head of the
house. He is a gentleman, who has filled the very highest offices in his
own country, and who has been, I believe, at one time, the President of
the Cortes in Spain, an office analogous to that of Speaker of the House
of Commons in this country, and was member for the city of Cadiz as long
as his commercial concerns required him to remain and discharge the
duties of that situation. He is a gentleman, who has now reached a very
advanced age without a shadow of imputation upon his character; who has
been engaged during the whole of his life in commercial transactions of
the largest and most important nature and extent, and who not only
himself, but his father and grandfather before him, who for seventy
years carried on an extensive trade in Spain, and at a time when not
only Spain, but I grieve to say our own country, Britain, was engaged
through her colonies in extensive slave trading, abstained from ever
dealing or turning to their own account the value of a copper farthing
in that trade; who, so far from that, when from some bankrupt estate
some slaves became the property of the father, he immediately gave them
their freedom--a number of slaves passed to him as a part of a bankrupt
estate, as they might do at that time, he immediately manumitted them,
and gave them their freedom--he it is, who having mainly conducted this
transaction, he finds it in vain to look back to a long life, spent in
honour, honesty, and integrity, a life spent in deeds of charity and
kindness--he finds it in vain to look to the character of his house
never before assailed by the breath of suspicion--he finds his own son
indicted in this country--a country, under the protection of the laws of
which he is living, and to which he has brought his commerce, and in
which he and those belonging to him are spending the large fortunes they
have gained in their trade; he finds, under the laws of this country,
his son is indicted as a felon, for having signed his name to one or two
documents--and I will prove to you that is all he has done in the course
of a transaction which passed through their house as commission agents
for the house of Martinez & Co., at the Havannah--and I will convince
you, when I refer to the evidence before you, _evidence which has been,
I must say, most unfairly adduced, which has been perverted and brought
before you in a way which I cannot commend_, I will show you upon the
evidence that that is all that can be charged upon this young man--that
in the course of a transaction which passed through the house in which
he is now a principal, but only since he has been of age has he been a
member at all to entitle him to sign documents--he signed a letter,
perfectly innocent in itself, and a charter-party, a regular mercantile
transaction, the profit of which to the house was of the most trumpery
amount--he did those two acts, in the absence of his father, the house
here conducting the business for their agents--and for that he is
brought to the bar of the Central Criminal Court, and you are asked to
pass against him a verdict of guilty, fixing upon him the crime of
felony, and all the dreadful consequences of that guilt, which by this
indictment he is liable to.

Gentlemen, _I must say, that a proceeding of this kind does no honour to
those great and zealous efforts made for the total extinction of the
slave trade by Britain and British means_. If those, who sincerely
desire to see that trade effaced, as we all trust in God it soon will
be, from the surface of the earth; if they desire to see their efforts
succeed, and if they desire to aid the great exertions of Britain for
the destruction of the slave trade, let them not treat as felons those
merchants in Great Britain or elsewhere, who may, without having any
reason to suspect they are illegal, carry on trading concerns with the
coast of Africa; let them try, by their cruizers, to stop the slave
vessels and liberate the slaves on board; let them exert themselves to
put an end to the slave trade wherever their arms or their efforts can
be carried; but let them remember, it is not by force of arms it will be
abolished--it is by civilisation, and the arts and commerce, the basis
of civilisation, it alone can be put an end to. If you would lead to the
total destruction of that trade, let it be indeed by vigilance, let it
be by all the great efforts made by our ships abroad and our councils at
home; but, above all things, seek to introduce commerce--for where there
is commerce, there must in time be civilisation, intelligence, and moral
improvement, and education, and progress in the arts, which are
calculated to raise the character of any country--wherever there is
commerce, there must be commercial people, there must be educated
people, there must be persons to carry on the government, there must be
courts of justice established, and persons to administer the law--that
commerce will increase, and will lead to civilisation, and we can
introduce all that is good in this world, and promote all the best
objects in life--and then the slave trade will cease, not by force, but
by civilisation. And I will show you, when I go through the evidence, if
you will fairly consider it altogether in the way in which it ought to
be brought before you, and in which it ought to be presented to your
minds, I undertake to satisfy you that these gentlemen are not capable,
and that there is no ground for imputing it to them, of lending their
assistance to that odious traffic; and I say, that no Englishman, nor
English house, has done more to prevent and destroy it than the house of
Zulueta & Co., both in Spain and in this country.

Now, Gentlemen, let us see what the charge is. The charge is this:--That
the prisoner at the bar employed and dispatched a vessel, and shipped
certain goods, in order that the goods and vessel might be employed in
the slave trade. Gentlemen, I wish that my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant
Bompas, had been more explicit in his opening address. I think it would
have been but fair if he had stated distinctly what he alleged to be the
object of the party prosecuted. To say he has the general object of
engaging in the slave trade is speaking most vaguely. Does he mean that
the prisoner has dispatched this vessel, intending that slaves should
be taken on board the vessel? Does he mean, that Pedro de Zulueta
engaged in shipping the goods, in order that the goods might be bartered
against slaves? or, does he mean, that he shipped the goods, in order
that the goods might be sold for money, and with that money that slaves
might be bought? Gentlemen, whatever might be the object, I think I
shall satisfy you that Mr. Zulueta was perfectly innocent; that he had
no such object, that he had no such intention, that he had no such idea:
but it is hard for him, that in a matter so much affecting his happiness
I should have to grope my way in the dark to find out what the charge
is, and that while I am exhausting my strength and your patience in
finding out the charge, it may turn out that something more was in the
mind of the prosecutor, or in the mind of the person who framed the
indictment, merely because Mr. Serjeant Bompas, acting under the
instructions of Sir George Stephen, has not properly defined what he
imputed to Mr. Zulueta. It is very easy to say to a British merchant,
who purchases and ships for another house a quantity of goods, and sends
them on board a vessel consigned to the coast of Africa, it is easy to
say to him, upon some part of the coast of Africa the slave trade is
carried on, and you, in some way or other, intended to promote it; it is
easy to say that may be, but it seems to me, it ought to have been fully
and distinctly alleged what was the object they meant to impute to
him--whether it was to do that which my learned friend has thought fit
to accuse him of.

But, let us see what the charge is. I must assume it to be this--that,
in some way or other, Mr. Zulueta knew, that when he, as a member of the
firm, took some part in dispatching the vessel, or in shipping the
goods, that the vessel, or the goods, or both, were to be employed in
the slave trade--by whom employed, whether by Messrs. Martinez & Co., at
Cadiz, or the consignees, Rolo & Co., or Captain Jennings himself, my
learned friend has found it to be convenient to withhold even from
you--therefore, what the precise charge is I am seeking to find out, but
I am utterly unable to ascertain. It may be, that they contend that the
object was that Martinez & Co., who are supposed to have some agents at
the Gallinas, intended to convert the goods directly into slaves, or
into money to buy slaves; it may be, that the consignees of the goods
are the parties to do that; it may be, as he says, that Captain Jennings
was a slave trader on his own account, and that he was to do it: which
of the three it is I do not know; but whichever it is--though it would
make considerable difference in the legal form, because sending goods to
be converted into money is no offence, though that money may be
converted into slaves, although sending goods may be an offence--but I
am not entering into that, for though there is a distinction in law, I
make none in fact--I entirely, on behalf of the prisoner, disclaim the
slightest notion or idea of giving the slightest countenance or aid,
directly or indirectly, to the slave trade, in any shape or form that
any man can suggest; and I say it would be a most uncharitable wresting
and perverting of facts, which may be capable of two constructions from
their ordinary and fair effect, to say that they throw a shade of
suspicion upon any part of the conduct of the prisoner.

Gentlemen, I pray you to consider the real nature of the transaction, as
it is to be collected from that to which my learned friend has been
obliged to refer--and he could not make out his case without it--from
that statement made by Mr. Zulueta himself voluntarily before the
Committee. It is this, that this young man, born in Spain, but having
from the high station of his father had a most excellent education,
being of amiable character and intelligent, thought he might be of use
to the house in England--there is a house in Cadiz, but the house we
have to deal with is that in England--he comes here, becomes a member of
the firm, and remains here; he speaks English a great deal better than
his father, and in the transactions requiring more of speaking English
he took a more prominent part: but the correspondence and the evidence
in the case shows, that the orders given in the commercial transactions
are entirely in the handwriting of the father almost; and it is a mere
accident that the name of the son is put to documents not prepared by
him, as I will show you he puts his signature to them in the ordinary
course of business in the house. The house of Zulueta & Co. has
transactions with most parts of the world, but is most largely engaged
with Spain, and the Havannah, and several other places. With regard to
Africa, the house has nothing to do with it--and I pray your attention
to this point, I implore your attention to it, or you may misunderstand
the evidence given by Captain Hill and Captain Denman--they had no
more--Zulueta & Co., had no more to do with the trade to the coast of
Africa than I have, or any of you I was going to say, I hope, you have,
but if none of you, had. But it so happened, that trading to the amount
of three or four hundred thousand pounds in the course of three or four
years, or more largely still, with this house of Martinez & Co., that
Martinez & Co., whose business was carried on at the Havannah and Cadiz,
also had some dealings with various parts of the coast of Africa,
amongst others at the Gallinas; and out of transactions to the amount of
200,000_l._ or 400,000_l._, there are transactions to the amount of
18,000_l._ or 20,000_l._ in ten years or more--call it twenty years--I
believe it is ten years--to the amount of about 18,000_l._ or
20,000_l._, which consisted in this--not a trade to Africa, but this
kind of dealing--Martinez & Co., who trade to the Havannah, to which
Zulueta & Co. trade, also were in the habit of consigning cargoes of
sugar, and other produce, from the Havannah to England; and having some
dealings with the coast of Africa, they have upon some five or six
occasions desired the house of Zulueta & Co., who live in England and
carry on their business here, to furnish them with this trifling amount
of British manufactures, and send them on board any vessel they may buy
or engage for the purpose, to such part of the coast of Africa as they
may direct. The house of Zulueta & Co. carrying on business here, from
the immense extent of their transactions having a house at Liverpool,
upon receiving an order to ship goods to the amount of a few hundred
pounds, they order the goods through their Liverpool house, the great
emporium of manufactures in that part of England, and they put them on
board any ship directed by Martinez & Co.; they ship the goods in any
shape or way as they may direct; and from the time the goods are
shipped, they know no more of them, and have no more to do with the
subsequent disposition of them, than any one of you I am addressing. It
turns out, for so Captains Hill and Denman who have been upon the coast
say, that the Gallinas has no produce to return for goods; they say that
there is nothing but the slave trade there; that though the goods may be
unshipped and landed, there is no return produce: but Messrs. Zulueta &
Co., who had no trade with the Gallinas, who I will show you upon the
evidence never until this transaction heard the name of any one of the
three parties to whom this cargo was consigned, they sent the goods to
the Gallinas as they would have done to the Havannah or to Gambia, to
Madagascar or the East or West Indies, and troubled themselves no more
about it as soon as the goods are shipped: because it is suggested that
some parties concerned in these slave trading establishments may make an
iniquitous use of these goods in the slave trade, they are to be told
that this young man--(not attacking his father, whose ancient name and
character for honour and integrity would protect him)--has committed a
crime; they seize upon this unhappy young man; they say, because your
house have sent goods to that place, ordered by your correspondents, you
shall be seized as a felon and tried for a felony.

Now let us look at the evidence. I will take the evidence as it was
given, and consider the evidence apart from the statement: take my
statement as nothing, and take my learned friend’s statement as nothing;
let us see what the case is, divested of speeches and speech-making, and
those reasonings which I will show you have no application to the
conduct of Mr. Zulueta.

There is the house of Zulueta & Co. many years established in England,
they have correspondents abroad, the house of Martinez & Co. at
Cadiz--and this young man writes a letter, in these terms, dated the
20th August, 1840: “In reply to your favour of yesterday, we have to say
that we cannot exceed 500_l._ for the vessel in question, such as
described in your letter, namely, that excepting the sails the other
differences are trifling from the inventory; if you cannot therefore
succeed at those limits, we must give up the purchase, and you will
please act accordingly;” then it is addressed to Captain Jennings,
Portsmouth. What is stated concerning that letter is true, that it is
not written by this young man at all. I do not know whether the original
letter was handed in, but you shall see it: my learned friend says, it
was proved that it was written altogether by this young man himself to
the captain.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It was proved so in this way, “I believe it to be
the writing of Pedro Zulueta.”

Mr. _Kelly_. Whether it was so or not it is quite immaterial, I need not
say that the contents are perfectly innocent. It is clear, that before
this time the house had employed Captain Jennings to treat for the
purchase of this vessel. There was some demur about the price. This
letter was written, in order, if possible, that the vessel might be
obtained for the sum of 500_l._; and in the way in which people bargain
they tell them, that if they will not take that sum they will not buy it
at all. That letter is written by Mr. Zulueta: I need not say that there
is no felony in the member of a firm like Zulueta & Co. authorising
Captain Jennings, or any other man, to offer 500_l._ for a vessel. Here
the evidence with regard to the young man I am defending is a blank: it
does not appear he interfered directly or indirectly in any way, or knew
what was going on; but it appears that the vessel was ultimately
purchased at that sum, dispatched to Liverpool, and the goods were
loaded on board the vessel; and then the charter-party was made out, to
which I will now call your attention, and which was signed by the
prisoner Mr. Zulueta. Now you will see how my observations apply: it is
in the usual form; it is printed, and the blanks, as you will see, are
filled up, not in the handwriting of the prisoner nor any member of the
firm, but in the ordinary course of business by the clerk whose duty it
is to prepare the charter-parties; and it is signed, because it had to
be signed. Mr. Pedro Zulueta was in the counting-house, and his father
was out upon some other business, and Pedro Zulueta signed, “for
Martinez & Co., of Havannah, Zulueta & Co.” These are the two papers in
the handwriting of the prisoner--a letter to Captain Jennings, saying,
offer 500_l._, if they will not take that no more will be given, and the
charter-party by which the vessel is chartered from Captain Jennings to
Martinez & Co., the house of Zulueta acting as agents, not buying the
ship, not entering into the transaction as on their own account, but
acting as agents for Messrs. Martinez--that is a paper partly written
and partly printed, and the name is subscribed “for Martinez & Co.,
Havannah, Zulueta & Co.” Those are the only two documents in the
handwriting of the prisoner: his evidence I will refer to more
particularly by and bye. The evidence shows what I never denied, that
the house of which he is a member are civilly responsible for all the
house may do. That his house effected the purchase of a vessel at the
time--that it was desirable that Captain Jennings should be the captain
(and I will give you a reason for that presently)--and that the house
caused goods to be shipped in it at Liverpool--and that from that time
they heard no more of it, is not denied. It is perfectly clear, if the
case rested there, it was merely this--that the house of Zulueta & Co.,
as agents for Martinez & Co., purchased the ship for Jennings, and that
the purchaser made Martinez & Co. the mortgagees of the ship, so as to
put them in possession of the property, but to leave Captain Jennings
nominally the proprietor and captain; and then they shipped for their
principals a quantity of merchandise, regularly passing through the
Custom-house on board the vessel, and consigned to the coast of Africa.
It is perfectly clear no sort of imputation can be thrown upon any one
concerned in that transaction.

But, Gentlemen, let us see what are the circumstances upon which the
prosecutor calls upon you to infer, not only that Zulueta & Co., and
particularly the prisoner at the bar, purchased this vessel, and
dispatched this vessel, and loaded the goods on board it, but that he
did it not merely knowing, but for the very purpose, in the language of
the indictment, “to accomplish the object of using them in the slave
trade.” What is the evidence upon which they call upon you to infer
that? First of all they do this, and _I do pray your attention to this
part of the case, because it is a point affecting, and vitally
affecting, the safety of every manufacturer, every merchant, nay every
tradesman in this country_, who happens to deal in any goods, however
lawful, but which may be shipped to the coast of Africa; they say this,
you, young man, Pedro Zulueta, a member of this firm, you knew that
these goods in this ship were to be used for the slave trade, and you
dispatch the ship and goods that they may be used in the slave trade.
Why, have you ever admitted you knew it? No, I have denied it, and have
offered to deny it upon oath.--Have we proved you ever gave any secret
instructions they should be used for that purpose? We give you notice
that we call for your instructions, but before the Court and Jury we
dare not call for them.--Did you receive any information from Martinez &
Co. that they might be used for that purpose? No. We give you notice to
produce all the letters from Martinez & Co., and his counsel comes
forward and says--_Here is every document, here is every account, every
scrap of paper at all relating to this transaction_,[15] and I offer you
the oaths of every body in the counting-house, without examining them
myself, that this is all that can be found. No, says the prosecutor, it
suits us better to charge you with a felony, and call for documents
which might or might not support the charge; but when you have got them
here we will not read them before the Jury, we will not lay them before
the Jury, but we will do this--in order that Sir George Stephen, sitting
near Mr. Serjeant Bompas and instructing him _from his own grossly
perverted views of the facts and the truth, to misrepresent and to
colour almost every material document_ to be given in evidence in the
cause, in order to give them a reply, they say “you may produce them.”
That is what they do. This, then, is a case in which they say we will
call for your instructions to the captain, because we say, although
there was nothing in your handwriting found in the vessel, except this
innocent letter offering 500_l._ for the purchase of the ship, and the
charter-party signed by the house, there were some secret instructions.
We call for all the letters, we will not use one, but we leave you to
prove there were none such. We say, you were informed by Martinez & Co.
that they were to be so used, and we give you notice to produce the
letters; we will not call for them, we leave it to you: and if we were
to read twenty different letters, all the letters from Martinez & Co. to
Zulueta & Co., you would have from Mr. Serjeant Bompas, with Sir George
Stephen behind him suggesting--Oh, there were secret instructions
behind! How do we know there was not a letter behind, which contained
secret instructions? That is the way that a case for felony is to be
conducted; and therefore I beseech you not to look at what my learned
friend urges upon you, but look at the facts. The facts are, that this
young man offered 500_l._ for the vessel, and that this young man
signed the charter-party, and those facts he admitted before the
Committee of the House of Commons; he admitted that this ancient and
honourable house, without a stain upon its character, purchase the ship,
and charter the ship, and ship the goods, as the agents of Martinez &
Co., to the coast of Africa. Then, when they have to prove the guilty
knowledge that this was done for the purpose of these goods being used
in the slave trade, after going through this farce of calling for papers
they dare not use, they say this--We cannot prove that this young man
ever thought, or wrote, or sent, about the slave trade; we cannot prove
he ever said a single word to Captain Jennings that he was to use the
ship or goods in the slave trade; we cannot prove that their
correspondents ever wrote or said a word to them upon the subject; but I
will tell you what we will do, he was never at the Gallinas, but Captain
Denman was at the Gallinas, Captain Hill was at the Gallinas, Colonel
Nichol was at the Gallinas, and we will prove by them that the slave
trade is carried on to a considerable extent there; we will prove
through them, that there are such persons there as Rolo, Alvarez, and
Ximenes; and we will prove that those three persons are notorious slave
dealers; and we trust that the Jury will say, here are goods sent to the
coast of Africa--and it is true, because goods are constantly sent
there, British produce to the amount of millions is sent there, and
forms a great part of our commerce, but it is sent to that part of the
coast where these three honourable gentlemen will say that nothing but
the slave trade is carried on--and it will then lie upon him to show
that they were not intended to be so used.

  [15] Pointing to a mass of books and papers on the table.

