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 3 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 3 of 3)

Were there not some iron bolts and screws, which had been on board the vessel formerly, made up and thrown overboard while the vessel remained at Portsmouth?--No, not to my recollection.

You do not know any thing of that kind?--No.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas.

Do you remember any thing about the quantity of water that was actually on board; had they much or little water?--When they sailed from Liverpool they had a great quantity of water.

Were the water-casks carried all the way or not?--We had several great puncheons on deck at the time of the storm; we knocked one or two of the heads in to help the vessel; one or two of the casks went overboard.

You had been at sea before?--Yes.

Had you a less or a greater quantity of water?--

Mr. Kelly. How often had he sailed, and had he been on the coast of Africa?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. How often had you been at sea before?--I had been to North America before.

You had never been to Africa before?--No.

You do not know what is usual on the coast of Africa?--No.

The Honourable Captain Denman, R. N. sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd.

Were you commanding on the African coast at any time?--I was commanding on a district of the African coast.

Did that embrace the river Gallinas?--The river Gallinas was within the district.

How long, while you were on that coast, were you acquainted with that river?--I was myself constantly in sight of the river for a period of eight or ten months.

Had you also, besides the period you were opposite that river, other opportunities of observing what was going on there?--Whenever I was not there myself, I left a vessel to watch the place and report to me what occurred.

We have heard there were some slave factories, barracoons there?--There were no less than six slave factories on the shore.

According to your observation, what was the trade carried on there?--There was no trade whatever but the slave trade; exclusively the slave trade.

You did not yourself know the proprietors of the barracoons?--I did not know any of them personally.

Did you ever see any of them in their warehouses?--No, except one.

Who was that?--I believe it was Martinez, but I am not certain: the name we knew him by was Pedro Fernandos.

Mr. Kelly. You will state what you do know?--The name we knew him by was Domingo Fernandos.

Mr. Serjeant Talfourd. Did you know Ignatio Rolo?--Yes, I have seen him at Gallinas.

What did he do at the Gallinas?--He was landing from the Saracen when I saw him.

That was the vessel commanded by Captain Hill?--Yes.

Did you ever see him on any of those factories?--I never saw him, except at the factory at which he landed.

Did he land at the factory?--He was landed in a man-of-war’s boat.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly.

Had you means, while in the river Gallinas from time to time, of ascertaining how many towns or villages there were as far up the river as you went?--There were, to my knowledge, some three or four or five towns on different branches of the river.

How high up did you go yourself?--I went up about ten or twelve miles, I suppose.

You say that as far as your knowledge extends there was no other trade there but the slave trade?--My positive knowledge is that there was nothing but the slave trade there.

Do you mean to represent that you knew all the ships containing British merchandise consigned to that place, and what became of the merchandise which was landed by the ships? Have you no doubt that you knew enough of what took place at that place, to be aware what became of the merchandise landed from every ship?--The question involves two or three points; I must answer in the first place, that every vessel that landed cargoes there I knew of.

During what period?--During a period of ten months most particularly.

What ten months was that?--From the month of March or the month of April, 1840, until the month of February 1841.

Have you never heard of a ship, called the Supply, landing merchandise there to the value of between 13,000_l._ and 14,000_l._?--Not during that period. I beg not to be misunderstood; I do not deny that vessels have landed cargoes there to a large amount, but I say the slave trade is the exclusive business there: there is no produce.

That is inference, perhaps, hardly warranted by your premises: is there any thing in the nature of the case to prevent the importing merchandise for consumption by the natives on the spot, and is it not consumed by the natives?--I say no produce is exported.

Mr. Justice Maule. The question is, what was done with the merchandise; was it given in exchange?--There were two articles of import, which are the one eaten, and the other used by the slave traders to buy slaves.

Mr. Kelly. What I understood you to say was, that you are not aware that there is any produce exported; but I ask whether articles are not imported to be consumed by the natives?--I do not mean to say a few hundred weight or a ton is not exported, but nothing to be called produce or exports.

You do not say there are not a few hundreds of tons?--I say not a hundred weight.

That was the case during the ten months you were there?--I have known the Gallinas since 1835. I was in charge of that station during two years; during that time I was ten months stationed at Gallinas, and had reports from the place.

When you say there is no trade carried on there but the slave trade, do you exclude from your observation the shipments of goods from England landed there and sold for money? for consumption there, sold for money?--If you put that question again, I shall understand it.

I wish to ask you, as you state that there is nothing but the slave trade carried on, that there are no exports, whether the trade may not consist of landing goods and selling them for money, as well as purchasing goods there, and carrying them away?--Just so.

Do you mean to exclude or include the fact of merchandise being landed there, and purchased there, and paid for in money, so that a stranger carrying it there, and selling it and receiving his money, would be doing what of course was perfectly lawful?--My answer is, that a person landing his goods there would not be able to procure a return, but that all the goods would go for the purchase of slaves, and nothing else: that is my reason for saying nothing but the slave trade is carried on there.

I will call them all slave traders, if you please. Do you mean to say a man may not purchase a quantity of goods which he may barter for slaves; may he not sell a part of them also to the natives?--The natives have no means of paying for them, except by the exchange for slaves: there is no produce.

As regards the shippers from this country; supposing that a man were to ship, not as agent, but on his own account, a cargo from this country, receiving money for what he exported, do you mean to say there would be any slave trading in that?--I should say not of necessity.

Mr. Justice Maule. Suppose he comes away in ballast, if such a transaction happens?--I have never known of such a case; there was no English trade during the time I was there.

Mr. Kelly. Do you mean that no English vessels went there?--Oh, yes; English vessels passed and had some little proceedings; the Augusta, for instance, was a vessel I always suspected.

Whatever took place at that place, the Gallinas, for some years before you do not know?--I know from the statement of the natives that there was no trade.

I ask you, do you know of a vessel, called the Supply, having landed and disposed of merchandise at the Gallinas to the amount of 13,000_l._ or 14,000_l._?--There was no such vessel there during the two years I was there; certainly not during the ten months.

This is a place to which trading of the nature to which I have referred may have taken place at a time previous to the time you mention?--The trade of the nature I describe has taken place since 1835.

I will give you the dates; I will mention the year 1837; do you know of a vessel called the Milford, having landed and disposed of goods to the amount of 6,000_l._ or 7,000_l._ at the Gallinas?--No, I was not there at the time; but that does not alter the case, for the slave trade existed there.

I do not ask you as to the existence of the slave trade, but whether there has not been lawful commerce and ships coming away in ballast?--I know that 800 tons of goods were landed during the time I was there, and that none of the vessels went away except with money or goods, and except when they were consigned for cargoes from the Havannah, which was the case in nine cases out of ten.

According to your experience some vessels do carry commodities to a great extent, and receive payment in actual money and sail away?--Yes, those are exceptions, but such cases do occur.

Others would go and carry their goods there and receive slaves?--No, that is not the system. The freight of the vessel is consigned from the Havannah to a slave factor, Rolo, for instance, at Gallinas; she sails again in ballast, the freight is all paid to Havannah; that is the general rule.

From what, according to your sense of the word “slave trade,” do you make out that that vessel was at all engaged in the slave trade?--I do not say that vessel is of necessity engaged in the slave trade, for I do not think it is of necessity that persons know what they are about, but I say that the consequence of it is the slave trade.

You mean that those merchants and mercantile persons are carrying on the slave trade?--Precisely so.

A person living any where else, and exporting produce there, might very well export it and get his money for it, without at all knowing to what purpose that should be applied?--Certainly, that is very possible.

With respect to this place, called the Gallinas, I am quite sure that you have given the account of the place as you believe it to exist; had you not a hand in destroying the factories there, which is the subject of one or two actions against you at this moment?--There are actions brought against me for the destruction of slave factories.

When did the event take place? I do not ask whether you had any thing to do with it of course, but when did the event take place?--About November, 1840.

Has your experience led you to various other parts of the coast of Africa, where the slave trade is carried on?--Yes.

