Trial of Pedro de Zulueta, jun., on a Charge of Slave Trading, under 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. (part 2 of 3)

Trial of Pedro de Zulueta, jun., on a Charge of Slave Trading, under 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. (part 2 of 3)

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.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us