Now, Gentlemen, if Mr. Zulueta had known as much of the Gallinas as
Captain Denman does, who has been cruizing about there since 1835, or as
much as Captain Hill knows, who has been upon that coast for several
years past, or as much as Colonel Nichol, who has been there twenty
years; if he had ever been there or lived there to see the kind of
commerce carried on, and to know that there is no lawful commerce at
all, but that there is the slave trade only, I should say that you put a
man living in England in a very peculiar situation, to which I will call
your attention in a moment, but it would raise the question in your
minds, whether he might not suspect that these goods might be sold for
money, and the money applied in the purchase of slaves, or the slave
trade be promoted by the transaction. But, Gentlemen, I beseech you to
remember this; they have not proved this, and the contrary appears, that
this young man--and I speak of the father as well--that neither he nor
his father were ever on the coast of Africa. “Oh, but” says my learned
friend, Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, in a question put on re-examination to
Captain Denman, “could a person who had traded for twenty years to the
Gallinas be ignorant that nothing but the slave trade was carried on
there?” If it was so, if he had thought so, it is not by his
inferences--whose honourable zeal in putting down the slave trade has
carried him so far as to make him a defendant in two or three actions,
which may come on to be tried in this country--however honourable his
motives and feelings (and I admire the zeal he feels upon the subject,
political as well as private zeal)--it is not what he knows which is to
determine whether Mr. Zulueta is to be convicted of felony. But it is
not that to which I was about to call your attention. If my learned
friend, Mr. Serjeant Talfourd had reflected when he used that expression
in the question he put, “Do you think that a person trading twenty years
there could be ignorant of the nature of the trade carried on?”--he
would have seen it was wholly inapplicable to the case of Messrs.
Zulueta & Co. In the first place, this young man has not been a third
part of twenty years in the house; in the next place, the house has not
traded to the extent of 20_s._ to the Gallinas, they have never had any
communication with it. Mr. Serjeant Bompas opened among many other
things which he has left unproved, that he would show that was untrue,
and that he had had dealings with them. If that was so, it would have
been easy to do it; but they find he never had any dealing with the
place; he had no letter or bill from the place, or any article or thing
of any sort or kind from any person there, which could convey to his
mind whether it was a slave trading place, or a place where a great deal
of commerce was lawfully carried on--nothing of the kind. I pray your
attention to what it is my learned friend has founded this observation
upon. All that Zulueta & Co. have done, as you will see by the evidence
before you, is, that they have received directions from their foreign
correspondents to ship goods to the Gallinas, and have put those goods
on board a vessel, and then dispatched that vessel, and shipped those
goods for the Gallinas; and from that time forth they have heard no more
of them. Now, I beg to ask you, their correspondence taking place with
Martinez &. Co. at the Havannah or Cadiz, but having no correspondence
with the Gallinas, unless their curiosity led them, as it did me this
morning to look at the map or globe to find the place--and they looked
in vain, unless they looked at a pretty large map, to see whether it was
a river, or an island, or city, or what place it was--how should they
know any thing about it? I agree we did not want Captain Denman’s
evidence, for that they had shipped goods for twenty years, and traded
there in the ordinary sense of the word, if they had had correspondents
there and dealt on their own account with them, and sent them goods from
time to time, and had goods in return, or written letters to them, and
had letters in return, they might through them have obtained some
information of the nature of the business carried on there. But, it is
no such thing. What this young man said in his evidence before the
Committee turns out to be true; if it had not been so, they had abundant
means to contradict that evidence: and Sir George Stephen, whose zeal
spares no expense, no effort, would have satisfied you that they had
written letters to the Gallinas, and had sent goods there. All that
appears is, that from time to time--the transactions being really a drop
of water in the ocean of their great mercantile dealings--they have out
of 400,000_l._ in ten or twenty years shipped goods to the amount of
22,000_l._, which have gone to the Gallinas. But how should they have
known it was for the purposes of the slave trade? Suppose any one of you
were a dealer in muskets (for they are some of the goods shipped on
board this vessel) and that a person in Spain writes to you, saying, I
want a thousand muskets for a place called Gallinas, on the coast of
Africa--would you dream, if you prepared the muskets and sold them, and
made out the proper papers and dispatched them according to the
order--would you dream, that you were committing a felony? That is what
it comes to.

Just see how the case stands--Captain Denman knows, and Captain Hill
knows very well, that shipments to the Gallinas may be something
suspicious, because they say, as far as their experience goes, there is
no lawful trade there, and that they are all slave traders there; but
how is any body in this kingdom who has never been there, and never
corresponded with the place, to know that?

What is the next fact? _Captain Hill proves--though it was with the
greatest reluctance he ever gave an answer in favour of this young man
whom he is endeavouring to send to Botany Bay--at last, he let out by
accident that there are places, on the coast of Africa, to which British
produce in large quantities is sent, where the trade is perfectly
proper, and where goods lawfully are sent and disposed of; and that at
many of those places there are persons, who trade largely, and to a very
great extent in British produce, who also deal in slaves._

Here, again, I beseech you to turn your attention to the facts and
forget the statement. You may be manufacturers of guns or gunpowder, or
commission-agents living in the country, who for the purpose of shipment
purchase those goods; in either case a party comes and says, I want a
thousand muskets and two tons of gunpowder to be shipped to a certain
place on the coast of Africa. I ask you--are you first to consult the
map to ascertain the place, and having ascertained where it is, are you
to go to somebody you may hear of--Captain Hill or Captain Denman--and
inquire, whether they have been upon the coast of Africa, and can tell
you the character of the trade carried on there? Are you next, the
person being a Spaniard or Portuguese, to inquire whether they ever deal
in slaves, and if you find they do, are you to say, I will execute no
order you give me? _That would annihilate two-thirds of the commerce of
Great Britain, and would prevent the most useful transactions of
commerce which can occur upon the coast of Africa._ It is, therefore, I
say, in a charge of this momentous character, it is not to be determined
upon suspicion. You are not to hang or transport a man upon vague
suspicion; you must show that the crime has been committed; you must
have before you direct evidence to prove that he must have known--not
that he might have known--by inquiry, if it had been duly answered, and
in the mean time the orders would be lost--not that he might have
learnt, or that the result of the inquiry might be that the goods might
by possibility be unlawfully employed--you must have direct evidence
that they were shipped for that purpose. The statute does not say, that
every one who ships goods to a slave colony shall be guilty of slave
dealing; the Act does not say, that whoever ships goods to a place where
the slave trade is principally carried on shall be guilty of slave
dealing; the Act does not say, that any body who shall ship goods
without taking care that they shall not be employed in slave dealing
shall be guilty of felony; the Act does not say, that any one who ships
goods which may be employed in the slave trade shall be guilty of
felony--God forbid that it should say that!--but the Act says, if a man
ships goods for that object, if he ships goods with the intent--which as
far as in him lies he seeks to carry into effect, that they may be used
in the slave trade--that is a felony. Where, in God’s name, is there a
particle or scintilla of evidence to that effect here? Where Captain
Denman tells you it is a well-known slave trading colony, and that he
knew it before he went there? Did you know it? I apprehend, if my
learned friend knew it before he was instructed in this case, he knows
geography, as he does every thing else, much better than I do. My
learned friend says, you are not to shut your eyes to what you are
doing. No; I agree if a man commits a crime, or does a mischief, he is
not to shut his eyes to the consequences of it. I deny, once for
all--and I appeal to the learned Judges whether I am not correctly
stating the effect of the law--whether a man, who has no intention to do
an unlawful act in the shipment of goods, is bound to make any inquiry
as to what is to be done with goods, which, in obedience to the orders
of a foreign correspondent, he ships to any place on the face of the
earth. He is not bound to make inquiries; if he was, it would throw
impediments in the way of commerce more injurious than the slave trade
itself in any part of the world. Again, they speak of Messrs. Martinez
being slave traders, and they speak of the admission that appears upon
the evidence of Mr. Zulueta, that he knew that Martinez & Co. had been
engaged in the slave trade. I will show you, when I come to refer to
this evidence, which is all-important in this case, that there is
nothing of the kind--he speaks of the knowledge he had; he gave his
evidence in 1842, and you will find, when you look on a little further,
he had learnt it since the transactions in 1840.

Now, suppose he did know it--suppose a commission-agent knows that a
foreign correspondent of his house is extensively engaged in the slave
trade--he knows, at the same time, he is extensively engaged in a lawful
trade in sugar, tobacco, and other commodities--I ask you, whether if
that foreign correspondent, by letter, desires him to freight a ship
with a quantity of goods, and he does so, he is to be treated as a
felon? whether, because a trader in both ways--a trader lawful and
unlawful--may use his goods unlawfully, and the shipper knows it and
cannot prevent it, he is to be treated as a felon or wrong doer? I deny
it: if it were so, the first mercantile houses in the country would
consist of none but felons. It would be in vain to suggest
houses--though one rose before my mind, whose extent of transactions is
equalled only by the honour and integrity of their character, that house
trading largely as it does with the Havannah and the Brazils, where all
the extensive merchants are slave dealers, that house must sacrifice
two-thirds of its trade--and all that loss must accrue to Great Britain,
because that trade may enable those who carry it on to carry on also a
trade in slaves. It is quite intelligible, that that was the very object
of the inquiry before the Committee, where Mr. Zulueta, Captain Hill,
and Captain Denman, and a score of other persons were examined before
the Colonial Secretaries under both governments, and some of the most
practical men of the present day--it was for the purpose of determining
and reporting to the House, whether it would be desirable to extend the
criminal law of the country, and prohibit the trade altogether with
places where the slave trade was carried on, or with persons notoriously
carrying it on. Nobody ever dreamt, but Sir George Stephen, that it was
illegal to trade with a slave dealing place, or a notorious slave
dealer; it is only illegal where you know the trade you carry on is to
promote the slave trade, and you know that to be the object. That was
one of the objects of the Committee, to ascertain whether it was
desirable to prevent the trading with slave dealers, or slave trading
places. I may not regularly refer to their opinion; but they made a
Report in 1842, and no law is passed at all affecting transactions of
that nature--the only Act is that, which, for another purpose, I called
my Lord’s attention to, and which made that illegal, not illegal before,
namely, the trading by British subjects in foreign ports--not making it
criminal to trade with slave traders or slave trading places. Then let
us see the result. You are called upon, where the shipment is innocent,
and the employment of the ship is innocent, you are called upon to
destroy this man, because he has put his name to one or two innocent
documents, and because they say it was so notoriously a slave trading
place that he must have known that they were to be so used. My answer is
in a single sentence--he knew nothing of the kind; they have not proved
it; they have proved that Captain Hill, and Captain Denman, and others,
conversant with the spot, knew it; they have not proved that Mr. Zulueta
knew it--the evidence is entirely a blank upon the subject. If he
thought of it at all, and I think that a man is bound to inquire about
the matter, he would probably think this--there are a great number of
houses in the city of London executing large commissions for the African
trade, and a great deal of British commerce goes to the coast of Africa
is lawfully disposed of, and promotes the civilisation of Africa; and I
have every right to suppose that this goes for a lawful purpose; if that
is not so, it must be shown to be for an unlawful purpose. If that is
not fair in the mouth of Mr. Zulueta’s house, it is not fair in the
mouth of any firm trading in that way with the coast of Africa; and
unless it had been shown that Mr. Zulueta himself was personally
informed of, or knew, the character of this place, what is proved by
Captain Denman or Captain Hill has nothing to do with the question--so
much for that part of the proof, from which you are called upon to infer
that the prisoner shipped these goods to accomplish this wicked object,
because it is proved the slave trade was carried on there.

Now, Gentlemen, let me say one word more of Captain Denman: he does not
show, in the correct sense of the words, that the slave trade is
extensively carried on there; he may be right in saying there is no
produce there; but is there no mode of receiving goods and selling them
for money, though no goods are exported? There are various towns or
villages, one of nine hundred inhabitants, and others of various
numbers, and native chiefs also; there are also Europeans, principally
Spaniards--I should like to know, whether the native chiefs, and the
Spanish population, and the nine hundred, the population of Tiendo, do
not lawfully, for pieces of money or doubloons, buy British produce
lawfully? It may be said, that they can only get this money by the slave
trade; that is, by having previously dealt in slaves; but where is that
to stop? If you are to trace the money from hand to hand, in order to
ascertain whether, since a bank note was made or stamped, or the money
coined, it has not been the medium of some illegal transaction, there is
an end to all commerce. It may be, that these men, Rolo and Pedro
Blanco, may have sold a thousand slaves for dollars, and may have paid a
debt to Rolo, and with that Rolo may have paid somebody else, who may
have bought the goods of Mr. Zulueta--I wish to know, whether Mr.
Zulueta for that is to be accused of dealing in slaves, or shipping
goods to dealers in slaves? There is nothing of the kind, as far as
regards that part of the evidence, relating to the character of the
place, or as relating to the character of the parties there. My answer
to that is, that, however well known to Captain Denman and Captain Hill,
it was unknown to Pedro de Zulueta; that he neither knew the place nor
the persons, but that there was such a place to which his house had,
without a suspicion, shipped considerable quantities of goods for their
foreign correspondents--and it would be hard and cruel to say, that
because other people possess a knowledge that he does not, he is to be
charged as a felon--because he did not know what other parties, who had
passed the latter part of their lives upon the spot, knew.

But, Gentlemen, a great deal has been said upon the mode in which this
was to be carried into effect; and they say, because this vessel was
bought really by Martinez & Co., and with their money--but Captain
Jennings was made the captain, and Captain Jennings was made the
apparent owner; therefore, that is a mark of suspicion, that is a
concealment, that is putting a false colour upon the transaction--and
therefore you are to infer that the transaction was with some guilty
intent with respect to the slave trade. Upon that, in the first
instance, I would say, this is not an indictment against Mr. Zulueta for
putting an English captain on board a foreign ship, and treating it as
an English ship--such a proceeding is not, that I am aware of, contrary
to the law at all; and it can only be important in this case, if the
nature of the transaction is such as necessarily to lead you to infer
that the object of the transaction was connected with the slave trade.

Now, let me try that in all its parts; let us see if there is any thing
in the mode in which the transaction was carried into effect, which
ought fairly to lead a Jury to infer that the object in sending the
vessel to Africa was that it should be engaged in the slave trade.
First, as to the English captain--I had some difficulty in getting the
facts out--it is always desirable, when the Jury have some experience in
the matter, for the ends of justice--I hope you may be some of you
familiar with Spanish maritime transactions: but we have the notary of
the Spanish consulate, before whom charter-parties and other maritime
documents come, and we have had the judgment of a naval officer upon the
spot, and their evidence goes to show, that by the maritime laws of
Spain, a Spanish vessel cannot be commanded by an English captain. Then,
if Messrs. Martinez & Co. wished to ship these goods to the coast of
Africa from England, and they wished at the same time to employ Captain
Jennings as the captain, how are they to do it, except by giving an
English name to the vessel, putting it under English colours, and making
Captain Jennings the apparent owner? And, Gentlemen, is that to be
wondered at? Is the character of a British sailor so low, that there is
any thing upon which you are to suspect a man of felony, because one of
his foreign correspondents prefers that a vessel he is going to freight
to Africa should be commanded by an Englishman and not a Spaniard? You
will find, from the evidence, that Captain Jennings had been more than
once employed by Martinez & Co.--there is no doubt he is a man of
considerable experience; he is a man of considerable courage, as all
English sailors are--and explained in that way, what more natural than
that Martinez & Co., hearing he was in England, should wish that a man
they could trust should be employed in bringing out a cargo of goods to
Africa, or wherever it was? Therefore it was he would employ Captain
Jennings. How was he to do it? If the vessel was their own, it must sail
under the Spanish flag, it would be a Spanish vessel, and could not be
commanded by an English captain; so, to obtain that object, they
employed Captain Jennings, whom they thought a trustworthy person--and
in order to employ him, he is obliged to make the vessel appear an
English vessel, and make him appear as the owner of the vessel--and this
arrangement is accordingly made. And, Gentlemen, let me observe, though
it was not given in evidence--but I will not stand upon technical
points, I am dealing with the character of a house as high as any in
Britain; I believe their Lordships, after some argument, excluded the
bill of lading, in which the name of Captain Jennings appeared as the
shipper--I do not know how it is--suppose he appeared--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. He appeared so in the cockets.

Mr. _Kelly_. I do most earnestly hope that some of you have sufficient
experience of the mode in which business is conducted, with respect to
ships, to know, that this is not an unusual circumstance. Just consider
the object of the voyage: these goods were to be taken to the Gallinas,
and they were consigned to those persons whose names you have heard. You
have heard that slave trading is carried on there, as it is along the
whole coast--that is known to Martinez & Co.--they have a great deal of
trade there, and no doubt they would know it; they would know very well
that the seas swarmed with British cruizers, for the purpose of
interrupting and preventing the slave trade--what more natural? If their
correspondents should happen not to be upon the spot at the time the
goods arrived, so that they could not be delivered, or that there should
be a blockade, and the ship could not enter with the goods shipped by
Martinez & Co., the captain must sail back to England or to Cadiz, and
get authority from Martinez to alter the destination of the goods; if,
on the contrary, they were shipped in the name of Captain Jennings, if
he found a blockade, or the correspondents of Messrs. Martinez were not
there, or there was any opposition to his communications with the shore,
he would have the complete disposal of the goods; he might take them to
other parts of the coast of Africa, or any other part of the world, or
deal with them as he pleased--and the whole mystery is explained. Every
body, who knows any thing of these commercial transactions, knows that a
supercargo is sent out with goods, and the shipment is most frequently
in the name of the supercargo; and it is for that reason, that in case
when the goods arrive at the place to which they are consigned, if there
is any difficulty, or any thing which requires the control or
disposition of the owner, the supercargo is the party to act, and he can
only do that when the shipment is in his name. Here there is a
supercargo, or somebody they had confidence in, Captain Jennings, and
accordingly the shipment is made in the name of Jennings, in order, in a
case of difficulty, that he may exercise a control over the goods. And
so far from there being any thing illegal in it, so far from there being
any thing unusual in the transaction--because Captain Jennings was made
the master, the apparent owner of the vessel, and the person in whose
name the goods were shipped--it is the constant custom. If Messrs.
Martinez wished to send these goods to the coast of Africa, and if, by
reason of any blockade, it would be necessary to give them another
destination, they wished to have the benefit of an English captain,
Captain Jennings--and by taking the course they did, of making out the
charter-party from Captain Jennings to Martinez & Co., and at the same
time shipping the goods in his own name, retaining a share of the
superintendence as the real owner throughout the voyage, they
accomplished that. To tell me, because that is done, which is a matter
of constant custom, the good sense of which strikes one at the first
sight--for my learned friend to rise and say, this is a concealment, and
you are to condemn this young man to transportation--is perfectly
monstrous. But I will tell you what the prosecutor ought to have
done--and what I should have expected from the experience of my learned
friend, who has called Sir George Stephen the public prosecutor--if he
meant to say, that a charter-party in this form was an illegal and
unmercantile act, he ought to have called persons engaged in the trade,
parties engaged in shipments of the same description, or any other
foreign trade, to prove that this was an illegal, and consequently an
unusual transaction. He has left that in blank. I make the same
observation as to the nature of the trade: how is it--when you are
called upon here to denounce this young man as a felon, because it is
supposed that slave trading was carried on at this place, the Gallinas,
and that any body engaged in trade to that part of the world must have
known that slave trading was carried on there--how is it, that out of
the scores, to say the least, of highly respectable, intelligent, and
experienced merchants, carrying on trade in this city, not one is called
before you--not a merchant, not a shipper, not an individual is called
to speak to any part of this transaction? You are to take Mr. Serjeant
Bompas’s statement for every thing--whatever Sir George Stephen
instructs him to say in this case, unless you have experience in it
yourself, you are to take every thing as proof. I say it became the
public prosecutor to call merchants, acquainted with the coast of
Africa, to give a fair mercantile character to the transaction; they
have not done so; and I protest against the doctrine, that any man is to
be treated as guilty, and denounced as tainted with crime, not upon any
proof that the character of the transaction is contrary to mercantile
usage, but upon the statement of counsel, unsupported by evidence, and
more particularly where that evidence is so completely within the power
of the prosecutor.