Are not there certain parts of the coast where there is a lawful trade as well as an unlawful trade?--In almost all places, the Gallinas is the exception.

Is your knowledge, that the Gallinas is the exception, obtained from your personal presence on the spot?--It is obtained from my personal presence on the spot.

So that any person, in England or elsewhere, might export commodities to half a dozen places along the coast of Africa, and might as well export there without knowledge as any other place?--With the distinction that there is no other trade carried on there.

How is a merchant carrying on business in this country, receiving an order for 5,000_l._ worth of goods from the Gallinas, to know that the Gallinas is an exception to other places?--I think if he does not know any thing of the character of the parties, he may be ignorant of the use to which they are applied.

You mean the character of the party to whom the goods are to be sent?--Yes.

What would the character of the person, to whom the goods were sent, have to do with the fact how the person in this country is to know that the Gallinas is the exception, and that the goods are not going there to fair persons as well as to other persons?--If he knows the person to whom the goods are shipped at Gallinas, I should suppose he would know there was nothing but slave trading carried on.

That is, if he knew as well as you who have been on the spot; are there not many persons who carry on the slave trade, who also carry on a very extensive lawful trade?--Undoubtedly.

Then how is a gentleman in England or America, who exports his merchandise on those orders, to know the use to which they are to be applied?--If he knows any thing of Gallinas, he will know the object to which they are applied.

If he does not know?--If he does not know any thing of Gallinas, he is not necessarily guilty of doing any thing which is wrong.

When a vessel is under the English flag, and manned by English sailors, is there not a far greater facility as to search, and as to fair trial and condemnation, than if it is a foreign vessel?--Yes, when there is suspicion of the slave trade; it depends upon some of the treaties.

Is there any thing at all to restrict or prevent your searching every vessel under the English flag, commanded by an English captain, and manned by an English crew?--Nothing at all, if we suspect.

You do it without opposition?--Yes.

When a vessel is seized which is English, it goes without any delay before an English tribunal?--Yes.

When it is a foreign vessel, does not it go before a Mixed Commission?--It depends upon the nature of the treaty; under some of the treaties it would go to the tribunal before a Mixed Commission.

A French vessel would go before a French tribunal?--Yes.

A Spanish before a mixed tribunal?--Yes.

And a Portuguese?--Yes.

When was it you first sailed for the coast of Africa?--I left England in February, 1840.

Did you before that know the Gallinas?--Yes, I knew it in 1835.

You had been there in 1835?--Yes.

You went there first in 1835, in the discharge of your professional duties? Before that time were you aware there was such a place?--No, I knew nothing about the coast of Africa.

You did not know that the Gallinas was a place where slaves were more or less dealt in than any other place?--I had no reason to know any thing about it till I went there.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd.

Nor the trade any where else I presume?--No.

How many merchants are there at the Gallinas to whom goods might be consigned?--I believe they are all agents; there are no actual merchants.

How many people are there?--There are twenty or thirty Europeans altogether.

Were there persons to whom goods would be consigned, except those in slave factories?--There was not another white man.

Have the natives, in any of those villages, any means of paying for British produce?--They have no means of paying but by slaves; the country does not produce any produce.

You have been asked, whether a merchant here may not ship to the coast of Africa without knowing the nature of the trade there; do you think a merchant who had exported for twenty years could be ignorant?--It is impossible he could fail to know the nature of the trade.

Mr. Kelly. My Lord, my learned friend has called for a letter, which the witness says was put in the post on the 10th of June, 1839.

Mr. Justice Maule. I thought it was 1840.

Mr. Kelly. No, 1839, four years ago. The letter has been most carefully looked for, and is not in existence. A few days ago, Mr. Lawford looked carefully for it, with the assistance of some of Mr. Zulueta’s people, and they are utterly unable to find it. I shall not consider him a witness, if my learned friend wishes to examine Mr. Lawford as to that matter, he may. The effect of it has been stated. If he wishes to ask those persons who are aware whether such a letter had existence, and whether it is not lost, I will produce them, in order to afford him the opportunity of putting the question.

Lieutenant Colonel Edward Nichol sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas.

Have you become acquainted with the coast of Africa?--A long time.

How long?--Since the year 1822.

Had you any official employment upon that coast?--I was governor of the Isle of Ascension, and afterwards of Fernando Po, five years at each place.

In that situation, was it your duty to attend to the coast in other parts besides Fernando Po and the other place where you were immediately governor, and to make a report upon it?--It was.

Did you receive reports from the officers of the navy, or others, with respect to the various parts of the coast?--I have received reports from upwards of 200 officers of the navy, and masters of merchant ships on different parts of the coast, and have sent a small schooner attached to my command at Fernando Po, to make reports of the different slave trading stations and what was going on there.

Did you know the river Gallinas?--Yes.

Have you been there yourself?--I have.

For what period has it been within your observation?--Since 1822; I visited it in 1822, in His Majesty’s ship Victor.

Up to what time?--We did not stay long; we were chasing a slaver off the port.

How long had you occasion to know that place?--From that time to 1834; from 1822 to 1834; I left the coast in December, 1834; I have had continual communication with it since.

During that time what was the trade carried on at the Gallinas?--The slave trade.

Was there any produce exported from the Gallinas at all?--Not a particle that ever came to my knowledge, or under my observation, or from the information I have received.

Was the country round the Gallinas a country producing that which was fit for export or usually exported?--Nothing but stones and trees, hardly what would subsist the people living there.

Did you know of the existence of slave establishments there?--As notoriously as that this Court is here.

You have seen them yourself?--Yes, certainly, and had reports from the officers I sent there.

Were you there more than once?--No.

Did you know any persons residing there? Did you know Pedro Blanco?--I knew him from reports; they kept out of my sight, they did not come near me.

Was it part of your duty to suppress the slave trade as much as possible?--That is the duty of every British officer.

It is necessary I should ask you whether it was part of your duty?--Certainly. I had no authority to seize slave ships though, but to give information to His Majesty’s squadron; and I believe I did that to some good amount.

It was your duty to obtain information of what was going on along the coast, and to communicate it to the naval officers, to enable them to seize the vessels?--Certainly.

What was about the distance of your station from the Gallinas?--About 1500 miles I should say, except when I have been running down the coast. Fernando Po is a long way from the Gallinas.

But you have been running down the coast and obtaining reports?--Yes, both by myself and my officers.

Had you the means of ascertaining the way in which the slave trade was carried on?--I had.

What was the course; was it by barter or money?--You cannot get slaves for money. I never saw a slave got for money. They cannot be got without British manufactured goods supplied by the merchants.

They get British manufactured goods and barter them for slaves?--That is the general course of dealing for slaves.

They are brought from the interior of Africa to places where the trade is carried on?--Just so.

Are the slaves brought to the Gallinas for the purpose of being bartered for the goods there?--It is the most notorious and infamous slave port on the coast of Africa. There is a continual drain of slaves from all parts of the country to it; there is nothing going on there but the slave trade, any man sending goods there must know that.

Mr. Kelly. I do not know why we are to listen to these speeches, or even to this evidence. Unless something of this, so well known to this gentleman so constantly visiting that spot, had been communicated to the prisoner at the bar before the transaction in question, I am at a loss to know how he can be affected by it. I dare say there are many persons in this Court, whose geographical knowledge may have extended as far as the Gallinas, who never heard of such a thing until they heard it upon this occasion; and I do not know how notoriety to people on the spot can be evidence against the defendant, who has never been on that spot, and never had any communication of any kind with any person on the spot.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. I hardly know how many objections are to be raised; to show the nature of the trade I must call these witnesses.

Mr. Kelly. I have no question to ask you.

Mr. John Brown called again. Examined by Mr. Payne.

Will you produce enclosure No. 18? (The same was produced).

(To Captain Hill). Will you look at that, and state whose handwriting you believe it to be?--I believe this handwriting to be Bernardos’s, but I did not see him write it; I have some writing I saw him write in my possession.

From the knowledge you have acquired, seeing him write, do you believe it to be his writing?--Yes.

Have you had that paper in your possession before?--This is one of the papers I found on board the vessel when I seized her.