Gentlemen, let me make another observation upon this point--I fear that
the length to which this case has been drawn may weary you, and my
address more so than any other part of the case; but, for mercy’s sake,
consider--

_Foreman of the Jury._ We are quite glad to hear all you have to say.

Mr. _Kelly_. I thank you, Gentlemen. What would be my feelings, if any
thing adverse was to happen to this young man, from my omitting to say
what occurred to me as important? It is said by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, but
not proved, that this was done under concealment: they have not called
man or boy from Liverpool to prove that any part of the transaction was
unusual. I appeal to any man, who knows any thing of the nature of
shipments, whether it is possible that this cargo could have been
shipped without clerks and shipping agents being employed, and without
the cargo and ship undergoing the inspection of the Custom-house
officers. All that has been done, and my learned friend and Sir George
Stephen know that that has been done; and I believe, in his opening
speech, he alluded to evidence from Liverpool; but not one witness has
been called. You will see the effect of that in another part of the
transaction to which I have not arrived; but when Mr. Serjeant Bompas
tells you, that the employment of Mr. Jennings, as captain and owner,
and shipping the goods in his own name, was done for the purpose of
concealment, I say it is idle; and it is an insult to the understanding
of any man to say there was any concealment. Messrs. Zulueta employ
Captain Jennings--he employs other people--you heard that that was the
mode in which the business was conducted--the Russian consul and Mr.
Emanuel are not Zulueta & Co.--it appears that the transaction could not
have been conducted but by the house of Zulueta--and yet my learned
friend contents himself by saying, that this was secretly done, though
he has not called one witness to prove it.

Gentlemen, I was upon the point, that the employment of Captain
Jennings, and the making it appear that Captain Jennings was the owner,
was a circumstance of concealment. If it was, I have told you the
reasons humbly occurring to my own mind for thinking it was not; but
suppose it was concealed--concealment, which would facilitate the
carrying on the slave trade. Now, Gentlemen, I pray your attention to
this question--Was the putting this ship under British colours, and
under the command of a British captain, calculated at all to enable it
to carry on the slave trade? That is the question. If it was, I clearly
admit--though God forbid a man should be convicted upon it!--that it is
a circumstance that may require some consideration in your minds; but if
I demonstrate to you, that for all the objects of the slave trade, the
employment of a British captain, and the employment of British colours,
was fatal to it, and rendered discovery, and forfeiture, and
punishment, almost inevitable, what becomes of the statement that all
this was done clandestinely to facilitate the slave trade? Recollect the
account of the trade given by Captain Denman. If it be a foreign vessel,
a Portuguese or Spanish, which engages in the slave trade, there are
very great impediments and very great difficulties in interrupting it,
in searching and in bringing the transaction to light, or the
perpetrators to justice, investigating the matter judicially, and
finally causing the vessel and goods to be condemned. Our newspapers are
filled with discussions about the right of search. Whereas, Captain
Denman could, without a moment’s pause, without any obstruction, enter
upon any English vessel, and seize the English captain, and search the
vessel from top to bottom--while, in an American vessel, and many other
vessels, he might be met by obstruction, and it might be the cause of a
war. It is true, under some treaties, it may be done; but it is not so
as to Russia, because this vessel ultimately, according to my learned
friend, defeated justice, and was given up to the Russian government.
Where a vessel, therefore, is under foreign colours, there are many
difficulties in searching, and if suspicious circumstances appear, in
bringing the vessel, if I may so speak, to justice. What does Captain
Denman say? “If it is an American vessel, I could not search at all
unless by main force, at the peril of a war; if a Russian, it is the
same thing; if a Spanish or French vessel, then, under the treaty, a
search may take place.” But, remember the mode of searching: if he saw
an English vessel, the English captain would feel that of necessity he
must, unless he meant to be condemned, tender his vessel, and all in it,
to the investigation of a British naval officer; and if the vessel has
any thing suspicious about it, you may prosecute it in the British
Vice-Admiralty Court, in any of the colonies throughout the world; and,
if condemned, as it may be, by British law, by British officers of
justice; whereas, if it be a Spanish or Russian vessel, or a Portuguese,
or of any other country, there are all sorts of difficulties and
formalities before a search can take place; and if any thing suspicious
is found, even Captain Hill, with all his furious zeal, would pause
before he seized a foreign vessel. Again, supposing there are suspicious
appearances, and the officer determines to try the question, it is tried
not in the British Vice Admiralty Court--not in any British court at
all--but before a Mixed Commission, composed of British, Spanish, and,
perhaps, the subjects of other nations, surrounded with all these
difficulties, and, I grieve to say, all that corruption which taints the
administration of justice in almost every other country but this.

Now, Mr. Serjeant Bompas says--Sacrifice this young man, and condemn him
as a felon. Why? Because, the more easily to carry on the slave trade,
he fitted out a vessel--not as a Spaniard, with a Spanish crew and
Spanish colours, but with English colours, an English captain, and an
English crew, which Captain Denman, Captain Hill, or any other captain
might search and condemn. Now, I am the humble and inefficient advocate
of this young man, and the matter may occur to my mind erroneously; I
may take an erroneous view, from the zeal I feel in the case, in
presenting it before you, in the terms in which his innocence will
ultimately appear; but, unless I grievously deceive myself, that
argument admits of no answer, as Captain Denman said there are
difficulties in the one case and none in the other--a trial by a British
Court in the one case, and a Mixed Commission in the other; that there
are great impediments where it is a foreign vessel, and none in the
other. And has the prosecutor a right to call upon you to come to a
conclusion that this young man is guilty of felony, because he fitted
out a vessel with English colours, and an English captain, the more
easily to carry on the slave trade? You will have to answer that
question, if you think the slave trade could be more easily carried on
by an English captain and an English crew. You have heard of the mutiny
before they reached Cadiz; if you think an English crew were used, and
English colours hoisted, the more safely to carry on the trade, it must
be for some reason that does not occur to my mind, and I trust in God it
will not occur to yours.

Now, Gentlemen, we come to the next point. They say--Though true it is,
that this vessel was not employed in the slave trade, there is the most
direct evidence that the man who fitted out the vessel meant to employ
it in the slave trade, and really employed it with that object. If you
cannot show the orders given by him to the captain so to employ it, the
next thing would be to show it was so employed. If this ship had sailed
from England to the Gallinas and discharged its cargo, and had taken in
a number of slaves; or if it had bartered its cargo against a number of
slaves; if that had been done, unless you can show it was done by Mr.
Zulueta’s orders, he is not responsible: you may challenge the captain,
and you might say, whether Mr. Zulueta intended it or not, it was so
used: but there is no such evidence. Captain Hill, with his zeal to
discharge his duty and to prevent slave trading, took time by the
forelock, and seized the vessel in the hands of the captain before it
reached the shore, and you have therefore no means of drawing inferences
of what was intended by what was done. But they endeavour to make up for
that in this way: they say, we will show that the vessel was originally
built for the slave trade; and we will show that, while it was in the
hands of Mr. Zulueta, or while Captain Jennings had it under his hands,
it had fittings added, or articles furnished, calculated to assist in
the slave trade. And I must say, upon this part of the case, it grieves
me to refer to the mode in which it has been conducted in terms of
reprobation; _but I should ill discharge my duty if I did not say, that
the mode in which the evidence was laid before you was unworthy the high
reputation and the honourable character of my learned friend_. I pray
you to remember what it is has been proved upon this occasion. He calls
a witness from Portsmouth, or two or three; and, as Mr. Clarkson, and my
other learned friend, obtained from them on cross-examination they had
been lately subpœnaed, the prisoner could not be prepared by any
possibility for their testimony; and what do they prove? They prove,
that on board this vessel, while Captain Jennings was in command of it,
they had seen, I do not know how many, water-casks for slave trading;
that they had seen shackles and bolts, and all the muniments necessary
to carry on the slave trade. Now, I ask you, is that fair? Is that just?
The prisoner is charged, not with having thrown away those things, and
destroyed them, and fitted up a vessel, which, for aught he knew, might
be used in the slave trade, or might be for perfectly lawful purposes;
but he is charged with having dispatched it from Liverpool for the
purposes of the slave trade; and, in order to prove that, the prosecutor
thinks it right to give in evidence what was done at Portsmouth with
these shackles and water-casks which were on board the vessel, and there
he leaves the case. I cannot trust myself to speak of that mode of
giving evidence. Gentlemen, the way in which they ought to have
convinced you there was any thing on board this vessel calculated to
carry on the trade, was to show the condition of the vessel at the time
she left the port of Liverpool. There all the control of the house of
Zulueta & Co. finished; the charter-party was made out, the goods were
put on board, and the ship, on the 8th of November, 1840, sailed from
Liverpool; then, if this young man is a felon, the felony was completed.
What was the condition of the ship then? Had it then the water-casks for
the nourishment of the slaves? Had it shackles and other instruments of
torture, or for the conveyance of the slaves from one part of the world
to the other? Gentlemen, that was the time; that was the place to show
it: and it could not be by inadvertence it was omitted. Why, Captain
Hill, their witness, who would not drop a single syllable, who could not
bring himself to say any thing favourable to this young man (not from
any improper motive, he will not understand me to say), that even
Captain Hill was obliged to say--“When I seized the vessel, where the
slave trade was to be carried on, it was not fitted up for the slave
trade;” and one of you gentlemen of the Jury--and from the bottom of my
heart I thanked you--put the question in another form through my Lord,
and the answer was--“No; at the time the vessel was seized it was not
fitted up for the slave trade.” So that you have this fact, that when it
left Liverpool it was not fitted up for the slave trade, and had not the
means on board to be so fitted up, and when on the coast of Africa it
was not so fitted up; but, from their own witnesses knowing that, they
call other witnesses to raise a suspicion in your minds that it was
secretly prepared for the slave trade, because there were water-casks
and shackles on board. And remember the evidence of the cabin-boy: they
had the choice of the whole crew, and no one can say that the crew would
be favourable to Mr. Zulueta, the owner, or his house; they were
discharged as mutineers: they had their choice of the whole crew, and no
expense, and no exertions have been spared, and yet they dare not call
one of the crew to say what Captain Jennings stated, or what his object
was; they called the cabin-boy, who says, “I know nothing of the loading
of the vessel.”

There is a person to be tried for a felony in fitting out a vessel
perfectly lawfully, but for the slave trade, and they seek to show that
it was fitted up for the slave trade: they do not show it at the only
time it was material to show it, but they seek to ruin and destroy this
unfortunate young man, by giving evidence of its state at Portsmouth,
when we have from this boy the damning fact for the integrity of their
case, that though the water-vessels were changed in their form, which
was to make you think that they were sent in a disguised form, they were
put on shore at Liverpool, and not put back again. If there had been an
inch or a scrap of old iron, or a nail, the ship was in the possession
of Captain Hill, and those who acted under him, as long as he thought
fit to keep it. It was put into the Vice-Admiralty Court; it was open to
the witnesses for the prosecution: I have no doubt they searched it from
end to end, and from top to bottom, and every crevice and cranny, and in
no place was a scrap of rusty iron found applicable to the slave trade;
and yet you are to be told by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, that he will prove it
was adapted for the slave trade, when his own instructions had already
told him that they gave a false appearance to the case, and the true
appearance of the case was entirely left out of consideration. However,
Gentlemen, I thank God, whatever may be the consequence, and however
terrible to my own feelings as counsel for the prisoner, I had no
hand--God forbid!--in such a prosecution.

Gentlemen, it is not only in the mode and to the extent I have pointed
out to you, that the evidence has been sought to be perverted--and if
there had been a case, and facts to be proved from the condition of the
vessel, it is only from the evidence they have submitted to you that it
can appear--Captain Hill seized the vessel and cargo; he had the full
control of it; every species of information, every scrap of paper on
board is in their power, and every thing that could be given in evidence
before you has been brought before you.

Gentlemen, I must observe that I am not counsel for Captain Jennings.
Captain Jennings, for aught I know, though he is an Englishman, and
there is no charge against him, may have been in collusion with Martinez
& Co. I am not responsible for his acts. I thought there had been some
refusal to give up the papers, but Captain Hill negatived that
altogether; he did not say there was any opposition; the vessel did not
sail away from him, on the contrary, it sailed up to him. I do not know
how that was. He asked for papers and they were given up to him--he made
some request which was refused, but as to the running away, or
concealment, nothing of the kind was practised; but you have here a
felon, in the situation of a partner in the house of Zulueta & Co.,
trading to the amount of millions, trading with the house of Martinez &
Co. to an immense amount in sugar and tobacco, and all sorts of goods
passing between Britain and its Colonies, and a little trading upon
commission in the last fifteen years, in which the commission put into
the pocket of Zulueta & Co., would not pay a day’s salary to their
clerks in their office, and you have a charge of felony for what this
young man has done as it appears in the evidence to which I have called
your attention. To talk of its being a concealment to use an English
captain and an English vessel, when it would have insured a
prosecution--when it would have insured discovery--when it would have
insured punishment--is absurd. They say, here was something in the
nature of the vessel, and to enable you to arrive at the same conclusion
they prove her condition at Portsmouth, which was altered before the
voyage was embarked upon, and they do not prove the condition of the
vessel at the only time important for you to inquire into.

Gentlemen, Captain Hill said it would be very easy when the vessel
arrived at Gallinas to get the fittings up there; that it would be easy
for the factor there, when he expected the vessel, to get them ready. No
doubt it would be very easy for a man to get a gun, and load it with
powder and ball, and so shoot the Queen. But, good God! are we in cases
of felony not to look for evidence, not to look for facts, but to
suppose a felony, because it is physically possible that somebody may do
something to put this ship into a condition that may be unlawful? So I
might say of Captain Hill, that when he went with one of Her Majesty’s
ships upon the coast, he was disposed to assist in the slave trade
instead of destroying it; he might have harboured the slaves in his
vessel, or turned it into a slave establishment, or any thing else. But
we are dealing with something more than the life of this young man. You
are not to look at what a man 4000 miles off did, but what this man did.
What he has done he is responsible for, and he is ready to answer
here--he is ready to answer at a higher tribunal; but, in the name of
that Judge before whom we must all stand, I implore you, do not visit
him with suppositions of what other men might have done, instead of what
he is proved to have done in this transaction.

Gentlemen, the evidence in the cause would have gone no further than I
have stated but from the circumstance--a most extraordinary one, and
unprecedented as far as my experience goes in criminal cases--of a great
body of evidence being produced, that being neither more nor less than
the voluntary, unsought, and unasked testimony of the criminal himself
in his evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons; and
it is that to which I have finally to call your attention. I have stated
to you, that the house of Zulueta & Co. had enjoyed the highest
reputation from the time of their establishment, nearly seventy years
ago, until the year 1842. That Committee was appointed, and is declared
to have been assembled for the purpose of inquiring into the mode in
which the slave trade at various places on the coast of Africa was
effected by British commerce and by the employment of British capital.
It was suggested, and perhaps truly suggested, that from various British
houses, dealing largely in British manufactures, and exporting them as
principals, or as agents to the order of Spanish houses, or Portuguese
houses, or American houses, particularly in the states of South
America--that by reason of those exports, commerce was introduced, and
great sums of money procured, which money, being employed in the slave
trade, thereby British capital and commerce tended to support the slave
trade. The object of the Committee was to determine to what extent this
particular allegation was true, and if true, whether it could be
remedied by any alteration in the law. It is not necessary to notice the
result of their deliberations; but it is important to observe, that upon
the Committee were two most zealous men, Lord Stanley and Lord John
Russell, neither of whom could have seen enough in the conduct of this
young man to justify his prosecution. And this Committee seem to have
thought whatever evil might arise in fostering or in facilitating the
slave trade, directly or indirectly, by British capital and commerce,
that they would too fatally interfere with the commerce and civilization
of the Africans themselves, from which, and not the force of arms, the
destruction of slavery must ensue, if further restrictions were placed
upon general commerce of the country; and no further restrictions have
been placed. But in the course of the investigation before this
Committee, and at a very late period of their sittings, because it is
after this part of this _immense volume_[16] had been given the house of
Zulueta & Co. learnt that some evidence had been given _ex parte_ and in
their absence, which they thought threw some reflection upon the honour
and integrity of their house. They felt their honour involved, and they
felt themselves entirely innocent of the charge--they felt that the
house of Zulueta & Co., both here and abroad, so far from assisting in
the slave trade, had cautiously desisted from it, and made great
sacrifices, even when both nations were engaged in it; and one of their
firm came forward to give such explanation as he thought necessary to
clear the house, if possible, from the imputation cast upon it--not
because he knew more of it than any other member of the firm, that will
appear from the evidence; but, because he spoke English more fluently
than his father, he came forward and gave the evidence which is before
you. And, Gentlemen, but for that evidence the whole case would have
been, that the house of Zulueta & Co. shipped these goods and dispatched
this vessel, and in the course of their proceedings this letter and
charter-party were signed by the prisoner at the bar. But they say, what
is wanting, that evidence will complete, and out of his own mouth they
can clearly show he has betrayed himself into a most awful
predicament--that when he went before this Committee voluntarily, he has
admitted himself to be a felon. But, thank God, that is for you to judge
of. It is for you, a Jury of British men, not dealing with a
fellow-countryman, but where you would be more tender than with any of
your own countrymen--it is you, and I thank God for it, who are to
decide whether this young man has admitted himself to be a felon: if he
has, he must be punished for it; but he has given a fair statement from
beginning to end, and if there was any thing false, the prosecutor could
prove it false by the clearest evidence; and I can, with that confidence
with which I should appeal to Heaven for truth and justice, appeal to
you for a verdict of acquittal of the prisoner.

  [16] Pointing to a large folio volume in his hand, “Parliamentary Report
on the West Coast of Africa,” from which Mr. Kelly read the quotations
contained in the subsequent parts of his speech.

Gentlemen, he appears before the Committee upon the 22nd of July, 1842,
and the Chairman says to him, “You have seen some statements that have
been made to this Committee upon the subject of a transaction in which
your house was engaged; have you any observations to offer upon it?--I
received from the Clerk of the Committee a letter.” He accounts for
having heard of it, and then says, “I would beg, first of all, to refer
to the letter which I had the honour to address to the Chairman.” That
letter ought to have been brought before you--it is not--we have it not,
and have no control over it. The prosecutor could have produced it,
because, with the permission of the House, by which he has produced this
evidence, he might have produced that letter, or had a copy of it. He
says, “My reason for wishing to be examined before this Committee was,
that the statements contained in the evidence which I have mentioned are
all of them more or less incorrect, some of them totally so. I will
begin by stating what has been the nature of our, I will not say trade,
for we have not had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the
shipment of goods to the coast of Africa.” I pray your attention to
this--it is not, as my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Talfourd seems to
assume in a question put to Captain Denman, it is not that this house
has ever traded, in the proper sense of the word, to the coast of
Africa; they never send goods there on their own account, and they never
received goods from there; they never had any transaction or
correspondence with any person at the Gallinas, or any where else upon
the coast of Africa; all their transactions were confined to the
execution of foreign orders from the Havannah, and other parts of the
world; all that they did being to dispatch the vessels and ship the
goods; and from the moment of shipping the goods in England, from that
moment their interference entirely ceased. He says, “I will begin by
stating what has been the nature of our, I will not say trade, for we
have not had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the shipment
of goods to the coast of Africa. We have been established as merchants
for upwards of 70 years in Spain, for nearly 20 years in this country,
and we have had connexions to a large extent in Spain, and in the
Havannah, and in South America, and in several other places; among them
we have had connexions, or commercial intercourse, with the house of
Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and with Blanco and Cavallo of
Havannah. With them we have carried on a regular business in
consignments of sugars and of cochineal, which they have made to us.” I
pray you to put this case--Suppose the house of Zulueta & Co. received a
consignment of cochineal and sugars from the house of Martinez, the
value of the consignment being 5,000_l._, they convert it into money,
and they have that 5,000_l._ at the disposal of Martinez & Co.; suppose
any one of the gentlemen, who are doing me the honour of attending to
me, had money of Martinez by him, say 10,000_l._, the house of Martinez,
instead of drawing it out, order it to be invested in English goods;
suppose they write and say, we have received your account sales of
sugars and cochineal, we find we are credited for 10,000_l._, and we
request you to ship the undermentioned goods by the Augusta, Captain
Jennings, for the Gallinas, or any other place on the coast of Africa,
and they set one against the other--would you hesitate in doing it?
would you dream you were committing a felony? It is not that this is an
only transaction (I do not know whether that would affect the
case)--there is a trading for twenty years--it is a little more than ten
years that they have had transactions of that kind, and have shipped
goods to, they did not know who--they have never heard of the goods
being seized, or the vessels seized, or what became of the money,
whether invested in the slave trading, or any other traffic--all they
know is, that they have received the consignments of cochineal or
sugars, that they have sold them, and hold 5,000_l._ or 10,000_l._ in
their hands--they are ordered this day to pay part of the money by
accepting bills, and the next day they are ordered to send the remainder
of the money they owe, in brandy, tobacco, or iron, to be shipped to the
Gallinas, or any where else, and they act upon it--whether the goods are
sold for slaves, whether they are used, whether they are sold for money,
and the money spent in the purchase of other merchandise or in the
support of the families of those who have received them, to them is
indifferent--they have shipped the goods, they have debited the account,
and there the matter ends, that is perfectly clear. He says, “With them
we have carried on a regular business in consignments of sugars and of
cochineal, which they have made to us; and in specie received by the
packets from Mexico and other places. We have several times acted for
them here in this country, buying raw cotton for instance at Liverpool,
and re-selling it very largely; that has been principally with Pedro
Martinez & Co.” “They are general merchants?--They are general
merchants, and their transactions with us have been of that nature. As
general merchants, we have bought stock here for them rather largely;
and, in the course of those transactions, we have received orders from
Don Pedro Martinez & Co., of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez,
of Cadiz, to ship goods to the coast of Africa.” It must be doubtless so
that they received the order one day to remit money, and the next to
remit goods to the coast of Africa. If they were slave traders, you have
no right to assume that they knew it; it is not proved that they knew
it; and if Martinez & Co. were notorious slave dealers, if they are also
much larger traders in cochineal and sugars, what right had they to
suppose, if, instead of the money they owe, they are to ship
merchandise, what right have they to suppose that they will deal
unlawfully with this commodity? It is a case to which the law never
pointed, and it would go to the destruction of commerce if any man was
bound to pause or make any inquiry at all before he shipped. He is then
asked, “Have you received orders from Pedro Martinez for shipments for
the coast of Africa?--Yes; in the course of business we have received
orders to ship goods upon the funds in our hands belonging to them; and
we have shipped the goods described in the letter, and sent the bills of
lading to Pedro Martinez; but beyond that we have never had any returns
from the coast of Africa.”

This is the whole case; it is a full defence to this prosecution, and
disposes of the offence it is supposed this young man was committing.
And further, he says, “Nor any control of any kind from the moment the
cargoes left the ports of this country.” Now here again, if this is
false, it might be proved. They have given us notice to produce the
accounts, and all letters that have passed between Martinez and Zulueta
& Co.; they might have shown that this was false, that they had dealt in
some other way, and that they had some interest in the final event of
the shipment: they have not proved any thing of the kind. I say they
have proved the contrary, and _I will never in my person establish so
fatal a precedent as to recognise the notion that any man upon his trial
for a felony is to prove himself innocent before evidence is given to
prove him guilty_.

He is then asked, “You have had no interest in the result of the
venture?--No, nor any notice, nor any acquaintance, nor any
correspondence with any one upon the coast; we have never had any kind
of knowledge, either subsequently or previously, of the shipments,
except the mere fact of buying the goods and shipping them.” “Your whole
interest was a commission upon the transaction?--Entirely. The extent of
those transactions has been so limited in the course of nearly twenty
years that we have been in this country, that the amount of the invoices
that we have sent out has been something like 20,000_l._ or 22,000_l._
in the course of all that time. That is one part of the operations we
have performed. The other operations are the acceptance of bills drawn
by people on the coast; among them Pedro Blanco when he was there, upon
ourselves, on account of Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which
Blanco & Cavallo had in our hands: for instance, the people at the
Havannah, or in Spain, open a credit with us, and we accept the bills of
the parties on that credit with us, just the same as we should do with
any other correspondent in any other part.” “You would have funds in
your hands, arising from some commercial transactions between you and
the Havannah merchant, or the Cadiz merchant; and Pedro Blanco, upon the
coast of Africa, would draw upon the credit of those funds, being
authorised by the Cadiz or the Havannah merchant?--Yes; and if Pedro
Blanco had drawn 5_s._ beyond that, we should have protested, and in
some instances we have protested.” This shews they had nothing to do
with the owner of the property abroad. They had received consignments,
and had accounted for the sums of money, and they either accept bills or
consign goods; if bills are drawn beyond the amount due, they protest
them, and if they are asked to consign goods beyond that amount, they
refuse to do so. “With regard to the vessel alluded to in this Report,
the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that which appears
from one of the letters: that is to say”--

Now here again, Gentlemen, I must refer you to the mode in which this
prosecution has been carried on.

In this evidence before the Committee, the prisoner now at the bar
refers to one of the letters received by the house from Martinez & Co.:
I must say where the counsel for the prosecution availed themselves of
this evidence before the Committee, as evidence against the prisoner
upon the charge of felony, I think they were bound to make evidence of
every document he referred to in it, as explanatory of the evidence he
gave.

I speak this subject to the correction of their Lordships; and I know
that their Lordships will overrule and correct what I say, if I am
wrong, and therefore I say it with the more confidence, because I know
it will not be controverted; I say, that in a prosecution for a felony,
or any other crime, if the counsel for the prosecution give in evidence
a statement made by a prisoner, charged with a crime which refers to a
document, he ought--

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I understood this was the letter about the
500_l._; that and all the other letters are in the Appendix, and to be
found there: they are deposited, every one.

Mr. _Kelly_. We will try my learned friend’s accuracy by looking at what
it was. He says, “With regard to the vessel alluded to in this Report,
the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that which appears
from one of the letters: that is to say, Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, had
made choice of Jennings to buy the vessel, and lent him money to buy the
vessel; because Pedro Martinez wanted him to have a vessel in the trade,
for the purpose of taking his goods to their destination.” He says that
the object of Pedro Martinez was, that Captain Jennings should buy the
vessel, and that it should be conducted in the way he states. That may
appear in a letter--how could it appear but in a letter from Martinez &
Co. to Zulueta, containing their instructions? That letter my learned
friend should have called for--he has given notice to produce it, and he
ought to have called for it and made it a part of the examination, as if
the witness had produced and read the letter, and it had not been set
out in the evidence. He then says, “I have now described the three kinds
of operations in which we have been concerned, and our knowledge of all
of them terminated with the execution of the orders of our
correspondents. We had nothing more to do than to follow the orders of
the purchaser in shipping the goods. With regard to the purchase of the
vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a man--” Here is a solution of every
thing called concealment. “Jennings is a man who has been employed some
time by Martinez; he has served Martinez as a chartered captain, and
Martinez, having been satisfied with his services, agreed to lend him
that money on the security of the vessel, provided it did not exceed a
certain amount.” Now the next question is put by Mr. Forster, the member
for Berwick. Mr. Forster all the world knows, and I hope you know, is
very extensively concerned in the African trade; he is a man as
perfectly conversant with this subject as any man in Britain; and I
cannot help making the same observation as to him which I did as to Lord
Stanley and Lord John Russell, I cannot help thinking, if there had been
any thing dishonourable in the character of the trade and to the
character of a British merchant, instead of bringing out the true colour
of the transaction, as you will see he did, he would have done every
thing to hold it up to reprobation. He learns from the witness the
nature of the transaction as to the purchase of the vessel, that Captain
Jennings had been engaged in similar transactions; he catches at it in a
moment, and puts it in a few words--“You advanced the money to Captain
Jennings for the purchase of the vessel, Jennings transferring the
vessel to you as a security for the money so advanced?--That is just the
description of operation, which is a very general one in business.” If
the counsel for the prosecution says it is not the ordinary course of
business, why does he not call Mr. Forster, or any other gentleman in
the trade, to show that it is not correct, and that it is not a usual
transaction? He has attempted no such thing; the evidence is a blank;
you have only the evidence of this young man. I do not pretend to say
that because this gentleman has given a long statement, in which he has
vindicated his house from the statement made against them, that you are
bound to believe all he says; but I do appeal to you whether, if what he
says could be proved false by the prosecutors, they would not have done
so? They have proved nothing false. He is speaking of an ordinary
transaction of commerce before some of the first commercial men in
Britain: there was a check upon his evidence which would have restrained
him, if wicked enough to tell a lie, which would have prevented him
saying what was not true. I say that the character of the Committee is a
guarantee of the correctness of his statement, speaking of it as the
ordinary course of trade.

The Chairman then says, “What is the object of such an operation?--I
know very little, or almost next to nothing, of the operations in those
parts of the world.” Is that true or untrue? That is the very essence of
the case, as I submit to you: he has been only six or seven years in the
business; they have only in the last ten years had seven or eight
transactions, and in the last six or seven years they may have two or
three. He says, “I know very little, or almost next to nothing, of the
operations in those parts of the world.” Why, are you to suppose that
he, by intuition or by magic, was to know all that Captain Hill, Captain
Denman, and Colonel Nichol knew in twenty-five years of constant
observation? Mr. Serjeant Bompas asks you to believe he knew every thing
as well as any body living upon the spot. Then he speaks of the object
of the transaction, which I will not weary you in repeating.

Then he is asked, “What advantage would there be in Mr. Jennings taking
the articles rather as the owner than as captain under Martinez; was not
he commander of the vessel as well as owner of the vessel?--Yes.” “He is
made the owner, instead of being captain?--He is the owner as well as
the captain of the vessel; he stands indebted to Martinez, and gives a
bottomry bond for the vessel.” Then he goes on to illustrate what he
says.

Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “You acted in this transaction merely as agent
in the usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in any part
of the world?--Exactly; if Martinez had told me, ‘You have got 500_l._
in your hands, pay that to Captain Jennings,’ I should have known
nothing more of the transaction; I should have paid the money. But
Martinez did not wish to go beyond a certain amount; and he says, ‘You
exercise control, do not allow the man to pay more than 500_l._ for the
vessel.’” “But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of the
goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions were
entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?--Most assuredly; except
with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any
thing with him in any way.”

Gentlemen, that reminds me of this fact: my learned friend has sought to
give in evidence certain papers, which were found in the year 1841 on
board this vessel, and which it is now perfectly manifest were put on
board that vessel in Cadiz long after she had sailed from Liverpool; I
objected to that evidence. Gentlemen, I will not go over again what I
said at the time: I certainly did think, considering that these letters
were in print and before my Lords, that the only object of the
discussion was to have a legal opinion of my Lords whether these letters
were admissible in evidence. My learned friend could have argued the
point without referring to the contents of the letters, and so filling
your minds with the contents of those letters, which, as they were
rejected, ought not to have been submitted to you; for any one, knowing
how the human mind is constituted, must feel that in the mind of one or
two out of the twelve the effect might have been to draw your attention
to something foreign to the matter; and I objected and complained of Mr.
Serjeant Bompas for referring to the letters. My Lords held that they
were not evidence, but my learned friend seemed to be pressing upon you
their contents in opposition to the opinion of my Lord. I will remind
you that these letters were written by Martinez & Co., and put on board
this vessel at Cadiz months after the vessel had sailed from England.
Mr. Zulueta had never heard of these proceedings; and whether he is
guilty or innocent, all that is charged against him had been committed
months before these letters were in existence, and therefore to attempt
to use what Martinez had said or written, against the prisoner, was only
calculated to raise a prejudice injurious to the administration of
justice. You may easily imagine that Martinez may be, for aught I know,
a man who, besides dealing to the extent of a million a year in sugars
and other things, does deal to some extent in slaves, and it is possible
he may have written letters to his correspondents in Africa relating to
the slave trade; and consider the wickedness of using these letters
against Mr. Zulueta, who never saw the letters, and could not know any
thing of them or their contents, or have any control over them. It was
this sentence reminded me of that: he is asked, “But beyond the purchase
of the vessel and the shipment of the goods, the other arrangements and
the subsequent transactions were entirely between Jennings and Martinez
& Co.?--Most assuredly; except with the order of Martinez, I do not know
how we could have done any thing with him in any way.” It therefore
comes to this, whatever might have passed between Martinez and Captain
Jennings, Captain Jennings may be responsible for, or Martinez; but Mr.
Zulueta is wholly irresponsible: all that passed through his hands he is
ready to account for and abide by, and stand to the consequences of it;
but what took place between Captain Jennings and Martinez is wholly
beyond his knowledge; and it is unjust and unreasonable that I, as his
counsel, should for one moment permit it to be given in evidence if I
could prevent it.

Then Sir _Thomas Acland_ asks him, “Do you mean that you know that the
Augusta was not engaged in any slaving transactions during the voyage
upon which she left Liverpool?--Most assuredly not; in fact, my
testimony is hardly required of that, because every thing proves that.
When she was detained, it was never said that she was upon a slaving
operation at all. Before she left this port, after she was bought, she
was completely rendered useless for that purpose.” Here again have they
attempted to prove that the contrary was the fact, and that this answer
was false? Remember that this is not said by this young man as if then
upon his trial and defending himself against the charge of felony, and
when he would have a strong temptation, if capable of falsehood, to say
what was false to protect himself against the heavy punishment. All this
is said freely. If any one of you were to hear to-morrow morning that
another had said of you, you had been offered a bribe to give a
particular verdict, you would go before the first tribunal and deny the
statement, and request that it might be made public; that is all this
young man has said, he is denying the accusation and submitting that
what his accusers have said is untrue. If he was saying what was untrue,
they could have shown it. He says, “After she was bought she was
completely rendered useless for that purpose;” and it is proved that she
was--for the leagers, the water-vessels, it was proved to you were
rendered useless; and though my learned friend would not admit it, I
proved that they were put ashore at Liverpool, and therefore this is
every word of it true, and my learned friend has failed in proving it
false.

The Chairman then says, “The charge is, that she was engaged in carrying
goods to a person engaged in the slave trade; not that she was engaged
in the slave trade herself?” Then he says, and here is a very important
answer--“I most certainly say, that I do not know whether the person is
so engaged or not.” That is, the consignee of the vessel. The Chairman
observes, “The charge is, that this vessel was sent to somebody engaged
in the slave trade?” And what does he say?--“I do not know whether he is
or not; I do not know any thing about him.” Whether they could have
proved the contrary as to Ximenes or Rolo, or all of them, I do not
know. Then he goes on to say, “It seems to me that English captains and
English subjects are not prohibited from borrowing money from
Spaniards.” There is no doubt of that; it is quite lawful. “She was
bought with money lent by Pedro Martinez to Captain Jennings for the
purpose.”

Then Mr. _Wilson Patten_ asked him, “You have stated that yours is an
agency trade?--It is so; and in the multitude of business, any one can
understand that 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years, can only be a mere trifle
in the business of any merchant, without laying claim to a large
business; and in following that business, we have executed shipping
orders.”

This is another repetition of the observation made before, that it was a
shipping order in the transactions of their house, and that he had only
executed the orders given by a foreign correspondent. Then he is asked,
“To what part of the coast of Africa has that business been chiefly
conducted?--I believe, almost exclusively to the Gallinas.”

Then he goes on, and this is the part of the evidence upon which Mr.
Serjeant Bompas relies--this is really the only part of this body of
evidence given by this young man upon which the learned Serjeant relies
in support of the prosecution--“Do you know the nature of the trade of
Pedro Martinez at the Gallinas?--I know from general report, that Don
Pedro Martinez himself is supposed to deal in slaves, and I believe it
is so.” “Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer in slaves?--I do not
know, but I believe so. I do not know why it should not be known at the
Havannah, if it is known in other parts.” From that my learned friend
says he does know it. You must take the whole of the evidence together.
He says his house “never had any thing to do with any slave transaction,
nor does he know that any vessel that ever went from their house was
engaged in slave transactions, but he had heard that Pedro Martinez was
engaged in the slave trade;” but you have it from other parts of the
case, that he was a large dealer in other transactions quite lawful.

Now this is a statement, not of what this young man knew at the time he
participated more or less in the transaction now under your
consideration--these transactions took place in 1840--this examination
takes place in July 1842. He does not say, that at the time they sent
the Augusta they knew that Pedro Martinez was engaged in the slave
trade; he says, “I know it,” speaking in the present tense, meaning “I
now know it.”

Now, Gentlemen, I beg your attention to a question I besought my learned
friend to read, I besought in vain--I thank God I have now the means of
reading it--

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes, I did read it.

Mr. _Kelly_. “Have you reason to suppose that a large portion of the
trade that they carry on at the Havannah is the slave trade?”--His
answer is, “I had no reason to know any thing of the kind; I have known
more of their transactions with the slave trade since these things have
been mooted than I ever knew before; I have had more knowledge of these
things lately than I ever had in my life before; and when I say, ‘I,’ I
beg to state that I ought to state, ‘we,’ for all my partners are in the
same situation.”