Mr. James Brodie sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas.

I believe you come from the Post Office?--Yes.

You have been accustomed to see the post-mark on letters?--I have.

Have the goodness to look at that, and tell me whether that is the post-mark, and the date of it?--It is.

What is the date?--The 23rd of September, 1840, as far as I can judge.

Mr. Kelly. This is the letter about which we have already had a discussion?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. I am not aware of any discussion about it at present.

Mr. Kelly. Are you about to offer it in evidence?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Yes.

Mr. Kelly. Then I object to it; I do not understand the principle on which it is offered. This is a letter which Captain Hill proves to be in the writing of Bernardos, written to Captain Jennings, and dated September, 1840. That is sought to be given in evidence against the defendant. There is no proof that he ever saw or heard of the letter in the whole course of his life.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Your Lordship will find the letter No. 18.

Mr. Kelly. It is a letter, I understand, which is printed at page 35, in the Appendix to the Appeal Case, at the top of that page.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. It is a letter written by one of the parties to the other of the parties who were engaged in paying the money for this vessel, which was received from the prisoner at the bar. It is a letter from Bernardos, your Lordship will see, describing the voyage.

Mr. Kelly. You had better not speak of the contents of the letter; it is before their Lordships, and for the purpose of deciding the point of law, my Lord may look at the letter. I cannot help complaining of the course taken, which is not correct or usual. My learned friend takes the opportunity of stating, in the hearing of the Jury, something of the contents of that letter, which is before your Lordships, and of which your Lordships may possess yourselves while we are discussing whether the contents of it are to be stated in Court at all. If your Lordships hold it admissible, it will then be read; but, for the present, you may read it yourselves, and hear the argument upon it.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. I cannot argue, without referring to the contents in some degree. I am quite sure that I am in your Lordships’ judgment, that in referring to the contents of the letters, I have abstained from using one single expression which could have an effect until your Lordships decide. I have not made use of a word which can justify the slightest possible degree of observation of my learned friend’s in the fair argument on the admissibility of the letters; I have gone only as far as was necessary for the purpose. As far as I have referred to their contents, I am quite sure your Lordships will be of opinion I have governed myself by the most careful attention not to say any thing which was unnecessary. It is important to ascertain where the vessel was to go. This is the person who paid the notes received from Mr. Zulueta for this vessel. I ask your Lordship whether that is not evidence of his being an agent of Zulueta in respect of this vessel. He writes to him upon his arrival in this vessel; he is employed to pay for this vessel, to purchase it; there is a communication from the one to the other of these two persons, so employed to purchase this vessel, in respect of the vessel and the trade--I say no further than that--and also giving instructions. I ask your Lordship if it is not open to me to prove where the vessel was to go to, having shown the communications which took place between the parties in respect of her going. This contains the actual instructions. The same rule exists as to evidence in criminal proceedings as applies to evidence in civil cases. The question has been before the House of Lords as to instructions given by one party to the other, and the judgment was set aside on that very point of instructions.

Mr. Justice Maule. I do not know what case you refer to.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. There was one case as to Chambers’s bankruptcy, where the directions were considered a fact, and as such given in evidence in order to show that there were directions given. We know that it is necessary to have a certain quantity of water provided for the men going on that trade. This letter does not refer to supply of water, and therefore I use that simply as an illustration. Can it be said, that if a person employed to engage in a certain trade, employed by the person upon his trial to purchase a certain vessel, going to a certain place for a certain object, gives instructions in respect of what is necessary for the trade carried on at that place, that is not matter to be given in evidence on the trial? The object of that is to ascertain for what purpose she went there. I apprehend I have clearly connected these two persons and the prisoner. Supposing I could give this distinct evidence, that the prisoner knew of it, would not that be admissible? Do I not give evidence for the Jury to determine whether he was cognizant of these transactions? Is not that part of the case for the Jury to determine, whether by his conduct it is evident he did know what took place? I apprehend this is a part of the proceedings between two persons, both of whom have been employed by the prisoner; they proceed onwards with the knowledge of the prisoner in the prosecution of that voyage, which was ultimately accomplished, or would have been accomplished, if she had not been taken. This is one part of that proceeding, and it is for the Jury to say whether there was, on the part of the prisoner, a guilty knowledge of the proceeding or not. If there was not, there will be an acquittal of the prisoner. If there was that which amounts to a guilty knowledge of what took place, I apprehend it is impossible to exclude this which is evidence, and which may be important evidence, in showing that there was a guilty knowledge. This letter is found passing from one to the other; is proved to be posted while she was at Portsmouth in preparing for the voyage, and is found afterwards on board. But we prove the period of its transmission by the post-mark.

Mr. Justice Maule. I don’t think this is evidence. I am the more satisfied in excluding it, that I do not think it of the smallest importance; it does not prove any thing which is very material but what is already in proof.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. That, my Lord, is the case on the part of the Crown.

Mr. Kelly. My learned friend having stated that this is his case, I feel it my duty to take your Lordship’s opinion whether there is any evidence to go to the Jury in support of this charge; and I will, in doing so, call your Lordship’s attention to what the charge is on the indictment, and in respect of the Act of Parliament, to which my learned friend has hardly alluded. The indictment charges the defendant with having employed (there are several words used, but I take the more general words), with having employed a vessel to accomplish a certain object, that object being trading and dealing in slaves. That the defendant was a party to the purchase of a vessel there is no doubt. The great question here is, whether there is any evidence at all, notwithstanding the great length of time this case has occupied, whether there is any evidence at all that the defendant, Mr. Pedro de Zulueta, had any intention of employing that vessel, or those goods, for the purpose of the vessel or the goods being used in the dealing in slaves. Now, where is the evidence? I reject, as your Lordship will, all that was mere matter of observation on the part of my learned friend. The evidence against Mr. Pedro de Zulueta consists in this--that he wrote a letter on, I think, the 20th of August, by which he authorised Jennings to give a certain sum of money for the vessel; the vessel was afterwards purchased, and the defendant puts the name of his firm to the charter-party of that vessel--the charter-party, by which Jennings having become the purchaser of the vessel, charters the vessel to the foreign house of Martinez & Co., for which the house of Zulueta & Co. were agents--Martinez & Co. thus become the charterers of the vessel, Jennings, on certain terms contained in that instrument, being the captain of the vessel.

It is said, also, that the defendant dispatched the vessel; that he shipped goods on board the vessel. My Lord, with regard to the whole of the rest of the case, as to his using, employing, equipping, or dispatching; as to his shipping the goods by the vessel; as to his interfering in any way in respect of the vessel or the cargo, that depends entirely upon his own evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons. That is evidence against him; that evidence I need not go into at length; that evidence, taken together and stated shortly, is this:--I am a member of the firm of Zulueta & Co.; that firm, including myself, did purchase this vessel, did cause it to be dispatched in the way stated, did cause certain goods to be shipped on board the vessel. We acted as agents for Martinez & Co., the goods being consigned to correspondents of Martinez and Co., named by Martinez & Co.; but as to the purpose for which that was done, as to the vessel itself, or any goods on board that vessel, being used for the purposes of the slave trade, I declare, though I admit that my house did dispatch the vessel, and did ship the goods, we had no idea or any suspicion that the vessel or goods could be intended for any illegal purpose whatever. That is the whole of the evidence, with this addition, that three gentlemen have been called, whose public duties have for some years past led them to the coast of Africa, and among other places to the Gallinas, who have stated that which has come within their personal observation--the place itself, and the dealings carried on at the place, having been familiar to them for a considerable time past. They state that they knew very well that it was a slave trading place. There is no evidence that the defendant, the prisoner at the bar, ever was at the Gallinas in his life; on the contrary, the evidence is the other way. There is no evidence that the defendant ever gave any instructions or authority, directly or indirectly, to Jennings, or to any other person, to use the vessel or to use the goods for the purposes of the slave trade, or for any other illegal purpose. There is no evidence that any communication was ever made by the house of Martinez & Co., or any other house, to the defendant, Pedro de Zulueta, that the vessel or goods were to be employed in the slave trade, or that any such illegal object was in contemplation.