Now, what does this come to? This gentleman tells you, that out of many
hundred thousand pounds, a few trifling orders are sent to the coast of
Africa; he is asked in 1842 if he knows of their correspondent being
engaged in the slave trade, and he says he does only from common report;
and in another part of the evidence, when his attention is more
particularly called to it, he says, “I had no reason to know any thing
of the kind; but since these transactions have been mooted I have known
more of their connexion with the slave trade.” What is the meaning of
this? I do implore you to remember that we are here upon a grave crime,
the effect of a conviction upon which would expose this young man to
utter and irremediable ruin, and bring disgrace upon his family; he is
called upon after a loose examination upon the subject to explain what
he has in a long examination loosely admitted, that a man was a slave
trader, and also that these goods were to be so used. Looking at it
fairly, what is it?--I had no reason to know it four years ago; but
since these matters have been discussed I have inquired more about it,
and have found, from the evidence of Captain Denman, that an event took
place there which made the Gallinas, and in the character of the trading
there, a matter of as much notoriety as the battle of Waterloo, or any
other great event.--It appears that this officer of Her Majesty’s navy
descended upon the coast and burnt every slave establishment upon the
spot, and the consequence is, that reclamations have been made and
actions have been brought; it was the subject of investigation before
this Committee, and is the subject of proceedings in Courts of Justice,
and the attention of every body has been called to it, and of course
that brings to the mind of this young gentleman a great deal of
knowledge of the character of the place, and those who have lived in it,
more than he ever possessed before; and I put it to you, if this was a
civil instead of a criminal case, and in which a man was to pay a sum of
money, whether the fair inference is not, that, they shipped these goods
without knowing that they were to be employed in the slave trade, that
they did not know that Martinez was engaged in it till it became the
subject of discussion; and I ask you, what is there to establish that it
was so notorious that Martinez was a slave dealer, that Mr. Zulueta must
have known that the goods were to be so employed? I ask you, why may not
Mr. Zulueta, as much as any other merchant or manufacturer in the
kingdom, who is asked to sell goods to go to the coast of Africa, why
may he not, when there is an immense extent of lawful trade to that
coast, have supposed that they were to be used in the lawful trade as in
the unlawful trade, which it would be criminal in him to promote? I say
that in a civil case, but in a criminal case, if there is a shadow of
doubt upon your minds whether he is innocent or guilty--and in this I
shall be sanctioned by my Lords the Judges--if doubt be left in your
minds, when it was the duty of the prosecutor to remove that doubt, the
prisoner must have your verdict. It is not because it is probable or
possible that the goods might have been so employed--it is not because
there is something doubtful in the transaction--you must be satisfied
that he knew they were to be so employed, and that he shipped them with
that object--and unless you are convinced of that, there is no case fora
verdict of guilty. I say the whole question rests upon the notoriety of
the place and the character of the parties, and upon that you find that
this gentleman knew nothing at the time of these transactions either of
the nature of the trade or the character of the persons there.

Then they talk about the ship, and so on. Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “Your
house had nothing to do with any letters that might be put on board the
Augusta after she sailed from this country?--Nothing whatever.” And that
is the way that was perfectly disposed of, and so the Judges have held
in rejecting the letters put on board after the vessel left the country.
He says, “The Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa, on the charge
of slave trading?--I believe that was the case.” Then he is asked, “Have
you reason to suppose that the whole of that large commerce is
subservient to the carrying on of the slave trade by the house of Blanco
and Martinez at the Havannah?--I do not know; I know that they have
large transactions in general business. I know that a short time ago I
got 40,000_l._ or 50,000_l._ of Spanish bonds in the market for
Martinez. I know that he is a large speculator in Spanish bonds and in
securities of state.” Then he names the house for whom that was done.
Then he goes on, “Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah to
ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for the
African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of the
same kind as those that were in the ‘Augusta;’ cotton goods and other
things of that sort.” Would that make it felony if you shipped goods to
the Havannah, if the persons there used them in the slave trade? Where
is it to stop? It is essential that it should be so understood by
juries, as well as mercantile men; there must be some clear and distinct
rule. Men are not, while carrying on their fair and mercantile
transactions, to be treading on the verge of transportation every moment
of their lives, which they would be if they deal in these goods which
are sent in these ships, and may be so employed or engaged.

Then he is asked, “Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah
to ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for
the African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of
the same kind as those that were in the ‘Augusta;’ cotton goods, and
other things of that sort.” “Have you sent any goods of that description
since you first began to send goods out direct to the coast of
Africa?--They have been mixed; I cannot draw a distinction between the
two destinations; some have gone to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.”
Then he is asked, “How long have you conducted the trade upon the coast
of Africa?--As I said before, I do not think we have conducted any trade
on the coast of Africa, either legal or illegal.” He persists in
maintaining, as I do on his behalf, that his transactions were closed at
Liverpool; he knows nothing more about it. Then he is asked, “How long
have you acted as agents for Martinez, on the coast of Africa?--As long
as we have had any connexions with Martinez; it is part and parcel of
other operations; that is to say, in the multitude of other operations
that have intervened we have shipped goods as I have said.” And it would
be a strange thing if these gentlemen, for the sake of putting into
their pockets an inconsiderable sum of money by this purchase--I am
afraid to calculate it, for fear I should fall into an error--were to
put themselves in jeopardy of an indictment for a felony, and
transportation for fourteen years. If they have done so, it must be from
some strange ignorance. To suppose they would do so for that which would
not pay their clerks’ salary for a day, when they have stood so far
above suspicion, is absolutely incredible and impossible.

Then he is asked, “Have you ever received consignments from them, or on
their behalf, of palm oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the coast of
Africa?”--He says, “Never; we never have received any thing from the
coast of Africa whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will
perhaps appear strange to the Committee that I should not know more of
the coast of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had shipped
to the amount of 100,000_l._ to the coast of Africa, or carried on any
considerable trade there, we should certainly have known more about the
coast of Africa; but in transactions of a very large amount, an invoice
occasionally of about 2,000_l._ or 3,000_l._ of goods was a thing that
we sent as a matter of course, and did not trouble our heads about,
especially as the remuneration we got was a mere trifle, not of itself
worth pursuing, if it had not been for the general business we had?”

Now you see, Gentlemen, this in one respect confirms what I do not
intend to dispute, the testimony of these naval gentlemen that there are
not shipments from this colony; but the question is not whether that is
the fact, or what information it conveyed to them, or what information
it conveyed to Mr. Zulueta; he says, “We never received any produce from
that country but that would not show that there were no produce. “Our
shipments were in discharge of former liabilities; we had received
sugars and sold them, and we were called upon to make shipments to the
coast of Africa, and we do so; and the nature of the transaction is such
that we could not have any return;” and therefore he says, “if our
transactions had been larger, we should have known a great deal more of
this trade than we do. We had a sum of money, the proceeds of sugar and
other articles, and we sent a small shipment to Africa debiting the
house with that shipment; that being all we knew, and our transactions
closing the moment the ship left Liverpool, how can we know any more of
it? We know no more, and that accounts for our ignorance.”

Then he is asked about another vessel in which the name of Mr. Kidd was
introduced--that is quite unimportant. He is asked, “You have no
connexion with Mr. Kidd in any way?--No, nor any knowledge of him.” He
then says something to which I should call your attention. Something had
been said by another witness, “Zulueta, the gentleman in London to whom
the vessel was sent, and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner,
is a name well known on the coast in connexion with the slave trade.”
That is what somebody had said before the Committee, which he came
before the Committee voluntarily to contradict; he says, “Now, what is
known on the coast I really cannot pretend to say; but I believe that
not many persons can say that which I can say, that neither myself, nor
my father, nor my grandfather, nor any body in our firm, has ever had
any kind of interest of any sort, or derived any emolument or connexion
from the slave trade.” Gentlemen, would to Heaven that every gentleman
in a mercantile house could say the same I But this gentleman is
challenging contradiction, he is speaking in the presence of those
conversant with the trade, and in the presence of the Secretaries of
State he is laying himself open to contradiction, and he says openly,
knowing it will be published to the world, and knowing he may be
denounced as a man guilty of gross falsehood if it is untrue, he says,
“Neither myself, nor my father, nor grandfather, ever made one shilling
by the slave trade:” and yet this young man is to be selected out of the
firm and made the victim in respect of the Augusta, and that upon this
statement, as my learned friend reminds me; that he who comes before the
Committee and challenges disproof--he says, “I challenge any one to say
that I was ever engaged in the slave trade--” that that is to be made
evidence and offered in a British Court before a British Jury. Now see
what follows, and I believe it is not a vain boast, it is not a mere
statement--he says, “My father had at one time an interest in a
bankrupt’s estate at the Havannah, upon which he was a creditor. There
were some slaves on the estate, and they formed part of the property
assignable to the creditors, and my father got the slaves assigned to
him; because the other gentlemen and the creditors were not of the same
opinion.” That is, because the other people did not think there was any
thing wrong in the slave trade. “He got them assigned to him, and made
them free; and that is all the connexion we have ever had with any
slaves in the world. I do not know how far that may be considered
irrelevant to the point, but I state it because we are here mentioned
three or four times as connected with slave dealers, as a name well
known in connexion with the slave trade. That sort of statement--” Well
indeed may he say so, and I say on his behalf, “that sort of statement
is rather a difficult thing to deal with.” It is indeed, Gentlemen. When
I hear my learned friend say, that because he sent out a vessel with an
English captain, and because at Portsmouth there are some shackles, and
because Captain Hill and Captain Denman knew this was a slave trading
colony, therefore you are to convict him; I say, “it is a very difficult
thing to deal with.” That is what he said before the Committee; this has
been published fifteen months, and before the public; the prosecutor has
had it fifteen months--has he contradicted any one letter in it? He
says, “My father, and my grandfather, and my house, never had any
connexion with the slave trade; except that he took some slaves, because
he wished to make them free, under a bankrupt’s estate, and he made them
free, that is the only connexion we ever had with the slave trade in the
world.” That is his evidence, and I beg you to contrast it with the
other evidence of my learned friend and the doubtful inferences he has
suggested.

Then he is asked, “If it is meant to insinuate by these observations
that you ever had any other connexion with the slave trade, than being
the shipping agent of goods which were sent to a man who was a dealer in
slaves, you entirely deny it?” He says, “I assure the Committee, that
although I have a general notion as to what interest Blanco and Martinez
have in slaves, yet, if I was put upon my oath to make any particular
statement, I really could not, because I do not know it. Of course I
believe it; but my personal knowledge amounts only to that which the
knowledge of what we read in a newspaper amounts to.” It is quite
evident what he means--I know nothing of their being slave traders:
since these matters have been under consideration I have read the
newspapers, and I see enough to lead me to suppose that they deal in
slaves. But he does not say he had that knowledge in 1840, when these
transactions took place. Then he is asked, “There was nothing upon the
face of the transactions which you had with those parties which spoke of
a connexion with traffic in slaves?--Nothing whatever. It is well known,
that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of business in
Cadiz”--There is another point inviting attention and contradiction.--He
says, “It is well known, that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary
course of business in Cadiz to insure operations in slave trading.” So
it was at that time: slave trading, in all its branches, and of the
worst character, was perfectly legal both in Spain, and I grieve to say,
also in England, or English colonies. And he goes on to say, “My house
at that time were underwriters, and it was notorious that a policy of
that kind would never enter the doors of our house; and nobody would
come to offer such a thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both
here and in Spain, that we set our faces distinctly against having any
interest of any kind in the slave trade.”

Now, Gentlemen, is it not grievous, is it not cruel, that this young
man, almost just entering life, belonging to a family, belonging to a
house, which can say this with truth, that while the slave trade was
deemed lawful by the British law and universally practised throughout
Spain and the Spanish colonies, and recognized in all its forms, “My
house would not execute a policy for slaves?” Is it not cruel, that the
youngest partner at the very outset of life is to have his character
blasted and held up as a felon, because it is said he had done something
to assist that trade?

Then he is asked, “It is further stated, ‘It appears, that it is a
regular thing sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they
come to England to him, he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again
to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ Have you any observation
to make upon that?--It is all untrue, the whole of it; I have never
received a vessel from those gentlemen; there has been nothing of the
kind.” He denies it; it might have been proved, and it has not been
proved. “Have you any thing further to state upon the subject?”--Then he
states a number of other matters, which as nothing has been said upon
them I do not comment upon. Then he says, at the end of the last answer,
“‘My answer was intended to describe only the course of that particular
transaction and not to apply to any other case.’ I never received a
single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor any body for
us.”

Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “Then that statement is entirely
untrue?--Totally, from beginning to end; we never did so, and nobody for
us; and nobody to our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in
the most distinct manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay is
asked, ‘Have you any thing further to say with regard to the connexion
of Zulueta with the slave trade?’ The answer is, ‘I would refer to his
connexion with the Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case
it appeared that the vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from
London.’--That is the same vessel as the Augusta, which I have already
explained; it formerly bore the name of Gollupchik.”

Then he is asked about some other matters, but as they have not been
made the subject of evidence here I will not comment upon them. He
speaks upon the moral point, and he enters into a very lengthened
statement in which he says, “I am not here to discuss the moral
propriety or impropriety of the slave trade; I have my own opinions upon
it, and if I thought it was a justifiable trade I should not shrink from
expressing it.” That is the result of a long statement: and, in answer
to a very comprehensive question of Sir Thomas Acland, “You have stated
in your letter, that your principle is, that of ‘not wishing to derive
profit or advantage from the sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable
or unavoidable,’ and you have acted upon that principle?”--He says,
“That is the principle upon which we have acted.” Then there is a great
deal about the nature of various other transactions.

Then we come to something that appears upon another point--a point made
a distinct matter, and which I very much rejoice is the last one to
which I shall have to refer, and that not requiring any large
consumption of your time. Among other reasons urged upon you as tending
to the conclusion that this ship, was dispatched for the purposes of the
slave trade was this by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, that the vessel in the
course of the voyage unnecessarily put into Cadiz, as if there was some
previous concert or arrangement that the vessel though dispatched
nominally for the Gallinas should go to Cadiz, and that there some one
or other should afford them facilities for carrying on the slave trade.
Upon that I have some observations to make. First, one does not see how
that was to be better promoted by touching at Cadiz than if she had
proceeded direct to the Gallinas, and for this reason, if it had been
found when she arrived on the coast of Africa that she had taken on
board any materials to facilitate the carrying on the slave trade, that
would be something to draw an inference from; but no such thing appears.
Why she should have touched there to facilitate the carrying on the
slave trade I do not understand, and still less do I understand why it
is to be imputed to Mr. Zulueta that a vessel to all outward appearance
cleared for the Gallinas, that it was intended she should touch at
Cadiz; and I pray you to answer the question to yourselves, you cannot
answer it to me, if it was intended for the purpose of good or evil she
should touch there, why conceal it? Why not give out “with liberty to
touch at Cadiz,” if any suspicion attached to the transaction?

_Foreman of the Jury._ Did we not understand that the English sailors
were landed at Cadiz, and took in Spanish sailors there?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, some English sailors were discharged; but there is
nothing about the Spanish sailors being taken in: there is nothing about
that--some English sailors, two or three of them, did go on shore, but
it was not in any way connected with Mr. Zulueta, or to which he could
be a party. You understand, when they had sailed from England some of
the sailors rebelled and mutinied; the captain, like a clear-sighted
man, said, if I go to Cork these men will all leave me; I will not do
that, but as it is necessary to go somewhere, I will go to Cadiz. It was
not the result of any previous concert. They say it was intended before
he left that he should stop there. If it had been intended I do not see
why it should not have been stated in the charter-party, it would not
have had a more suspicious appearance that the vessel should touch there
than go to the Gallinas direct, the suspicion of the slave trade was the
mention of the Gallinas. Captain Denman, who knew the place, might draw
his suspicious inference from the mention of the Gallinas, but nobody
would suspect it from Cadiz. It was from some mutiny of the men, added
to the stress of weather, the master would not go to Cork, he went to
Cadiz: it was an event arising from something in the course of the
voyage, and not from any thing that occurred before the vessel left
England, and it was when the vessel left England that the participation
of Mr. Zulueta in the whole transaction ceased; but if it were of any
importance for the purpose of the prosecution, you should have had it
distinctly explained to you what took place on board the vessel, what
the nature of the bad weather was which should have made it desirable to
go to Falmouth or to Cork: why do they not produce the log? they have
the ship’s papers.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My learned friend says he has not it.

Mr. _Kelly_. How did they get the papers from the Admiralty? The log is
on board the vessel; some of the crew were on board; none of them were
produced but the cabin-boy, who knew nothing; it was more convenient to
bring a boy who knew nothing, than men who should enlighten you upon the
object. But whether it was for a good or bad purpose that Captain
Jennings went to Cadiz, what had Mr. Zulueta to do with it? To make it
of any importance, the prosecutor should have proved that Mr. Zulueta
had contrived, for some purpose or other, that he should touch at Cadiz.
Nothing of the kind is proved upon the subject; all that is said upon
the subject is what Mr. Zulueta says. Now what is it that he says? The
Chairman says, “It would appear from Question 5087, that your name is
supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper, as connected
with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page 38, in Class B.
Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred to in the answer,
and see if there is any trace of your name in that transaction?--I do
not find my own name there; I only find an allusion at the bottom to the
name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in no way connected with me, and
stating a circumstance which I never knew. In Question 7965*, it is
stated, ‘The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her way out from England?’
The answer is, ‘Yes, and landed part of her cargo at Cadiz, although it
was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.’ Now Captain Hill, who has
given this answer, must have known why she touched at Cadiz, and why she
discharged part of her cargo, for it must be in the log-book of the
vessel. It was because she was nearly wrecked in her passage; she put
into Cadiz in distress, and there she landed a part of her cargo, which
was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the benefit of the
underwriters. Now that has not been stated here, but I think Captain
Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of the vessel
which he took.”

Now Captain Hill has said the same thing here to-day--the purpose of
going to Cadiz was by some previous contrivance, for some purpose of Mr.
Zulueta. The log would have shown the state of the weather registered
from day to day during the passage of the vessel, and the rebellious
part of the crew would have no desire to give Mr. Zulueta much benefit
by their evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. It is not fair for Mr. Kelly to state that: the
log would not be evidence against Mr. Zulueta. After you had decided
against four documents, I would not offer a fifth.

Mr. _Kelly_. I have to thank my learned friend for this very singular
instance of his forbearance; if the log, as it regards this transaction,
was not evidence against me, and I do not say it would be, I cannot
understand how letters written by other persons found in the vessel
could be evidence against me;--but let us waste no more time upon that
subject; if the log would not be evidence, he might have called some or
the crew; he has only called the cabin-boy; there is no evidence to show
the state of the weather; and you are called upon in a case like this to
suppose that there was some previous contrivance by which the Captain
was to touch at Cadiz.

Then he says, in answer to another question, and the question is
directly put to him by Sir Thomas Acland, “It was not intended when she
left England, that she should put into Cadiz?--Most certainly not; all
the facts of the case show that she went there because she was obliged.
I have not seen the log-book, but it must be there; because in the
log-book the captain is bound to enter those things, and whoever
captured the vessel must have seen the log-book of course. In answer to
Question 7967*, it is said, ‘Messrs. Zulueta must be aware that it is
contrary to law to act as agents or otherwise for the shipment of goods
that are to be employed in the slave trade; they were bound to do
nothing illegal; they are merchants residing in England, and they must
conform themselves to the laws of England, and they cannot by the laws
of England plead ignorance of those laws.’ Now I and my partners are
British subjects, and therefore we are bound by the law, and we must
obey the law; and I say that to endeavour to elude the law is criminal
in my estimation of things. In the answer to Question 7970*, it is
stated, ‘I have endeavoured to be particular in making it appear that
this vessel was chartered to a place where there were no constituted
authorities.’ I think that in the Gallinas there are constituted
authorities. It is the first time that I ever heard that it is illegal
for any merchant to ship goods for any places without ascertaining
beforehand whether there are constituted authorities there.” Then, at
the end of his examination, he is asked, “You have given the Committee
the names of the parties drawing the bills, and on whose account they
were drawn, and you speak of their being drawn in favour of Sierra Leone
houses; have you any objection to furnish the names of the houses in
whose favour they were drawn?--I say that I have no objection, except
that I should not like to introduce names unnecessarily; but the bills
are in my hands, and any gentleman can look at them who chooses; they
are at the disposal of any body who likes to look at them.” He says, in
another part of the evidence which refers to the documents, “I do not
like in this transaction to mention names; any gentleman may see at my
counting-house documents to verify what I state.” Gentlemen, I am
reminded that it will appear that he put in the bills themselves in
order to verify the statement; they were produced before the Committee,
it is written down in express terms--“The witness produced the bills;”
so that you see, when he makes a statement of what were his
transactions, he verifies it by the documents, and produces them to the
Committee.

Then, the next day, he states a fact which is perfectly conclusive as to
this matter at Cadiz. He is asked, “The Committee understand that you
have some further observations to make upon the evidence which has been
given with reference to your house?--With reference to the destination
of the Augusta, from Liverpool to Gallinas, and the fact of its having
put into Cadiz unforeseen and unpremeditated altogether, in consequence
of stress of weather, I omitted to mention a circumstance which will put
the thing beyond doubt, and it is this: an insurance was made at
Lloyd’s, from Liverpool to the Gallinas, and it is well known that, of
course, we should have forfeited the insurance by going to any other
port except from the peril of the sea, and the British consul at Cadiz
is well aware of the circumstance, because he is Lloyd’s agent there;
and therefore he had to interfere in the whole proceeding; without his
sanction nothing could have been done. We have called upon the
underwriters upon that account, and it has been paid, and which would
not have been paid without its being proved. I stated yesterday that the
transactions of my house with Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, with
Blanco and Carvalho of the Havannah, and with Pedro Martinez of Cadiz,
had amounted in the twenty years to 100,000_l_., I was afraid of
overrating the amount; but on reference to the books of the house, I
find that our transactions with them in twenty years have amounted to
400,000_l_., out of which the 22,000_l_. that was mentioned is the whole
amount of goods that have been shipped by their orders for the coast of
Africa.”

Now observe what he here states: he says, I am charged with having
known, before this vessel quitted England, that she was to go to Cadiz,
and that it was for some unlawful and improper purpose. He says--Not
only do I deny that I knew it (I say not only is there no proof that he
knew it, but he gives this convincing evidence), he says, before the
vessel sailed I effected an insurance upon the ship and goods, and by
that policy of insurance there was no provision for going to Cadiz. I
need not observe that by the law, if a vessel deviates from the course
stipulated in the policy, unless it is matter of compulsion and stress
of weather, the policy is forfeited--here it is clear that there was a
policy effected, under which the vessel was in no condition to touch at
Cadiz--the policy would be forfeited; and yet it is supposed that this
old established house, having effected this policy, into which they
might have introduced the going to Cadiz, contrived that this deviation
should take place, under which, if a loss had happened, they could not
have recovered a shilling. It is perfectly clear, whether by accident or
design, with which we have nothing to do--I think it was by accident--it
is perfectly clear, that Zulueta & Co. knew nothing of it; and if a loss
had happened, they could not have enforced it.

Now there are one or two more lines, and one or two only, with which I
have to trouble you in this evidence. The witness is asked as to the
former transactions of his house upon the coast of Africa: he is asked,
“Have you bought other vessels for him (Martinez) than those which have
been employed in the slave trade?--Yes, decidedly so; there was the
_Star_, Captain Jennings.” You remember, I think, Captain Denman said
there was no lawful trade carried on at the Gallinas--the question is,
how far Mr. Zulueta knew that, and I asked him if he had heard of the
Star; he said “No.” See what Mr. Zulueta says, “There was the Star,
Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent from here to the Gallinas,
precisely the same as the Augusta has been sent. She delivered her
cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I believe, and from there to
Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she came back to Spain, and she
was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not Martinez, or any body
connected with him; in fact, she was sold for very little. The object of
that vessel was just the same as the Augusta, to maintain a legal trade
with Gallinas; that is within my own knowledge.”

Now I do think--I should rather say I venture to submit to you--that it
appears to me, that this answer which might clearly have been
contradicted, because there are specific facts stated which could have
been contradicted if untrue--this answer, if true, is perfectly decisive
of this case. What is it? Gentlemen, this is the nature of the
transaction: he says--My house has had other transactions of the same
description with the coast of Africa; we sent out the Star to this very
place, the Gallinas. And the question is, whether Messrs. Zulueta & Co.
had any reason to know that this was an illegal trade. If the goods had
to their knowledge been bartered for slaves, if the Star had brought an
illegal cargo, and if she had been seized and condemned for slave
trading, then they might begin to suspect--Here is one vessel we have
sent to the Gallinas for Martinez & Co. seized, we must consider before
we send any more. But here was a case in which they had sent in a ship,
commanded by Captain Jennings, a cargo of the same description--the
transaction had been legally completed without any thing partaking of an
illegal character--the ship had taken a cargo of wine and gone to some
other part of the world, and then returned to England and been sold at
Liverpool. Then I pray of you--and nothing can be safer than to ask
you--to put yourselves for a moment in the situation of the party
charged with this offence. Suppose that you had been charged with
putting on board a ship a quantity of merchandise for the Gallinas--the
question is, if you would have any reason to suspect there was any thing
illegal in it? If you had the year before, when these British cruizers
were in the seas, sent a cargo of the same goods for the same house to
the same place, and the transaction had been legally completed, and if
you had heard that the ship had carried a cargo of goods to Madeira,
would not you say, I have done one transaction of this kind, I know
nothing illegal in it, and I may enter into another of the same
description? And that it was so here, you have the evidence that the
Star had been there, a case in all forms of this transaction, and never
impugned in the slightest degree. The present transaction of the Augusta
is of the same character, and yet you are asked to believe that Zulueta
& Co. knew that this last transaction was altogether unlawful and to
encourage the slave trade, when they had completed a former transaction
without any suspicion of any thing illegal in it.

Then he is asked some questions about the nature of the trade, and he
says, “I could not say what trade there is at the Gallinas of a legal
nature, but I know that those vessels would have taken nothing if there
was nothing legal to take, from that place to the Havannah, or to any
other place; I am aware that my answers upon this point must be
deficient, because I am really very ignorant of the trade of the West
Coast of Africa.” You are called upon to believe that this is all false,
that he knew all about it; and he says--“At this period I am ignorant of
it:” and it is not because a man is ignorant that he is to be impeached.
He is asked, “Do you suppose that the vessels would be used to carry on
a legal trade?--Most certainly I do; because persons find it worth while
to send goods there constantly. The Committee will observe, that what
the application of the goods is afterwards I cannot say, but I speak of
the fact of the vessels having gone there with the intention of
returning to the Havannah to bring a cargo of some description here, to
pay a freight, and then to go again with the same kind of goods to
Africa.” Then he is asked about Liverpool; and the Chairman says, “You
have stated before, that you have cleared out for the Gallinas from
Liverpool?--Yes.” “In carrying on operations of that kind, should
you have ever thought it necessary to exercise any disguise as to
what part of Africa you were clearing out for?--Not at all.” Nor did
he. “You did not imagine, that in being the instrument of sending lawful
goods to any part of Africa you were doing any thing which required
concealment?--Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof of that is, that
in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body could see our names as
consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our names of every
thing.”

Now here again is a matter in which the prosecutors might, if they had
thought proper, have contradicted this gentleman, and overset the
foundation of his case. He says--“True it is that the goods may have
been shipped in the name of Captain Jennings, but the whole of the
transactions were conducted by our house, and the name of our house
appeared in all the documents in Liverpool.” It is impossible there
should have been any concealment: they might have produced the
documents, or official copies of them, from Liverpool, and have shown
that the shipment was not in the name of Zulueta & Co., and have
contradicted him; they have produced no one document, and you are bound
to suppose that it is true; and if it was so done--and there is no doubt
of it, though Captain Jennings’s name may have been mentioned as the
shipper, what becomes of the charge of secrecy, or any thing
clandestine? It fades away before you, and vanishes before the truth, as
it now appears.

Then he is asked, “Is not there a document officially published daily in
London and at Liverpool, stating the daily entries at the Custom-house
of all goods shipped, with the description of the goods, and the name of
the port and of the shipper?--Yes, there is.” “Is not this printed from
time to time in the public papers?”--There were on the Committee people
connected with Liverpool, and knew every thing about the trade, or they
could not have put these questions.--“It is in general circulation;
there is hardly any merchant in Liverpool or in London who is not
possessed of one. The Liverpool entries are reprinted in London,
Liverpool being such an important place of business. The bill printed in
London contains also Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol.” Then he is asked,
“So that every such transaction is perfectly notorious to every
one?--Notorious to every one who chooses to read the public papers.
There is another thing which escaped me, till I came into the room this
morning. As I have been in the business from my childhood, I know every
thing that is going on in it.” Then he speaks of the Arrogante, but as
that has not been made the subject of evidence, I do not trouble you
with it. Then he was asked, “whether the Augusta was equipped for the
slave trade the second time; the answer was ‘She was not.’ I wish to
state, that before any goods were put on board of her”--he states, that
an order was given, which we have evidence was obeyed--“it was our
express wish and order that every thing in her that was fit for that
trade should be taken down and the vessel put in the same condition as
any other merchant vessel; and we should not have loaded any thing in
her if that had not been done. It is stated in the evidence that the
Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave dealers; now we had never
in our lives heard of the name of any one of the parties to whom she was
consigned.”

Now, Gentlemen, what becomes then of the evidence you had from either of
the honourable officers called before you to prove that they, who almost
lived upon the coast of Africa, knew that these parties were notorious
slave dealers? and yet you are called upon to infer that Mr. Zulueta,
who had never been there in his life, knew it himself, notwithstanding
this account which he gave when not charged with felony. If he gave it
now you might suspect it, but it was a voluntary statement; he need not
have gone voluntarily to tell a series of falsehoods, he might have left
it uncontradicted; but he is asked with reference to the persons to whom
these vessels were consigned, Alvarez, Rolo, and Nimenes, and he says,
“neither he, nor any of his house, ever heard of the names before.” If
it were otherwise it could be proved, and it is not proved. His evidence
is used against him, and it is surely but fair to use it as far as it
goes for him. You have this young man freely coming forward and stating
that, as to these parties to whom the goods were consigned, “I knew very
little about it, and as to these people I never heard of any one of
them.” Then, what becomes of the effect of the evidence of Captain
Denman and others, which no doubt they have given truly, as to the
nature of the slave trade? This gentleman never having been there and
knowing nothing about it, how can you fix this dreadful charge of guilt
upon him upon evidence which leaves him entirely untouched upon this
important part of the case, and untouched by this part of the evidence
given by himself?

There is a good deal more said in the course of the evidence which I do
not feel it right to read. I know you must be wearied as I am myself by
the exertions it has been my duty to make, and therefore I do not go
over the rest of the evidence. The effect of the whole is, that as to
these goods having been shipped, and this vessel consigned to the coast
of Africa under the circumstances you have heard mentioned, the part
that was taken in it by Mr. Zulueta, the prisoner, was but a small part,
but as far as it went it was perfectly legal. The question remaining is,
whether he participated in the transaction with the object, that is in
order to accomplish the object, of the slave trade. That is the question
to be submitted to you. The whole evidence shortly stated is, that
Captain Denman and others familiar with the spot knew that the slave
trade was carried on there to a very great extent, but the evidence does
not show that this unfortunate gentleman, the prisoner, knew any thing
of the place or the persons by whom it was carried on, that is a matter
of speculation, and the only mode in which the case could be completed
so as to induce you to find a verdict of guilty is, by bringing before
you the evidence he himself gave upon the subject.

Gentlemen, take that evidence as it is; I am sure you will consider it
fairly--consider it altogether; consider that if it had been false in
its material parts, it could have been contradicted, and if it be true,
as you have every reason to believe it is, what does it prove? It proves
that these gentlemen, in trading with Spain and Portugal, and Africa and
the Brazils, must trade with persons more or less engaged in the slave
trade, and it proves his own solemn declaration, that in this
transaction, as in every other in which the house was ever engaged,
neither he, nor as far as he knows, his father or grandfather, ever had
any participation, direct or indirect, to the most minute particular in
this nefarious trade. He does not confine himself to a mere denial; he
states facts, and points to other facts as far as concerns his father
and the early history of the house; he details the taking of slaves
under a bankrupt estate, and liberating them at a time when there were
not the same opinions upon the subject which happily exist; he points to
those facts as in confirmation of his solemn declaration, that as far as
his own knowledge goes, that neither himself, nor to his belief his
father, nor his family, nor any member of the house were directly or
indirectly concerned in the trade, but endeavoured earnestly, and
heartily endeavoured, to discountenance it.

Gentlemen, such is the case before you, and I have only to say in
conclusion, not only do these facts appear in evidence before you, but I
shall call before you a body of witnesses to the character of this
gentleman; I shall call before you some of the most honourable and
eminent men in the City of London in all branches of commerce, who have
known this gentleman in trade, and in every way; and they will all tell
you, Gentlemen, that to their experience and knowledge, according to the
language in which they may express themselves, what was told you by one
witness in the box before you, that this young man was a good son, a
good brother, a good father, and a good and honourable member of
society, incapable of wilfully evading or violating the law. Such is the
character he has hitherto sustained, such is the character I shall
sustain before you, and when I have called those witnesses to establish
that character, rare indeed for a man so young, I shall then with
confidence, under the Judge’s directions, leave this case in your hands,
knowing well that when all that is dear in life, and all that which is
more dear than life, his honour, is resting upon your verdict; _it will
not be upon vague suspicions, not upon doubts, but upon what does not
exist here, clear and direct and positive proof of guilt, that you will
convict him of that offence, of which he is incapable from his heart’s
core_.

I shall sit down confidently awaiting your verdict of Not Guilty, which
will restore this young man to that high and honourable station, and to
that happiness which he has hitherto worthily enjoyed.


EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER.


Mr. _James Cook_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Do you reside in London?--Yes.

Are you a colonial-broker?--I am a colonial-broker under the firm of
Truman and Cooke.

How long have you known the prisoner at the bar?--From ten to fifteen
years.

What character has he borne during the time you have known him?--A very
high character: I consider Mr. Zulueta to be one of the most honourable
men in the City of London. It falls to my lot to be acquainted with a
very large circle of the mercantile community. I am in close connexion
with most of the large houses--Messrs. Baring, Messrs. Rothschilds, and
houses of that stamp--and if I were put in a position to make any
exception as to honour and integrity among the houses I have named,
including Mr. Zulueta, the young man at the bar, I should put my finger
upon him as the exception, as the most honourable and most
straightforward man I ever knew.

Is that the mode in which you have heard him spoken of among mercantile
men?--I believe I may say, without exception, it is generally understood
to be so.

  [_Adjourned._


  THIRD DAY.
  MONDAY, 30TH OCTOBER, 1843.

  The names of the Jury were called over.--All present.

  The Defendant took his place within the Bar.


Alderman Sir _John Pirie_, Bart., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

I believe you are extensively connected with trade and shipping in the
City of London?--Yes.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--Perfectly.

And the defendant, who we understand is one of the firm?--I believe so.

How long have you been acquainted with him?--I should think about twelve
years.

What character during that time has he borne among those who have known
him for veracity and honour as a British merchant?--I have always
considered him as one of the most respectable merchants in the City of
London; a gentleman very unlikely to give encouragement to this
nefarious trade.


_Anselmo de Arroyave_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

I believe you live in Tavistock Square?--Yes.

Are you a merchant of this City?--Yes.

Extensively engaged in business?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands behind you, Mr. Pedro de
Zulueta?--Yes.

How long have you been acquainted with his firm?--With his firm I have
been acquainted about thirty-two years--the firm in Spain.

How long have you known the gentleman who stands at the bar?--I should
think about twelve years.

What character has the house, and himself a member of it, borne for the
honourable nature of their transactions, their integrity, and their
compliance with the laws of this country?--I always heard that they were
men of the most correct principle in all dealings; his father and
grandfather always bore the best character.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I understand the gentleman to give him a very high
character; I cannot hear the expressions.

Mr. _Clarkson_. Is there a house, in your judgment, in the City of
London, which bears a higher character for principle and honour than the
house of Zulueta?--It stands second to none.


_Thomas Hallifax_, Esq. sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a banker of the firm of Glyn, Mills, & Co.?--I am.

How long have you known the gentleman who stands before you?--The firm
have been known to our house, I believe, eighteen or nineteen years; I
cannot say the precise time I became acquainted with Mr. Zulueta, but I
should say from ten to fifteen years.

Have you had an opportunity of knowing during that time the reputation
he bore in the City of London for the honour and integrity of his
dealings and conduct?--I believe him to bear the highest possible
character; I believe him to be a man of the highest honour, and the most
amiable disposition. I have known him as connected with his eminent firm
in the City, and also in private, and I have great pleasure in giving to
the best of my knowledge the high character he has borne from his
amiability and irreproachable conduct.


_Samson Ricardo_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a merchant of the City of London?--I am a member of the Stock
Exchange.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--Very well.

You know the house and the whole of the members?--Yes, perfectly.

Have you had transactions with them?--Yes.

What has been the character and reputation of the gentleman in the dock
for honour and integrity in his personal conduct and his mercantile
dealings?--The highest possible, and most straightforward: he is quite
incapable of engaging in any transactions of a questionable nature.


The Honourable Baron _Lionel de Rothschild_, sworn. Examined by Mr.
_Clarkson_.

Are you acquainted with the gentleman who stands in the dock?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--I have known him the best part of twenty
years.

What character has he borne for honour and humanity as a man of
business?--Most highly honourable as respects personal character, and as
respects his firm the best and most straightforward.

Is he a man of humane disposition?--I should think perfectly so,
incapable of being connected in any way with the offence charged.


_Manuel Gregorio de Isasi_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a merchant of this City?--Yes.

Where do you carry on your business?--In Water Lane.

Are you concerned in shipping at all?--No.

What is the business in which you are engaged?--A wine-merchant.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--From his childhood.

Did you go to school with him?--Yes.

You knew him before he came to this country?--Yes, quite well, at Cadiz.

You are yourself from Cadiz?--Yes.

Have you had an opportunity of forming an opinion of the character he
bears and deserves for integrity and honour, and his feelings of
humanity in his personal character?--The highest, and his family at
Cadiz. I should say that in every relation of life it is so.


_José Maria Barrero_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are at the head of the consulate of this country from Spain?--I am.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--Yes.

Have you known him long and well?--About twenty years.

That is very much the greater part of his life I suppose?--Yes.

What has been his conduct and character in the City of London?--The
highest possible.

Are you acquainted with him in his relations in private life, as well as
his conduct as a merchant?--Yes.

Have you had an opportunity of knowing whether his character and conduct
in private life have been altogether unexceptionable?--Yes.


_Charles Tottie_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a merchant in this country?--Yes.

Are you also at the head of the consulate of Spain?--I am consul for
Sweden and Norway.

Do you know Mr. Zulueta and his firm?--Yes.

What have you to say to his Lordship and the Jury respecting his
character for integrity and humanity?--I have known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta
for upwards of fourteen or sixteen years, and I always considered him of
the highest character, and a truly Christian man. His cousins and my
sons went to school together.

What has been his character for humanity and veracity?--Oh, very high.