Now, my Lord, what is the effect of the statute? The statute declares that slave trading, of a particular description, shall be illegal. The statute proclaims it a felony in any British subject to employ or equip a vessel, or to ship goods, for the purposes of the slave trade. That it may be taken on the admission of the prisoner himself, by his evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons, though there is no other evidence, that he did employ the vessel, and that he was concerned in the shipping of goods, I admit; but where is the evidence that he did those acts, or that he participated in those acts, for the purpose of those goods, or that ship, being employed in the slave trade? If this be so, if your Lordships hold that it is evidence to go to the Jury, that because a mercantile house in this city executes the order of a foreign correspondent, and sends out a ship with certain goods, which may be lawfully shipped, but which it is possible may be improperly employed, that therefore it is to be taken that they were to be unlawfully employed, and that therefore there is evidence to go to the Jury that he dispatched the vessel, and shipped the goods, in order that they might be unlawfully employed, I do not see how any mercantile house in this kingdom can trade in ships or goods, or execute any order, at the instance of any house in any part of the world, where either from that house personally dealing in the slave trade, or having communication with parts of the coast of Africa, it is possible that the ship, or the goods, may be applied to the unlawful purposes of the slave trade. If, without any proof of the party having used the ship, or the goods, for the purposes of the slave trade, without any document under his hand alluding to the slave trade, where all that is done is perfectly lawful, because it is possible that other persons, to whom he may have consigned his goods, may apply the ship, or the commodities, to the uses and purposes of the slave trade, that is to be held to be a case for the Jury that they were so intended, I do not know how any trade can be carried on. I submit, therefore, that here there is no evidence to go to the Jury of Mr. Pedro de Zulueta, the prisoner at the bar, having used this ship, or having shipped these goods, for the purpose of their being employed for the slave trade. I can easily conceive that a case might have been made out. The prosecutors seem to have been aware that communications had taken place between Messrs. Martinez & Co. and the house of Zulueta & Co., and they have called for the production of letters. I can easily imagine that a case might have been made out, inasmuch as Mr. Zulueta has stated that he purchased this ship by order of Martinez. But the prosecutor is bound to make out that case: he is not to raise a suspicion, and then to call upon the prisoner to clear himself from it: he must prove his case. He might call for any letters that had taken place between Martinez and the prisoner at the bar; for any communications between the prisoner at the bar and the captain of the vessel. If they had been produced, he might have established from them that something had been proved that established this offence. Then there might have been a case to go to the Jury; but the case here is one in which the prosecutor alleges, that Pedro de Zulueta himself employed the vessel, and shipped these goods, for the purpose of their being employed in the slave trade. The question is, the slave trade being prohibited by law, whether he is concerned in the intent and design of their being so to be used; whether there is any evidence that he knew of the slave, trade being carried on there; whether there is any evidence that he knew that these goods would be employed, or might be employed, for the purposes of the slave trade. I submit there is no case calling upon him, I will not say for an answer, but even for observation; I submit that it would be extremely unsafe where the prosecutor has the means of proving if there has been a guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant, if it is the fact that the intent of the proceeding is something illegal, and where the prosecutor might prove it by direct evidence, that he should content himself with proving that a ship was dispatched which might be used for the purposes of this trade, leaving it to the defendant to prove the negative of that, and to give in evidence all the documents which may have taken place, merely proving that it is possible that the ship the defendant dispatched might be so employed. I submit to your Lordships that is a dangerous doctrine, that it is contrary to the practice of the Court, and that there is no case in which the charge would not apply equally to every merchant in the kingdom who exported goods which might, after they left this country, be applied to an illegal purpose.

(The learned Judges consulted together.)

Mr. Justice Maule. Mr. Kelly, you may go to the Jury.

Mr. Kelly. My Lord, after what has fallen from your Lordships, of course I shall not hesitate to address the Jury upon the evidence which has been offered by my learned friend. There are one or two points, however, to which I would call your Lordship’s attention, and bring the terms of the statute under the attention of the Court; which, I apprehend, will be fatal to the prosecution, without troubling the Jury with observations which may extend to a considerable length of time, and which I shall feel it my duty to bring before the Court.

Mr. Justice Maule. Do you mean something in arrest of judgment?

Mr. Kelly. No, my Lord; on the effect of the evidence.

Mr. Justice Maule. I cannot think it is at all right that the question whether the case should go to the Jury should be twice put.

Mr. Kelly. No, my Lord. I say, supposing even that the charge is well made, that it is not an offence within the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Justice Maule. It comes to the same thing; I cannot see what you mean to say to the Court, except that the indictment is bad. That you state you do not propose to say?

Mr. Kelly. It is not that which I first contended.

Mr. Justice Maule. You did not propose to say that, and you now propose to say that the indictment is bad?

Mr. Kelly. My Lord, there is one point on which I do contend that the indictment is bad, though that is not the point to which I would call your Lordship’s attention. I was first about to submit to your Lordship, that the offence charged upon the evidence is not a felony within the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Justice Maule. That it does not support the indictment?

Mr. Kelly. Yes.

Mr. Justice Maule. It appears to me that that is exactly what you have been saying before.

Mr. Kelly. No, my Lord, the point is altogether and totally different.

Mr. Justice Maule. It may be a different reason, but it is the same point.

Mr. Kelly. I am sure your Lordship will see that it is different, when I come to explain.

Mr. Justice Maule. It is going for a nonsuit?

Mr. Kelly. Yes, it is in effect, my Lord; but if the Court will indulge me with a few moments of time, they will see that the Court is under a mistake, and that the point is most grave and proper for the consideration of the Court, and totally apart and distinct from that I have already submitted.

Mr. Justice Maule. All I want is that you should explain. Sometimes, when gentlemen are moving for a new trial, they are asked whether they move for a new trial on the point of misdirection, or the verdict being against evidence; I do not say it is imperative they should state distinctly, sometimes a gentleman might not feel prepared to state that?

Mr. Kelly. I will answer your Lordship’s question in as few words as I can. The point I make is this:--The charge is, that of fitting out a vessel to accomplish the object of trading in slaves, or slave trading at Gallinas, which I submit was not an illegal object: that supposing for a moment the facts were to convince the Jury that the defendant had fitted out this vessel, in order that Pedro Martinez & Co., or any other persons, might trade in slaves at Gallinas, that is not a felony within this Act of Parliament.

Mr. Justice Maule. Do you mean to say, that proof would not support the indictment; or, that supporting the indictment, it would not amount to felony? One of those things it must be.

Mr. Kelly. I say both: it would not support the indictment, and it would not amount to felony.

Mr. Justice Maule. Inasmuch as you say it would not support the indictment, that is going on the very ground you have gone on before, only giving another reason. If you do not see that--if you tell me you do not think it--I will hear you.

Mr. Kelly. I beg to state with the most perfect sincerity, I do not feel that.

Mr. Justice Maule. You mean to insist that the indictment is not supported, having previously insisted that the indictment was not supported?

Mr. Kelly. Yes; but on a totally different ground.

Mr. Justice Maule. I do not say you are not entitled, not on the same ground to say that the indictment is not supported, but you are not entitled to say that the indictment is not supported twice over; that you cannot put forward one set of reasons, and when they are overruled, put forward another set of reasons; for if you could, in case they were overruled, you might then put a third.

Mr. Kelly. If I had had the slightest idea that it would be deemed inconvenient that I should submit one point for your Lordship’s consideration, and ask for a decision on one before I proceeded to the other, I should have submitted both; I have only to ask your Lordship’s pardon for the course I have taken.

Mr. Justice Maule. I am quite sure that you must see that where there are several grounds for making that motion, it is desirable that they should be all stated in the outset, for otherwise they might split into separate motions. The universal course is, that all the grounds should be stated, and the unity of the object preserved; and the Court yields with apparent reluctance to a different course. The object you now have is to induce the Court to rule that there is no evidence to go to the Jury. That, you have before submitted; you say you have a different reason, but that different reason does not raise a ground for the Court hearing the application repeated. I only regret you did not take the course which the Court thinks the best. If you insist upon it, I shall feel bound for the convenience of the Court, not to allow an old and very able counsel to do that which would not be fair in ordinary cases; but if you say you have made some slip or omission I will hear you.