Dr. _Neil Arnott_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Your name is Neil Arnot?--Yes.

You are a physician?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands by your side?--I have known him
from his youth as physician to the family.

Have you had an opportunity of forming a judgment with relation to the
character he has borne for honour and integrity as an individual and as
a merchant?--From the many opportunities I have had of conversing with
him, and knowing him in the character of a physician to his family, I
have had an opportunity; also, as physician to most of the Spanish
ambassadors; and I have known him as a countryman of theirs.

What character has he borne?--His father spared nothing on his
education; it was the best this country could afford.

Is he a man of veracity and humanity?--In all the relations of life,
kindred, friendship, and acquaintance, I consider him as standing very
high.

Has he always borne the character of a humane, upright, Christian
man?--As much as possible.


_Charles Dodd_, Esq., sworn.

I believe you are a solicitor?--I am.

Where do you live?--In Billiter Street, my house of business.

Are you acquainted with Pedro de Zulueta the prisoner?--I am.

I believe you have known him from his youth?--I have known him for
twelve or fourteen years most intimately. I have the highest possible
opinion of his honour and his integrity, and his moral and religious
character. I have considered it a great blessing that my sons formed a
strict intimacy with him, believing him as incapable of committing an
offence against the law as it is possible for a man to be.


_Christobal de Murrieta_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you of the firm of Aguirre Solarte and Murrieta, merchants of
London?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands in the dock?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--About eighteen years.

What is the reputation which he has borne for honour, veracity,
uprightness of conduct, and humanity, during the whole of the time you
have known him?--The highest in both ways.

You mean the highest in all ways?--Yes.


Mr. _Charles Dodd_, Jun., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are the son of the gentleman who has been just examined?--I am.

Have you formerly been at school with the prisoner at the bar?--No, I
have not been at school with him; I have known him since the year 1831.

What opinion have you formed as to his character for honour, veracity,
and integrity of conduct?--I do not believe a more honourable man
exists. I have felt the greatest pleasure in his acquaintance since when
I first left school; and when I was forming those acquaintances which
would conduct me through life, there is no man whose society I regretted
losing more than Pedro de Zulueta’s when he left Camberwell.


_Hugh Sandeman_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a stock-broker in this City?--Yes.

Do you know Mr. Zulueta?--Yes, perfectly well, for sixteen years.

What opinion have you formed of him during that time?--Of the very
highest description, and in all my intercourse with houses in the Royal
Exchange, I have never found but the same opinion was expressed by all
of him as a private individual, and as a member.

Has his moral and religious character been perfectly
unexceptionable--Perfectly so.


_William Gibbs_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you of the firm of Anthony Gibbs & Son of this City?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--Perfectly well.

And every one of its members?--Perfectly well.

Have you had an opportunity of ascertaining the reputation which Mr.
Pedro Zulueta has enjoyed in the City; whether it is an unexceptionable
character, morally as well as religiously speaking?--I consider him as
entitled to the highest honourable character. I have always heard him so
described.

Have his transactions been to your knowledge of that
character?--Perfectly; all marked with integrity and honourable conduct.


_Timothy Bevington_, Esq., solemnly affirmed. Examined by Mr.
_Clarkson_.

Are you a member of the Society of Friends?--I am.

The Society has expended much money and labour to put down the traffic
to which reference has been made in the course of this trial?--Yes.

Do you know Mr. Pedro Zulueta?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--The last ten years.

What character has he borne during that time?--Excellent.

Do you know the house of which he is a member?--Very well; they have
been my next door neighbours for many years.

Regard being had to the nature of the charge against him, what can you
say as to his general character for uprightness and honour?--I have been
perfectly satisfied in all the transactions I have had with him.

Have you always heard him spoken of as a man of humane and honourable
conduct and feelings?--Perfectly so.


_William Tindal_, Esq., solemnly affirmed. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are a member of the Society of Friends?--I am of that persuasion.

Are you a ship-owner of the City of London?--I am.

Do you know Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I know him well.

How long have you known him?--I have known the elder Mr. Zulueta for
fifty years; the younger one ever since he came over.

During that time have you had opportunities of ascertaining the general
character and reputation he has borne in all the relations of
life?--Yes.

What can you say to his Lordship and the Jury in those respects?--He has
been a very exemplary character, both as a merchant and in moral
character in every way.

Do you know a house in the City of London which stands higher than that
house?--There is not one; and also they have the same reputation in
Cadiz.

For humanity and integrity?--Yes, for humanity and integrity, and in
every way as merchants.


_Samuel Jones Loyd_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are a banker in the City of London?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co., of which this gentleman is a
partner?--I have no personal knowledge of the gentleman, but I know the
house by character.

What character did the house bear in the City of London for general
honour?--They have a very high reputation in every respect as mercantile
men.


_Frederick Huth_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you a merchant in the City of London?--I am.

I believe you are one of the Directors of the Bank of England?--My son
is.

How long have you known the house of Zulueta & Co.?--For the period of
forty years. I have known them forty years.

Are you acquainted with the member of the firm who is unfortunately
where he is now?--Perfectly so.

How long have you known him?--For twelve years.

As to individual character, how can you speak of him during the time you
have known him with regard to integrity and humanity?--I cannot better
describe him than that I know of no man in the City of London or any
where else, a merchant, of whom I should give a higher character.

Have you ever heard a suggestion against his character as an individual,
or against his regularity as a merchant?--Nothing whatever.


_Abraham Mocatta_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you one of the firm of Mocatta and Goldsmid?--I am.

You are bullion dealers in the City of London I believe?--Bullion
merchants.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known him about
sixteen years.

Have you also known the firm of which he is a member?--Yes, I have known
them for that time or longer.

Have you any knowledge of their transactions in the City, the reputation
they bear?--I have always understood them to bear the highest character
that I have known as gentlemen of character. I have known the gentleman
as a neighbour of mine for several years. He was in the habit of
visiting our family, and we have the highest opinion of him; he was
considered particularly humane and considerate of the wants of others.


_Edwin Gower_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you of the firm of Gower & Co.?--I am.

Merchants in this City?--Yes.

How long have you known Mr. Zulueta.--I have known him ever since he has
been connected with the City of London, he and his senior.

And his family I suppose before him?--Yes.

What reputation has he enjoyed during the time you have known him, and
his family, and the house as a mercantile firm?--I should say, as our
connexions and theirs are very similar, we have almost daily more or
less intercourse with him, and I never heard the most distant rumour
against his character; I believe it to be quite unimpeachable: and the
house, as a house of business, stands as high as any house in the City
of London.


_George Rougemont_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you a merchant in the City?--I am.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known the house
for a great number of years, and always heard it spoken of in the
highest terms. Mr. Pedro de Zulueta I have been acquainted with and
visited him perhaps six or eight years, and I have had frequent
opportunities of seeing his conduct as a son, as a husband, as a father,
and as a neighbour, and have always found it in the highest degree
unexceptionable in every respect. I consider him an amiable and
kind-hearted man, and quite incapable of any thing of the kind laid to
his charge.


_Joseph Sadler_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you a merchant?--I am.

In the City of London?--Yes, Sadler, Harris, & Co. is my firm.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known him ten or
twelve years.

What character has he appeared to bear as a man of integrity and
humanity?--The very first character; I should say he is the last man I
have known that I consider would be guilty of that which is charged.


_F. I. Vanzeller_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are the Portuguese consul I believe?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--I have known it well.

Do you know Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta for
ten years.

What character can you give of him, as a general character, to the Jury
for humanity, integrity, and good conduct of every description?--The
very highest character possible.

Is that the reputation which the house of which he is a member has borne
in the city of London?--Certainly.


SUMMING UP.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Gentlemen of the Jury--Pedro de Zulueta is indicted
for an offence against an Act of Parliament made for the prevention of
the slave trade, for employing a vessel for the purpose of accomplishing
objects declared to be illegal by that Act; that is to say, dealing in
slaves, and also having loaded goods on board a vessel for that purpose.

Now, although this case has occupied a very considerable portion of
time, I do not think it will be necessary for me to add much to it in
the observations I shall think it necessary to make to you with respect
to the evidence. It is not very long, and the points to which it goes
are not very numerous--I mean the evidence on the substance of the
charge. The case occupied about fifteen hours on Friday and Saturday,
but the evidence did not occupy much above four hours. It will not be
necessary for me to occupy much time in observations upon it, and I
should think it will not be necessary for me to read over the evidence.

The offence, as I have told you, is put in these two shapes--the
employing a vessel, and the loading goods for a purpose prohibited by
the statute; that is, for the purpose of dealing in slaves. The charge
is not, it does not necessarily import, nor is it necessary to support
it, that it should be proved that the ship in question, the Augusta, was
intended to be used for the conveyance of slaves from the coast of
Africa. If there was a slave adventure--if there was an adventure of
which the object was that slaves should be brought from the coast of
Africa, that there should be slave trading there, and if this vessel was
dispatched and employed for the purpose of accomplishing that object,
although it was intended to accomplish that object otherwise than by
bringing home the slaves in that vessel, that is within the Act of
Parliament. So, if the goods were loaded for the purpose of
accomplishing the slave trade--whether it was intended to bring back the
slaves in the vessel in question, or that they should be brought away in
some other vessel, or whether that was a matter left undecided at the
commencement of the adventure, and to be determined according as matters
might turn out to be convenient for the accomplishment of it--in any of
these cases the crime charged in this indictment would be committed, the
allegations in the indictment would be supported, and the prohibition of
the Act of Parliament would be violated. The Act would have been very
imperfect indeed, if it had prohibited slave trading and had not
prevented any dealing of that description, except where the same vessel
was to bring home the slaves; if, at all events, it went out for the
purpose of carrying goods which were to be bartered for them. From one
of the witnesses, who, in the course of his public duty was conversant
with what takes place on this slave coast of Africa, we hear that it
frequently happens that the slaves are got away by a different vessel
from that which carries out the goods which formed the fund for their
purchase. That is the nature of the offence.

Gentlemen, I do not think there will be any great difficulty in some of
the preliminary questions you will have to decide upon this occasion.
One is, whether the prisoner at the bar did at all dispatch, did at all
employ this vessel, the Augusta, or did at all load any goods on board;
because, though a person may employ a vessel and load goods--he may do
that quite innocently--the fact, that he employed a vessel and loaded
goods, is by no means conclusive of his guilt till you go further and
show that he did it for the illegal purpose charged in the indictment.
If it had not been shown that the prisoner at the bar did employ the
vessel, or load the goods, the inquiry would have been stopped; for the
purpose never could have been brought in question, and there would have
been an end, or rather there would have been no beginning of this
enquiry: but with respect to that branch of the case, there appears to
have been no doubt made on the part of the prisoner that he did employ
this vessel. He says he did it as the agent of Pedro Martinez & Co., and
that he did it without knowing what the purpose was for which the vessel
was employed, or whether it was employed in the slave trade; and that he
did load the goods on board the ship--and there appears to be to the
value of a good many thousand pounds, a considerable cargo (the value I
get only from the cockets), a considerable quantity of goods. The vessel
undoubtedly was dispatched with the knowledge of the prisoner and
through his agency to carry goods to the coast of Africa. So much does
not seem to be a matter in dispute.

Then the matters in dispute are two--one, whether this vessel was
dispatched for the purpose of slave trading at all; if it was not, there
is an end of all question. If it appears that there was no slave
trading, or intention of slave trading, no person is guilty of the
violation of the law charged in this indictment. There is no offence on
the part of any one, if a slave adventure was not contemplated by the
persons engaged in this transaction. Unless you decide that question in
the affirmative, that is to say, unless you think there was such an
adventure, there is no case made at all against the prisoner at the bar.
It has been contended, and strenuously--not in a separate form, but
mixed up with the other point in the case to which I will next draw your
attention--it has been contended on the part of the prisoner, that there
was no slave adventure, that the ship Augusta went to the Gallinas
loaded in this way not for the purpose of dealing in slaves, or for any
unlawful purpose, but that she went either for some lawful purpose, or
else without any purpose of dealing at all: you will say whether there
could be any such possibility. It has been contended that at any rate
the ship did not go for the purpose of slave trading. If you are of
opinion there was no slave trading contemplated, that that was not the
object of the voyage, there is an end of that question; but, supposing
you should think there was slave dealing intended, and the vessel went
out for the purpose of slave dealing, then there is another important
question--and that is the object of the evidence to character--whether,
supposing there was a slave trading intended, the prisoner was cognizant
of it?

It appears from the evidence, that the Gallinas is a place described by
some witnesses of great experience--two captains in the navy, and
Colonel Nichol, who was the governor of a district in the neighbourhood,
whose employment was mainly to watch the slave coast of which the
Gallinas forms a part, and to contribute to the putting down the slave
trade--that the Gallinas is a place of slave trading, and of no other
trade at all. It seems that the Gallinas is a river navigable for
vessels of some size about twelve miles, that there were some barracoons
for slaves which were destroyed by Captain Denman--destroyed, as it is
alleged, by Captain Denman some time ago--there being about six
establishments called barracoons, which seem to be very large buildings
in which five or six hundred negroes may be confined, and are confined
when brought from the country till they can be exported in vessels
carrying on this trade. These barracoons have, by way of appendages to
them, store-houses for the various stores that may be wanted for those
negroes, and also some places of residence for the Europeans, who appear
to be some thirty in number, who live there; there is nobody else living
there, except that there are two or three negro villages or towns, not
places of any trade, but inhabited by those uncivilised savages. The
country produces nothing, and exports nothing but slaves--that is the
description of the place given by that gentleman. It is said, and I
think with great probability, that the Gallinas is not generally known
as a slave trading place, in fact, it seems very little known at all; it
seems to be a place where any other description of felons may resort to
concert their schemes and hide their stolen goods, and which, of course,
they do not make public, and which is not likely to be known by honest
and true people. Except those employed as police or otherwise in aid of
justice, as these captains were, of course it would not be spoken of at
all. There might be slave traders in London knowing it very well, but
they would be perfectly silent probably, and hardly mention it by name
even in speaking one to another. It is very probable, therefore, that
the place was not very well known; that when these persons spoke of the
Gallinas, they might say the Gallinas on the coast of Africa; and a
person might be very conversant with the geography of Africa in an
honest way, who had not been active in putting down the slave trade, and
yet might not know where it was, except that it was on the coast of
Africa. It is important to show not only that it is on the coast of
Africa, but that it is itself a slave trading place; and that fact
appears to be very evident from the case on the part of the prosecution.
Probably those honest persons, those honestly dealing persons who know
best about it, are those who have been called upon by their public duty
to ascertain it. Such persons have been called, and they give it this
character and description, and they state that it is distinguished from
other parts of the coast of Africa; for on other parts of that coast it
is said slaves are sold as one article of export, but that other things,
such as palm oil--I believe that is the principle thing--and ivory, and
wood, and other things, are sold in immense quantities on the coast of
Africa; but that that is not the case at the Gallinas. They might be
carrying out goods to other parts of Africa, intending to bring home
palm-oil or slaves, as might be most profitable; they might intend to
bring home an honest commodity, and not have to do with this dishonest
and perilous commodity; but it appears difficult to conceive what a
person carrying a cargo of goods to the Gallinas could intend to do with
it, unless he intended to have those goods employed in the slave trade.
The prisoner might say they were to be employed by others in the slave
trade; that would be plain and simple: it is wrong, but it is a plain
and simple account of that which was intended to be done. It is a place,
as it appears, without any trade; and if there be an obvious plain
interest in a person carrying goods to that place, it appears to me that
it may be taken that they were for the purpose of the slave trade. If
that be the plain and obvious inference, it appears to me that might be
the inference very properly drawn by Colonel Nichol, that this was a
slave adventure, unless the contrary were proved.

It is possible that this might be an adventure, not slave trading; if
so, nothing can be more simple than to prove it; Martinez & Co. might
prove that it is an honest adventure. If it was a dishonest adventure,
it could not be expected that Martinez & Co. should be called to give
evidence at all; but if it were an innocent adventure it would be very
easy for them to be called. It is true that persons are to be convicted,
not by evidence they did not produce, but by evidence produced against
them; not on suspicion, but on conviction; but where such evidence is
offered of the trade being slave trading, as is offered here, namely,
that the vessel was loaded with goods, that a cargo of goods was
dispatched to a place where slave trading is the only known object for
which vessels ever go, a slave mart and nothing but a slave mart, you
have a case, though it is an answerable case; but if the answer, which
if it exist could be easily given, is not given, it may very fairly be
inferred that the vessel was proceeding on a slaving voyage, a voyage
either for the purpose of bringing home slaves, or of landing those
goods for the purchase of slaves. That, Gentlemen, is the first question
you have to consider. You will say whether, considering the nature of
this charge, and considering that the vessel is chartered to go from
this place to the Gallinas, that being the place and the only place
mentioned in the charter-party for the outward voyage, she might have
been subsequently employed in voyages to the West Indies or Madeira, at
the discretion of the charterers; but it will be for you to say whether,
in your judgment, in your opinion, on this occasion the vessel did not
sail for the purpose of her being employed, or the goods on board her
being employed, for the trading in slaves. If you are not satisfied of
that, it will be your duty to give a verdict of not guilty. You need not
trouble yourselves to go further, but the prisoner must be acquitted.

Gentlemen, I have not read over to you the evidence which establishes
these facts I have mentioned to you, namely, that the vessel was
chartered. You have heard the charter-party, and you have heard what Mr.
Zulueta says in his evidence, that he did dispatch the vessel, and that
the house were the agents in sending the vessel abroad, and in putting
the goods on board; and you have heard the remainder of the evidence. I
suppose I need not read the evidence which the captains gave at such
great length.

_Foreman of the Jury._ No, my Lord.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. These are facts not disputed, except that it is
disputed that the vessel went out for the purpose of slave trading--that
is an inference to be drawn or not from the evidence.

Then the next question, and an important question is, whether the
prisoner at the bar, Pedro de Zulueta, is a person who was cognizant of
that fact. It certainly is a very grave and serious charge, and one of a
very highly penal nature. It is, however, a trade, which till a recent
period was lawful for persons in this country, and many persons of very
good character certainly did engage in that trade, and a great number of
persons justified it. I suppose those same persons would now say it is
not to be engaged in, because it is a prohibited thing--it is a
regulation of trade enforced by very severe penalties made by this
country--but that the dealing in slaves is in itself a lawful, right,
good, and proper thing, which ought not to be prohibited. Those persons
would now consider slave trading as a thing prohibited only by positive
regulation. There is no one who does not at once perceive that practical
distinction between them. There is no person who, in point of feeling
and opinion, does not perceive the difference there is between a thing
which is prohibited by positive law, and that kind of thing, against
which, if there were no law at all against it, the plain natural sense
and conscience of mankind would revolt. This trading in slaves, in the
opinion of a great many persons, is itself an abomination, a thing which
ought to be considered with the greatest horror, whether prohibited or
not; but those who think it was right when it was not prohibited,
probably do not think it so very bad if it be committed now, since it
has been prohibited by law, only that it is to be avoided on account of
the penalty to which it subjects the individuals engaged in it.