Mr. Kelly. That is really so. If your Lordship will pardon me one moment, I will take what course your Lordship thinks most convenient for practice.

Mr. Justice Maule. You omitted something?

Mr. Kelly. Yes, my Lord; I will state what is quite unconnected with the objection I have taken. This indictment charges the prisoner with having equipped a vessel, and shipped goods, in order to accomplish an object, that object being the exercising of the slave trade, and it is framed upon the Act of Parliament of the 5th of George IV, chapter 113. Now, my Lord, by the 2nd section of that Act of Parliament, slave trading by certain persons, and under certain circumstances, is declared to be unlawful. By the 10th section of the Act, it is enacted that if any person shall among others, equip a vessel, or ship goods, in order to accomplish any of the objects theretofore declared to be unlawful, he shall be guilty of a felony. That is the felony charged in this indictment, namely, that the prisoner at the bar equipped a vessel, and shipped goods, in order to accomplish one of the objects declared to be unlawful, namely, that of trading in slaves. Now, the point is this: the charge, supposing it substantiated by evidence, is this--that the prisoner at the bar equipped this vessel, and shipped these goods, in order that they might be used in the slave trade, in order to accomplish the object of trading in slaves at Gallinas, in Africa. The Gallinas is not a British settlement, and is not a British colony, and therefore that species of trading is not declared unlawful by that Act of Parliament; the trading declared by that Act of Parliament to be unlawful must be a trading by British subjects. The trading, in order to be unlawful within the meaning of this Act of Parliament, must be a trading by British subjects; and moreover, at the time when this offence is supposed to have been committed, it must have been a trading at some colony either in Great Britain, or some colony or settlement belonging to Great Britain. That will appear from another Act of Parliament, passed to remedy the defect under the former Act of Parliament; your Lordships will see, that by the 2nd section of the Act of Parliament, the terms are general.

Mr. Justice Wightman. What Act are you upon Mr. Kelly?

Mr. Kelly. I am now on the 5th of George IV. By clause 2, it is provided, “that it shall not be lawful (except in such special cases as are hereinafter mentioned) for any persons to deal or trade in, purchase, sell, or barter, or transfer, or to contract for the dealing or trading in, purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of slaves, or persons intended to be dealt with as slaves,” and to do a variety of other acts which are by that section declared to be unlawful. Now, my Lord, though the words are general, “that it shall not be lawful for any persons to deal or trade in slaves,” the legal effect of them is, that it shall not be lawful for British subjects to deal in slaves; and your Lordship will see by the subsequent Act of Parliament it also means, that it shall not be lawful for British subjects to deal in slaves, either in Great Britain, or in the settlements or colonies of Great Britain, and that that Act of Parliament did not extend to the trading in slaves in foreign states.

Let us take the two points of the proposition. First of all, this manner of trading in slaves by foreigners becomes material in this view: I presume, from the opening and the evidence, it was intended that this ship and these goods should be taken to Gallinas, and there used by the consignees of the vessel and the goods, either by bartering the goods for the purchase of slaves, or selling the goods and with the produce buying slaves. It is not material to consider now how far that is within the Act of Parliament, but the object, which I presume is the unlawful object with which the prisoner at the bar is charged with having dispatched this ship, is the object that the consignees or some other persons at Gallinas should trade in slaves by means of the ship or the goods. I submit that is not a trading in slaves within the 2nd section of the Act of Parliament, that though the words are general, it does not apply to aliens as the consignees of goods, which Martinez were, but to British consignees of goods, which in the Act of Parliament makes the act criminal. If the act be committed abroad, it is not an offence within the Act. A trading in slaves abroad by Rolo, by Martinez, or any persons whose names we have heard mentioned, would not be criminal within the Act of Parliament. The object of the charge is the trading at Gallinas. Now, the trading in slaves any where abroad by an alien is not an offence within this statute.

In order to illustrate this, let me suppose that the vessel had reached the Gallinas, that the consignees of the vessel had employed it for the transport of slaves, and had taken the goods and bartered them for a quantity of slaves, that would not have been illegal within this Act of Parliament. It would undoubtedly have been illegal for any British subject to have done so within any British colony, for this Act is binding on all British subjects throughout the British dominions, but it would not have been illegal for Martinez or any foreigner to deal in slaves in that place; and therefore, supposing it were proved that the prisoner at the bar had dispatched this vessel, that Martinez or Rolo might deal in slaves in foreign parts, that is not one of the objects to which this statute applies, for it applies only to British subjects, and not to foreigners.

My Lords, I need not cite authorities, they are numerous. There is one which is precisely to the point, The King v. Depardo; that is perfectly conclusive upon that subject: that is in 1st Taunton, in which a Chinese sailor who had enlisted, or rather had become a seaman on board one of His Majesty’s ships, committed manslaughter in the Chinese seas, and the question was, whether he was amenable. The great point argued by the late Lord Tenterden and Mr. Burrough was, whether that offence, committed by an alien, was within the Act of Parliament. The prisoner having been convicted, he was afterwards pardoned, on the ground that an Act of Parliament, declaring any particular act to be a felony, such act, if committed abroad by an alien, was not within the Act of Parliament, an alien not being within a British Act of Parliament: so I apprehend no position to be clearer than that a trading in slaves at Gallinas by Rolo, or Martinez, or any person to whom it can be imputed to the prisoner that he intended this ship and goods to be consigned, the trading in slaves by any alien there, would not have been unlawful within this Act of Parliament. If it would, the consequence would have been that a foreigner, Rolo or Martinez for instance, who might be lawfully, according to the laws of their own country or the laws of that place, trading in slaves, might, by engaging in that trade in slaves in the course of this very transaction at the Gallinas, have afterwards been prosecuted here, and convicted here; whereas nothing can be clearer than that these laws against the slave trade can only make the act an offence when it is done by British subjects, who alone are the objects of a British Act of Parliament: therefore I submit that the object being established, supposing the case sought to be established to be so established that Mr. Zulueta dispatched this vessel to enable Martinez to deal in slaves, that is not an object declared unlawful by this statute, for that would have been a trading by aliens who are not within this statute, and the shipping of goods to accomplish that is not within it.

But, my Lord, I go further; I have the case of Depardo, in Russell on Crime, it is not at so much length as in the report in Taunton. The marginal note is, “A manslaughter committed in China by an alien enemy, who had been a prisoner at war, and was then acting as a mariner on board an English merchant ship, on an Englishman, cannot be tried here under a commission issued in pursuance of the statutes 33 Hen. VIII, cap. 23, and 43 Geo. III, cap. 113, sec. 6. 1 Taunton 26.” The principle is perfectly clear, that a person afterwards coming to the country, is not to be treated as if he had previously been a subject of the country; so I say here, that the trading in slaves at Gallinas, or any where abroad by a Russian or a Pole, or any other alien, would not have been within this Act of Parliament at all; it would not therefore be an illegal object within this statute, and the dispatch of goods or a ship to accomplish that object would be no felony.

But, my Lord, the case is rendered perfectly clear by the highest authority, namely, the authority of the Legislature itself, by means of another Act of Parliament, the 6th and 7th of Vict. cap. 98. This Act of Parliament shows that the case is stronger than I have put; and it shows that until the passing of this last Act of Parliament, which took place in the present year, 1843, it was not illegal, within the statute of the 5th of Geo. IV, even for British subjects to trade in slaves, except within the British dominions. The object of this Act of Parliament is to extend the provisions of the 5th of Geo. IV, so as to make it, from some day mentioned in the Act, criminal in British subjects to trade in slaves in any part of the world, in foreign states as well as in the British dominions.

Your Lordship will find this Act recites the 5th of Geo. IV, and recites the second section, to which I have called your Lordship’s attention; “whereby it is enacted (among other things) that it shall not be lawful (except in such special cases as are hereinafter mentioned) for any persons to deal or trade in, purchase, sell, barter, or transfer, or to contract for the dealing or trading in, purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of slaves, or persons intended to be dealt with as slaves,” and so on. Then it recites all the different acts which are declared unlawful by the 5th of Geo. IV, and then it proceeds: “And whereas it is expedient, that from and after the commencement of this Act, the provisions of the said Act hereinbefore recited shall be deemed to apply to, and extend to render unlawful, and to prohibit the several acts, matters, and things therein mentioned, when committed by British subjects in foreign countries and settlements not belonging to the British Crown, in like manner and to all intents and purposes as if the same were done or committed by such persons within the British dominions, colonies, or settlements, and it is expedient that further provisions should be made for the more effectual suppression of the slave trade, and of certain practices tending to promote and encourage it; Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that all the provisions of the said consolidated Slave Trade Act, hereinbefore recited, and of this present Act, shall, from and after the coming into operation of this Act, be deemed to extend and apply to British subjects wheresoever residing or being, and whether within the dominions of the British Crown, or of any foreign country,” and so forth: so that your Lordship sees this Act of Parliament clearly shows this, that before the passing of this Act, though it was declared to be unlawful to trade in slaves, the Act meant that it should be unlawful only for British subjects to trade in slaves any where within British settlements or colonies, and that it required the aid of another Act of Parliament to make it unlawful (not for aliens--for as to them it still is not unlawful--but to make it unlawful) even for British subjects to trade in slaves, or do the other acts referred to in this statute. The state of the law was, that aliens might trade in slaves in foreign parts without contravening that Act of Parliament, and that British subjects might trade in slaves in foreign parts without contravening that Act of Parliament. By the Act of the 6th & 7th of Vict. the provisions of the Act of Geo. IV are extended to the case of British subjects: it leaves the case of aliens as it was before, and it makes it unlawful for British subjects to deal in slaves, in the Gallinas for instance--so that your Lordship sees the objection presents itself in this way--this is an indictment for a felony, the felony being the dispatching a ship for the accomplishment of an illegal object, that being the slave trading at the Gallinas; but at the time when this Act passed, it was not illegal for foreigners to trade in slaves at Gallinas. If it is not illegal now, it was not then illegal for British subjects to trade in slaves in foreign countries. The present Act of Parliament renders it illegal for British subjects to trade in slaves in the Gallinas, or any other foreign country; but it was to come into operation only on the passing of the Act in 1843. My learned friend reminds me that it does not come into operation until the 1st of November: but that is quite immaterial; it has no retrospective operation; it was not in operation in 1840 or 1841, when it is stated that this felony was committed by the prisoner.

Before I sit down, I would also take your Lordship’s opinion whether there is any offence proved within the city of London. Your Lordship observes this is not a trial under a section contained under one of the Acts of Parliament, providing that any offence against the statute may be laid in Middlesex. The indictment is not at all framed on that section of the Act of Parliament; it is framed on the common law, except so far as it is governed by the Central Criminal Court, and the venue is laid in London. It must be proved, therefore, that a felony was committed in London. The felony, said to have been committed, is the equipping, dispatching, using, and employing the ship, as charged in one set of counts; and the shipping the goods, as charged in another set of counts. Now, the dispatching the ship was at Portsmouth, and afterwards at Liverpool. It was dispatched at Portsmouth, went to Liverpool, was there loaded and then dispatched, and there all the goods were shipped. So that your Lordship sees the equipping, the using, the dispatching the vessel, any thing that could be done with the illegal object of dealing in slaves, must have been done at Liverpool. Neither the vessel, nor the goods, as far as appears, were ever in London. I submit to your Lordship, on that ground, there is no offence committed in London. Another objection which arises on the indictment I do not trouble your Lordship with, for it will apply in future, if necessary.

Mr. Justice Maule. Are there any others?

Mr. Kelly. No, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Maule. I think there is no ground for the second point on the Act of Parliament of 6 & 7 Vict., cap. 98, as affording a construction to the Act of 5th Geo. IV, cap. 113. The suggestion is, that this Act amounts to a Parliamentary declaration, that the Act of the 5th of Geo. IV, cap. 113, does not prohibit Englishmen engaging in slave trading abroad. I should be very sorry to put a construction upon that Act, which would involve so great an absurdity to it, as would be created by its being supposed to be laid down that that which was declared to be illegal in Great Britain, and Ireland, and the Isle of Man, and also in the East Indies, and West India Islands, is not at all prohibited on the coast of Africa, which is the construction sought to be put upon this Act of Parliament. I cannot help thinking the Legislature have expressed the intention of prohibiting English subjects trading in slaves on the coast of Africa; and if that be so, the construction which Mr. Kelly insists ought to be derived from the statute of Victoria is not the true construction, or one which ought to prevail. With respect to the other objection, we think there is evidence to go to the Jury of Mr. Zulueta’s acts in London.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. May I call your Lordship’s attention to the 50th section: “And be it further enacted, That all offences committed against this Act may be inquired of, tried, determined, and dealt with, as if the same had been respectively committed within the body of the county of Middlesex.” If it is within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, the venue is perfectly immaterial, if it is within the venue of the Court.

Mr. Justice Maule. I apprehend, that if a prisoner is indicted for a felony in Essex, within the limits of this Court, he will be tried here.

Mr. Bodkin. In a case in this Court where the venue stated merely the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, the Court of Queen’s Bench held that indictment bad, because it was impossible to say from what county the Jury were to be called.

Mr. Justice Wightman. There the indictment had been tried in Middlesex, being removed from the Central Criminal Court. It was removed by certiorari and tried in Middlesex, and it was said there was no direction on the record to try it in Middlesex.

Mr. Justice Maule. But Mr. Bodkin says, if it is a London case, there ought to be a London Jury; if in Essex, an Essex Jury.

Mr. Bodkin. The Court of Queen’s Bench held the locality to be material.

Mr. Justice Wightman. Not generally. I have stated how it became material there, and why it is not material here. The case was removed by certiorari, and therefore it became material.

Mr. Kelly. As this is the first trial under this Act of Parliament, your Lordship will probably consider it proper to reserve the point whether this trading is within the Act.

Mr. Justice Maule. The point has been very fully and ably argued, and I think the Court has given it sufficient consideration. We have no doubt about it; we do not consider it a point on which there is any doubt.

Mr. Kelly. Perhaps the Jury will retire for a few moments before I begin my address.

Mr. Justice Maule. For a few moments, not to exceed a quarter of an hour.

[The Jury retired, and after a short time returned into Court.

* * * * *

Mr. Kelly. May it please your Lordships.

Gentlemen of the Jury,--Their Lordships having determined that this case is fit to be submitted to your consideration, I now proceed to discharge the very anxious, the painfully anxious, duty imposed upon me in consequence, of addressing you on behalf of the prisoner.

Gentlemen, I should ill discharge that duty if I hesitated one moment to denounce this prosecution as one of the most unconscientious prosecutions that ever any individual has dared to bring forward in an English court of justice.

Gentlemen, pardon me if I should express myself in any part of this case with any undue warmth; attribute it to the anxiety I must naturally feel, when I know that all the interests in life, the happiness here--I had almost said hereafter--of the young man at the bar, whose defence is committed to my charge, depend upon your verdict upon this transaction, upon which I, and I only on his behalf, have to address you.

He is a young man, now I believe only seven or eight-and-twenty; he is a foreigner, born in Spain of a Spanish family; he and his ancestors are of that country and not of this, and he has become a member of the mercantile house of which his father is the head. He has, during the latter years of his life, been resident in England, and has from time to time bestowed some attention upon the business of the counting-house and the commercial concerns in which the firm were engaged, and he has participated but as a member of the firm in the ordinary course of business in this transaction, which is, indeed, a very small transaction among many very great and important ones passing through that house; and now, to his consternation, and to his unspeakable astonishment--he, a young man of spotless character--he, who one of the witnesses for the prosecution has already described to you upon his oath as a good son, a good brother, a good father, a good husband, and as an honourable member of society--he finds himself charged here with a felony, and that upon evidence such as I shall have in detail to call your attention to. He is charged with a felony upon which, if from want of ability or from want of caution in his advocate he was to be convicted, he must be transported for fourteen years as a felon, and forfeit his property, and forfeit his character, and be ruined for life.