This has some bearing on the question of how far considerations of
character would have weight with respect to such an offence; but it is
necessary undoubtedly on the part of the prosecution that there should
be a case made of knowledge on the part of the prisoner, of the purpose
for which this adventure was meant. Now, with respect to that, it is
taken partly from what he says before the Committee of the House of
Commons, and partly what is given in evidence here, that the house of
Zulueta & Co., (of which the prisoner appears to be an active member,
and with the whole proceedings of which in this matter he appears
certainly according to the statement he himself made to the Committee of
the House of Commons to have been quite conversant)--and it is admitted
that the house of Zulueta were the doers in this country of whatever was
done with respect to this vessel, the Augusta--the Augusta had been
called the Gollupchik, had been captured as a slaving vessel, and she
was then fitted up with the apparatus fitted to that traffic; she was
brought to this country and proceeded against, and ultimately sold,
whether sold under a condemnation which turned out effectual or not does
not distinctly appear. Some one has said that the Russian Government
claimed her, and she was given up to the Russian Government. It appears,
however, that she was sold at Portsmouth; I think she was sold to Mr.
Emanuel, or some person for whom he acted, for 600_l._, and the
expenses, which were about 30_l._ Then she was bought with money
furnished by Zulueta & Co., the amount being 650_l._--it does not
exactly appear by whom--according to the testimony one would say, bought
by Jennings, who was employed as captain on the voyage in question, a
letter having been previously written by the prisoner’s house, stating
to Jennings that they could not give more than 500_l._, but it appears
that ultimately 660_l._ was paid for her. On the occasion on which that
money was paid, the witness says, “I sold her to Jennings and Bernardos;
Bernardos came with Jennings--they came together and paid the money.”
Now, probably you must not take that quite to the letter. This was a
ship sold, not by means of a written instrument as the subject of a
British registry, but as any other British chattel might be sold, such
and such a bale of goods, merely by agreement altogether verbally, that
one should have the goods and the other the money, the article being
handed over when it was so sold. All that the seller cares for is, that
he shall have his money. Whether there are one or a dozen persons
present he may very properly, as a matter of business, leave it to them
whether one or all of them is to pay the money. The witness who is
called, Mr. Emanuel, seems to have thought that Bernardos and the other
bought the vessel; but it seems, according to the charter-party, that
the other party, Jennings, is the only purchaser. According to a
representation I think made at the bar by Mr. Kelly, the real purchasers
were Pedro Martinez & Co., who wanted Jennings for some purpose to
appear as colourable owner, and wanted Jennings to command the vessel.
An Englishman could not by the laws of Spain command a Spanish owned
vessel, and Jennings therefore, if he was to command her, should be
apparently made the owner of her, and that is the reason suggested why
Jennings was made the owner (if he was the owner) by the desire of Pedro
Martinez & Co.

At the end of the charter-party there is a recital, that whereas the
owner, Jennings, is indebted to the charterer in a certain sum of money,
as appears by an acknowledgment elsewhere, he consents that the earnings
of the vessel shall be a lien for the money. Now that refers you see to
another document, which other document, if we had it, would throw some
light upon the transaction, but it is not called for or produced. The
circumstance of Jennings being the commander, and made owner for the
purpose of being the commander in apparent consistency with the law of
Spain, may account for that which has been put very powerfully on the
part of the prisoner as having been inexplicable on the supposition that
any slave trade was intended; for, they say, if the slave trade was
intended, why not have a Spanish captain; because then, though perhaps
within the terms of the treaties there might be a power of search on the
part of British cruizers, no power was given by foreigners which was not
watched by those who gave that power, and such power might be exceeded
by those who exercised it, who were not lawyers or special pleaders; and
it is said it would be much more convenient in case of search to have
that difficulty thrown in the way than the total absence of all
difficulty which exists when a ship professes to be British owned. But
if Jennings was an adventurer, if he were, as suggested, a very clever
and intelligent person, and very conversant with every thing to be done
on this occasion, a competent master of the vessel, supposing the slave
trade to be intended, a thing which requires qualities one is sorry to
see exercised so ill--a great deal of courage, sagacity, and presence of
mind, and an unscrupulous readiness to employ them for the commission of
this felony, not to be found in every body--a man of such a description
would be the paramount object of a slave trader, whose aim would be,
whoever the owner may be, to elude all search, so to manage the thing as
that the cruizers of any country shall not stop him. Probably, if the
adventure succeeds, it must succeed by such means; so that one sees a
perfectly good reason why, consistently with this being a slave trading
voyage, it may have been English owned.

The sale is negotiated in the first instance by Zulueta & Co.; they say
they do it for Martinez. The vessel was bought by Bernardos or Jennings.
I do not know whether I called your attention to that, that Bernardos
was the man who commanded the vessel on an undoubted slave voyage when
she was seized and brought into Portsmouth. Whether Pedro Martinez or
the captain bought the ship, or however it was bought, that transaction
appears to have been managed by Zulueta & Co., and through the
intervention of Jennings.

Then there comes the transaction of chartering. The vessel was chartered
subject to this proviso at the end of it, and the charter-party is
negotiated entirely by Zulueta. Whatever Pedro Martinez & Co., supposing
there were such persons (and it may be taken that there were such
persons, though the evidence of there being such persons is, that Mr.
Zulueta says so in his evidence before the Committee of the House of
Commons, and it is a fact the negative of which could easily have been
proved, but it has not been proved); you may fairly assume, therefore,
that there are such persons as Pedro Martinez & Co., for that
observation of the learned counsel for the prisoner on the statement of
Mr. Zulueta before the Committee is as far as it applies to that
particular part of the evidence well founded, namely, that if it were
not true the contrary might be proved; but that is not true in the
generality to which Mr. Kelly applied it, for there might be a great
many statements in that evidence before the Committee of the House of
Commons which were not true, but which the prosecutor would not be
allowed to prove were not true--I mean those not connected with this
particular transaction. There are many things stated in that evidence,
which I apprehend, if false, the prosecutor would not be entitled to
prove the falsehood of; but I apprehend that does not apply to the
existence of Pedro Martinez & Co. But they appear to have existed and to
have employed as their agents in this country Pedro Zulueta & Co., and
whatever is done in this country by Pedro Martinez is done by Pedro
Zulueta & Co. just as much as if they had done it themselves; they knew
as much about the matter as the parties themselves; they negotiated this
charter-party, and they dispatched the vessel and put on board all the
goods. The goods appear by the cockets to have been entered in the name
of Captain Jennings; I do not know that that is a circumstance of any
suspicion; it is not proved to be out of the way, and I do not see any
good reason for suspecting the integrity of the transaction arising out
of that particular circumstance. It seems to me, therefore, that Zulueta
& Co. do stand in a very different situation from that put a
considerable number of times to you by the learned counsel for the
prisoner, namely, the situation of a person who is simply the
manufacturer or dealer in goods, and who has those goods ordered, such a
weight of gunpowder, and who inquiring, “Where shall I send it?” is
answered, “Send it on board the Augusta, now lying at Liverpool.” It
would be a strong thing from that circumstance to infer that a person
sending that gunpowder had any thing to do with slave trading: but that
appears not to be the nature of this transaction. In regard to there
being a slave trading, all that is done, is done by Zulueta & Co. It is
not merely that they had goods sent on board the ship, but they chose
the number of the goods to be sent on board the ship--goods which they
had bought, for which they had negotiated, and they made out such
charter-party, and that charter-party provides that the ship shall
proceed to Gallinas, on the coast of Africa.

Gentlemen, that is I think pretty nearly all the evidence that there is
in the case. You have the evidence of the captains on the subject. If
you think that this was a slaving voyage, you will consider the conduct
of Zulueta & Co. in buying, and chartering, and loading it, and
dispatching it. Now, Zulueta & Co. are shown to be merchants with very
extensive connexions and concerns, and the prisoner particularly is a
person of great knowledge and education, and generally speaking one
would say that as merchants, though that is a matter for you to
consider, I do not know that I can put it higher than this, that they
are persons of great skill and great experience. The prisoner had the
whole management and direction of the voyage to a particular place to
carry goods to that place, that being a place not without suspicion; the
vessel itself also being a vessel which had been used for the slave
trade, though it might be innocently used afterwards; but, still your
attention has been directed to that circumstance, and it has been
particularly directed to the circumstance that every thing applicable to
slave apparatus was ordered to be removed before the vessel was
dispatched. That would be a thing of course to be done, whether the
vessel was going on a slave expedition or not, for as has been
suggested, the officers of Government always examine a vessel,
particularly on going to the coast of Africa. With a view to this, I
should think it would be quite a matter of course, even if the vessel
was intended to be sent to promote the slave trade, that she should not
go out with shackles or leagers, or any thing of that kind on board, for
if they are on board, the vessel would be at the mercy of any
Custom-house officer; it would be quite advertising the adventure. And
there being found these shackles and these leagers on board the vessel
at Portsmouth, and their being so dealt with, I do not think at all
helps on the case for the prosecution, for the vessel undoubtedly had
been a slave vessel, it had been fitted up with these things, and would
naturally have them on board her, and as naturally, whether she was
intended to be sent out on a slave expedition or not, these things would
be taken from on board her; and you find that they were taken from on
board. The fact of their having been on board, when the schoolmaster and
the cooper saw them on board, does not appear to me to be any thing
against her, for she had been a slave vessel. On the other hand, the
circumstance of their being taken out and landed before she sailed on
her voyage does not appear to be any thing for her, for both these
circumstances would have taken place whether the voyage was an innocent
or a guilty voyage; those circumstances, in my opinion, have no bearing
on the question. Whether the vessel was intended to be engaged in slave
trading or not, that is a point I have already put to you in considering
whether the voyage was a slave voyage, or for the accomplishment of the
slave trade. I did not before advert to the circumstance of these things
being on board, and I mention it now only, as it has a sort of
colourable look, to show why it is I do not lay any stress upon it.

I was observing that though people in general might not be well aware of
this trade being intended to be carried on, yet persons not extremely
simple, but skilful people, may be fairly taken to know what the object
is with which a voyage is undertaken when they themselves are the
agents, supplying, chartering, loading, and dispatching a ship for the
voyage. It may be that the object may be concealed from them, or that
they may not know that this voyage to the Gallinas was a slaving
expedition. A simple person, who knew nothing about these matters and
had not some special acquaintance with the trade, might know nothing at
all about it, they might not know the nature of the trade carried on at
this place. The mention of Gallinas on the coast of Africa would not
convey to the mind of an ordinary person that it was to a mere den where
this traffic and nothing else was carried on; but this vessel is sent to
the Gallinas by these gentlemen, who are very skilful persons, who
negotiate the whole transaction. Now, it may very generally be taken
that people know what they are about, unless they can show there was
some particular concealment, some hinderance to their knowing to this
extent that this was a place connected with the slave trade, and so
exclusively engaged in the slave trade as it really seems to be; but,
supposing that a case is made which requires an answer, if it is shown
that there was a slave trade, and that a person did employ a vessel in
that business, and did load it for that business, that certainly is a
case raising some degree of presumption against the person who has been
engaged, and one would be very glad if the case were of a description in
which it had been met by a decisive answer in point of fact.

It is said on the part of the prisoner, first, that this was not a
slaving voyage. Now, if it had been a slaving voyage--it is possible
that there might be a case, which unless fairly answered would lead to
the presumption that that was the object--in which an answer might
exist, but where it would be impossible for the prisoner to get it, you
would feel a difficulty in acting on such a case; but in the present
case, supposing that this was not a slaving expedition, the answer
exists, and the answer might be given with the greatest ease. There
appears to me no reason why it should not be given. The house of
Martinez & Co. have a house at Cadiz, and a house at the Havannah, and
if they did not send this vessel for the purpose of the slave trade, and
they were quite innocent in this matter, any one of them or their clerks
might with the greatest ease be called. There is no deficiency of funds
here, and it would put an end to all question if they could say, “This
was not for the slave trade; these goods were to be employed for--and
then they might fill up the blank, I do not know how, but by some words
expressing an innocent purpose, and that would be a full answer; but
there is an absence of all answer that bears on the question whether
there was slave trading intended or not.

Now, supposing you should be of opinion that there was no slave trading
intended, there is an end of the case. I think you may perhaps be of
opinion this vessel was intended for slave trading. Supposing you are of
that opinion, then you come to that which is the anxious and important
question, namely, whether the prisoner was cognizant of that fact. It is
alleged that the prisoner is not the exclusive manager of the concerns
of the house; it is not very likely he should be; he appears to have
been fully cognizant of this particular matter; and, supposing that
considering the exclusive part taken by these gentlemen in this
transaction of dispatching the vessel, supposing you should think that a
case requiring an answer, then you will consider whether it should not
have an answer, if one exists. Now, it appears that the prisoner is not
exclusively cognizant of all the transactions of this house. There are
two other partners; there are--though it is not in evidence, but it may
be presumed that there are--clerks and persons employed in the house of
Zulueta, all or any of whom might have been called. It is alleged that
the profit on this transaction would be extremely small. I do not think
that the petty gain of this one transaction is the matter, for it
appears that Pedro Martinez & Co. do a great deal of business, and it is
possible that whenever persons have a large and valuable business to
conduct, there is some small portion that the correspondent and agent
would willingly get rid of if he could; but he is not allowed to pick
and choose, but he must take the whole. That is one of the grounds they
put; the other is as to character.

Now, inasmuch as there are two other partners, and it is probable there
might be some other persons in the concern, there arises this
consideration. It is true, supposing that there were a case made, but
that the prisoner was innocent of it, that he could not call Martinez &
Co. on that supposition as he might on the supposition of there being no
slave trading, for Martinez & Co. would not be innocent persons, and
they would not be willing to come into this country and say, “We carried
on the slave trading, but it was disguised from our correspondent
Zulueta & Co.” If you think there is a case requiring an answer, the
question then is, would there have been any difficulty in the prisoner
calling his two partners and others conversant with the business of the
firm, and proving that Zulueta & Co. knew nothing at all about this,
that they had not the least suspicion, that Martinez & Co. never
communicated the fact to them, and that the illegal purpose was utterly
unknown to them, for some reasons which the prisoner cannot give, but
which his partners could? It would be extremely desirable they should do
it, if the defence existed in point of fact.

Supposing the case made to require an answer, there are two modes of
answering a charge. The one is, that of calling a great number of
persons to prove that it was unlikely, from the high character of the
firm, that they should engage in such a transaction; that is one.
Another mode, is calling three or four persons, who if he were guilty
must know it, and who will prove that he was not. The former of these
modes has been adopted on this occasion. You have, however, the case
before you. I do not think it necessary to go any further into the
evidence, having, I conceive, stated the effect of it sufficiently. If
you are satisfied that there was a slave trading, you will consider
whether Zulueta, the prisoner, was cognizant of it, and shipped these
goods, and dispatched the ship for the purpose of accomplishing the
object of slave trading; and then, in considering that, you will
consider the observations, as far as they are entitled to attention, and
the evidence of the very high character of the prisoner--a character I
should say very strong indeed, and almost conclusive, supposing the case
were one that did not admit of an answer in point of fact. If he has the
means of showing that he did not do that with which he is charged, and
he only says, I will prove that I am extremely unlikely to do it; I do
not say how far you should give weight to that sort of evidence. You
ought to be well satisfied of a fact of this sort, before you find him
guilty of such a charge as this.

_Foreman of the Jury._ We beg to retire, my Lord.

_A Juryman._ May we find on any particular count?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You will consider the charge as that of employing a
vessel, or loading goods on board, for the purpose of accomplishing the
slave trade. The great question is, the knowledge and intention of the
prisoner. If the thing was done with his knowledge and intention, and it
was for the purpose of slave trading, there is no doubt that he bought
and dispatched the ship, and loaded the goods. I do not see why you
should trouble yourselves with any particular count.

  [_The Jury withdrew at Twenty Minutes before Twelve, and returned into
  Court at Ten Minutes after One, finding a verdict of_ “NOT GUILTY.”

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My Lord, there is another indictment against the
prisoner for a misdemeanour. It appears to me that it involves
necessarily the very same question, and therefore, as far as I can judge
of it, and of course with the authority of the prosecutor, I feel that
it would be wrong to put the prisoner again on his trial for that
offence. It seems to me that it will depend upon the same evidence, and
I cannot but conclude that the Jury will come to the same conclusion. I
will take the opportunity of saying one word. Observations having been
made with respect to myself when the former case was going on, when I
could not interfere, I can merely say, that with regard to myself, the
prosecutor, and of every person connected with the prosecution, there
was no possible fact or document which I could have admitted, which
could have done the prisoner the slightest benefit.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. That observation was made in Mr. Kelly’s address.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. It was impossible we could have any view but that
the Jury should have the whole before them, and we rejoice in the
result.

Mr. _Kelly_. With regard to what has fallen from my learned friend, Mr.
Serjeant Bompas, I am greatly obliged to my learned friend for making
that observation to his Lordship. As far as respects that part of what
has fallen from my learned friend, which respected the other indictment,
it will be desirable in the course of the present session--I do not say
to-day or to-morrow--but in the course of the present session, to
empannel a Jury, and that the prisoner, Mr. Zulueta, should be
acquitted in respect of that indictment. With regard to the other
observation which has fallen from my learned friend, I beg to assure
him, which I do with the utmost possible sincerity, that I never
intended to say any thing which could be construed in the slightest
degree as disrespectful to him. There is no gentleman at the bar less
deserving of any disrespectful observation than my learned friend.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Your observations were made in public, and
therefore I felt it necessary to say what I did. Your Lordship will
order the expenses to be paid?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Certainly: I think that it was a very proper case
for inquiry. The most convenient course will be just to swear the Jury
in the second case, and take a verdict.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. If the Jury have no objection.

  _The Jury were sworn to try the Indictment for Conspiracy._

  (_The Jury were charged with the Prisoner in the usual way._)

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Gentlemen, you have heard what I stated to the
learned Judges. The case has been already before you, and I am quite
satisfied with your decision; you will, therefore, find the prisoner Not
Guilty.

  _The Jury immediately pronounced the Prisoner_ “NOT GUILTY.”


  LONDON:
  C. WOOD & CO., PRINTERS, POPPIN’S COURT, FLEET STREET.




  Transcriber’s Notes


  Inconsistent, archaic and unusual spelling, hyphenation, spacing of
  abbreviations and capitalisation used in the source document have been
  retained. Missing and unnecessary quote marks have not been corrected,
  unless listed below. The same applies to apparently missing and
  unnecessarily repeated words have not been deleted, except as listed
  below.

  Depending on the hard- and software and their settings used to read
  this text, not all elements may display as intended.

  The spelling of proper and geographical names has not been
  standardised (Macauley / Macaulay, Findlay / Finlay, Nallow / Narrow,
  Jenning / Jennings, Gollupchick / Gollupchik / Golupchick / Golupchik
  / Goluptichick, Talford / Talfourd, Nichol / Nickol / Nicolls, Arnot /
  Arnott, etc.)

  The differences between the Table of Contents and the text itself have
  not been rectified.

  Page 22, cassada: possibly an error for cassava.


  Changes made

  Footnotes have been moved outside text paragraphs.

  Some obvious minor misprints and typographical, formatting and
  punctuation inconsistencies and errors have been standardised or
  corrected silently.

  References to Questions 7958, 7961, 7965, 7967 and 7970 have been
  changed to 7958*, 7961*, 7965*, 7967* and 7970* respectively cf. their
  numbering in the text.

  Page vii: Page number 225 changed to 235

  Page 75: question number 5052 changed to 5552

  Page 103: closing quote mark deleted after ... on the vessel.

  Page 130: closing quote mark added after ... without delay,

  Page 133: second Question 6785 changed to Question 6785*

  Page 144: paragraph number 6875 (second occurrence) changed to 6876.