Gentlemen, this is the case before you, and I do ask in the outset, is this a prosecution which ought to be brought forward? Mr. Serjeant Bompas, whose duty it was to state the case to you, having opened that case--how, I shall have to remind you when I call your attention to something which in the opening fell from my learned friend--having opened his case fully and in detail in a speech of some two or three hours, after he has sat down thinks it necessary to rise again and tell you that Sir George Stephen is the prosecutor in this case.

Gentlemen, you have already heard from one of their Lordships, and you know it is a matter of history, that the British government has long exercised its energies and its mighty powers in putting down and preventing the odious slave trade: you know that the powers of the government have been wielded for many, many years past with that view, by those who are sincerely, from the bottom of their hearts, determined by every lawful means to put down that trade; you know that the whole conduct of this honourable and innocent young man has been under the consideration of the former government and the present government. The late Colonial Secretary, Lord John Russell, whose duty it would have been to have protected his own character, and that of Great Britain, by this prosecution, if any offence had been committed, was a member of the Committee, and inquired minutely and distinctly into the transaction; Lord Stanley, also, the present Colonial Secretary, was a member of the Committee. Both governments were regularly and fully acquainted with all the transactions in question, and those governments, whose duty, as my learned friend has told you, it was to do every thing they might to put down the slave trade, so far from feeling it a case for prosecution, the Committee themselves, and the present and the former governments, have fully acquitted this young man, and the house to which he belonged, of any guilty participation in this transaction, as I trust you will to-day acquit him by your verdict. The government of 1840 and the government of 1842, the past and the present government, fully acquainted with all the circumstances, have thought it proper, so far from dreaming that any guilt could be imputed to this young man, to agree to a Report of a totally different character. And a society, called “The Anti-Slavery Society,” existing in this very town, failing to take up the prosecution, you have this very singular fact, that Sir George Stephen, though he put his name upon the back of the indictment, dare not put himself in the box for me to cross-examine. You have Sir George Stephen failing to sign his name to the notices, and you have at last the tardy and reluctant acknowledgment of his counsel that he is the prosecutor. I ask you, gentlemen, to recollect this: Lord John Russell and Lord Stanley were both of them members of the Committee; both were present when this matter was inquired into; before whom Captain Hill was examined, before whom Captain Denman was examined, and before whom another gentleman, Colonel Nichol, was likewise examined. That Committee put forth the large volume which I hold in my hand, and before them this young man voluntarily came, and was examined as to every part of this transaction; aye, and as to the conduct, and character, and dealings of his house, from the time it was first established. And do you believe, if this had been a proper subject for prosecution, that the members, the leading members of a government, the government of a kingdom which has spent twenty millions of the public money to put an end to the slave trade--do you think, if they had felt that this was a proper subject for prosecution, that it would have been left to Sir George Stephen to come forward with his own money, and with his own means--for what purposes I cannot conceive, they must be left to his own feelings, and I do not envy him his feelings--to be the prosecutor of an indictment, which, if it succeeds, must for ever crush and ruin a young man, with respect to whom I shall demonstrate there exists but at most that species of suspicion, which ought never to be cherished against one whose character is, as I shall prove this young man’s character at the bar to be, above all sort of suspicion--that suspicion, which, if it does exist, may be a fit reason for inquiry, but ought no more to be the ground for a prosecution for felony than it ought to be the ground for a conviction without any inquiry at all.

Gentlemen, what is the charge brought forward? Pedro de Zulueta, the young gentleman for whom I appear before you, is, I believe, the eldest son of his father: his father, now advanced in years, is the head of the house. He is a gentleman, who has filled the very highest offices in his own country, and who has been, I believe, at one time, the President of the Cortes in Spain, an office analogous to that of Speaker of the House of Commons in this country, and was member for the city of Cadiz as long as his commercial concerns required him to remain and discharge the duties of that situation. He is a gentleman, who has now reached a very advanced age without a shadow of imputation upon his character; who has been engaged during the whole of his life in commercial transactions of the largest and most important nature and extent, and who not only himself, but his father and grandfather before him, who for seventy years carried on an extensive trade in Spain, and at a time when not only Spain, but I grieve to say our own country, Britain, was engaged through her colonies in extensive slave trading, abstained from ever dealing or turning to their own account the value of a copper farthing in that trade; who, so far from that, when from some bankrupt estate some slaves became the property of the father, he immediately gave them their freedom--a number of slaves passed to him as a part of a bankrupt estate, as they might do at that time, he immediately manumitted them, and gave them their freedom--he it is, who having mainly conducted this transaction, he finds it in vain to look back to a long life, spent in honour, honesty, and integrity, a life spent in deeds of charity and kindness--he finds it in vain to look to the character of his house never before assailed by the breath of suspicion--he finds his own son indicted in this country--a country, under the protection of the laws of which he is living, and to which he has brought his commerce, and in which he and those belonging to him are spending the large fortunes they have gained in their trade; he finds, under the laws of this country, his son is indicted as a felon, for having signed his name to one or two documents--and I will prove to you that is all he has done in the course of a transaction which passed through their house as commission agents for the house of Martinez & Co., at the Havannah--and I will convince you, when I refer to the evidence before you, evidence which has been, I must say, most unfairly adduced, which has been perverted and brought before you in a way which I cannot commend, I will show you upon the evidence that that is all that can be charged upon this young man--that in the course of a transaction which passed through the house in which he is now a principal, but only since he has been of age has he been a member at all to entitle him to sign documents--he signed a letter, perfectly innocent in itself, and a charter-party, a regular mercantile transaction, the profit of which to the house was of the most trumpery amount--he did those two acts, in the absence of his father, the house here conducting the business for their agents--and for that he is brought to the bar of the Central Criminal Court, and you are asked to pass against him a verdict of guilty, fixing upon him the crime of felony, and all the dreadful consequences of that guilt, which by this indictment he is liable to.

Gentlemen, I must say, that a proceeding of this kind does no honour to those great and zealous efforts made for the total extinction of the slave trade by Britain and British means. If those, who sincerely desire to see that trade effaced, as we all trust in God it soon will be, from the surface of the earth; if they desire to see their efforts succeed, and if they desire to aid the great exertions of Britain for the destruction of the slave trade, let them not treat as felons those merchants in Great Britain or elsewhere, who may, without having any reason to suspect they are illegal, carry on trading concerns with the coast of Africa; let them try, by their cruizers, to stop the slave vessels and liberate the slaves on board; let them exert themselves to put an end to the slave trade wherever their arms or their efforts can be carried; but let them remember, it is not by force of arms it will be abolished--it is by civilisation, and the arts and commerce, the basis of civilisation, it alone can be put an end to. If you would lead to the total destruction of that trade, let it be indeed by vigilance, let it be by all the great efforts made by our ships abroad and our councils at home; but, above all things, seek to introduce commerce--for where there is commerce, there must in time be civilisation, intelligence, and moral improvement, and education, and progress in the arts, which are calculated to raise the character of any country--wherever there is commerce, there must be commercial people, there must be educated people, there must be persons to carry on the government, there must be courts of justice established, and persons to administer the law--that commerce will increase, and will lead to civilisation, and we can introduce all that is good in this world, and promote all the best objects in life--and then the slave trade will cease, not by force, but by civilisation. And I will show you, when I go through the evidence, if you will fairly consider it altogether in the way in which it ought to be brought before you, and in which it ought to be presented to your minds, I undertake to satisfy you that these gentlemen are not capable, and that there is no ground for imputing it to them, of lending their assistance to that odious traffic; and I say, that no Englishman, nor English house, has done more to prevent and destroy it than the house of Zulueta & Co., both in Spain and in this country.

Now, Gentlemen, let us see what the charge is. The charge is this:--That the prisoner at the bar employed and dispatched a vessel, and shipped certain goods, in order that the goods and vessel might be employed in the slave trade. Gentlemen, I wish that my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Bompas, had been more explicit in his opening address. I think it would have been but fair if he had stated distinctly what he alleged to be the object of the party prosecuted. To say he has the general object of engaging in the slave trade is speaking most vaguely. Does he mean that the prisoner has dispatched this vessel, intending that slaves should be taken on board the vessel? Does he mean, that Pedro de Zulueta engaged in shipping the goods, in order that the goods might be bartered against slaves? or, does he mean, that he shipped the goods, in order that the goods might be sold for money, and with that money that slaves might be bought? Gentlemen, whatever might be the object, I think I shall satisfy you that Mr. Zulueta was perfectly innocent; that he had no such object, that he had no such intention, that he had no such idea: but it is hard for him, that in a matter so much affecting his happiness I should have to grope my way in the dark to find out what the charge is, and that while I am exhausting my strength and your patience in finding out the charge, it may turn out that something more was in the mind of the prosecutor, or in the mind of the person who framed the indictment, merely because Mr. Serjeant Bompas, acting under the instructions of Sir George Stephen, has not properly defined what he imputed to Mr. Zulueta. It is very easy to say to a British merchant, who purchases and ships for another house a quantity of goods, and sends them on board a vessel consigned to the coast of Africa, it is easy to say to him, upon some part of the coast of Africa the slave trade is carried on, and you, in some way or other, intended to promote it; it is easy to say that may be, but it seems to me, it ought to have been fully and distinctly alleged what was the object they meant to impute to him--whether it was to do that which my learned friend has thought fit to accuse him of.

But, let us see what the charge is. I must assume it to be this--that, in some way or other, Mr. Zulueta knew, that when he, as a member of the firm, took some part in dispatching the vessel, or in shipping the goods, that the vessel, or the goods, or both, were to be employed in the slave trade--by whom employed, whether by Messrs. Martinez & Co., at Cadiz, or the consignees, Rolo & Co., or Captain Jennings himself, my learned friend has found it to be convenient to withhold even from you--therefore, what the precise charge is I am seeking to find out, but I am utterly unable to ascertain. It may be, that they contend that the object was that Martinez & Co., who are supposed to have some agents at the Gallinas, intended to convert the goods directly into slaves, or into money to buy slaves; it may be, that the consignees of the goods are the parties to do that; it may be, as he says, that Captain Jennings was a slave trader on his own account, and that he was to do it: which of the three it is I do not know; but whichever it is--though it would make considerable difference in the legal form, because sending goods to be converted into money is no offence, though that money may be converted into slaves, although sending goods may be an offence--but I am not entering into that, for though there is a distinction in law, I make none in fact--I entirely, on behalf of the prisoner, disclaim the slightest notion or idea of giving the slightest countenance or aid, directly or indirectly, to the slave trade, in any shape or form that any man can suggest; and I say it would be a most uncharitable wresting and perverting of facts, which may be capable of two constructions from their ordinary and fair effect, to say that they throw a shade of suspicion upon any part of the conduct of the prisoner.

Gentlemen, I pray you to consider the real nature of the transaction, as it is to be collected from that to which my learned friend has been obliged to refer--and he could not make out his case without it--from that statement made by Mr. Zulueta himself voluntarily before the Committee. It is this, that this young man, born in Spain, but having from the high station of his father had a most excellent education, being of amiable character and intelligent, thought he might be of use to the house in England--there is a house in Cadiz, but the house we have to deal with is that in England--he comes here, becomes a member of the firm, and remains here; he speaks English a great deal better than his father, and in the transactions requiring more of speaking English he took a more prominent part: but the correspondence and the evidence in the case shows, that the orders given in the commercial transactions are entirely in the handwriting of the father almost; and it is a mere accident that the name of the son is put to documents not prepared by him, as I will show you he puts his signature to them in the ordinary course of business in the house. The house of Zulueta & Co. has transactions with most parts of the world, but is most largely engaged with Spain, and the Havannah, and several other places. With regard to Africa, the house has nothing to do with it--and I pray your attention to this point, I implore your attention to it, or you may misunderstand the evidence given by Captain Hill and Captain Denman--they had no more--Zulueta & Co., had no more to do with the trade to the coast of Africa than I have, or any of you I was going to say, I hope, you have, but if none of you, had. But it so happened, that trading to the amount of three or four hundred thousand pounds in the course of three or four years, or more largely still, with this house of Martinez & Co., that Martinez & Co., whose business was carried on at the Havannah and Cadiz, also had some dealings with various parts of the coast of Africa, amongst others at the Gallinas; and out of transactions to the amount of 200,000_l._ or 400,000_l._, there are transactions to the amount of 18,000_l._ or 20,000_l._ in ten years or more--call it twenty years--I believe it is ten years--to the amount of about 18,000_l._ or 20,000_l._, which consisted in this--not a trade to Africa, but this kind of dealing--Martinez & Co., who trade to the Havannah, to which Zulueta & Co. trade, also were in the habit of consigning cargoes of sugar, and other produce, from the Havannah to England; and having some dealings with the coast of Africa, they have upon some five or six occasions desired the house of Zulueta & Co., who live in England and carry on their business here, to furnish them with this trifling amount of British manufactures, and send them on board any vessel they may buy or engage for the purpose, to such part of the coast of Africa as they may direct. The house of Zulueta & Co. carrying on business here, from the immense extent of their transactions having a house at Liverpool, upon receiving an order to ship goods to the amount of a few hundred pounds, they order the goods through their Liverpool house, the great emporium of manufactures in that part of England, and they put them on board any ship directed by Martinez & Co.; they ship the goods in any shape or way as they may direct; and from the time the goods are shipped, they know no more of them, and have no more to do with the subsequent disposition of them, than any one of you I am addressing. It turns out, for so Captains Hill and Denman who have been upon the coast say, that the Gallinas has no produce to return for goods; they say that there is nothing but the slave trade there; that though the goods may be unshipped and landed, there is no return produce: but Messrs. Zulueta & Co., who had no trade with the Gallinas, who I will show you upon the evidence never until this transaction heard the name of any one of the three parties to whom this cargo was consigned, they sent the goods to the Gallinas as they would have done to the Havannah or to Gambia, to Madagascar or the East or West Indies, and troubled themselves no more about it as soon as the goods are shipped: because it is suggested that some parties concerned in these slave trading establishments may make an iniquitous use of these goods in the slave trade, they are to be told that this young man--(not attacking his father, whose ancient name and character for honour and integrity would protect him)--has committed a crime; they seize upon this unhappy young man; they say, because your house have sent goods to that place, ordered by your correspondents, you shall be seized as a felon and tried for a felony.

Now let us look at the evidence. I will take the evidence as it was given, and consider the evidence apart from the statement: take my statement as nothing, and take my learned friend’s statement as nothing; let us see what the case is, divested of speeches and speech-making, and those reasonings which I will show you have no application to the conduct of Mr. Zulueta.

There is the house of Zulueta & Co. many years established in England, they have correspondents abroad, the house of Martinez & Co. at Cadiz--and this young man writes a letter, in these terms, dated the 20th August, 1840: “In reply to your favour of yesterday, we have to say that we cannot exceed 500_l._ for the vessel in question, such as described in your letter, namely, that excepting the sails the other differences are trifling from the inventory; if you cannot therefore succeed at those limits, we must give up the purchase, and you will please act accordingly;” then it is addressed to Captain Jennings, Portsmouth. What is stated concerning that letter is true, that it is not written by this young man at all. I do not know whether the original letter was handed in, but you shall see it: my learned friend says, it was proved that it was written altogether by this young man himself to the captain.

Mr. Justice Maule. It was proved so in this way, “I believe it to be the writing of Pedro Zulueta.”

Mr. Kelly. Whether it was so or not it is quite immaterial, I need not say that the contents are perfectly innocent. It is clear, that before this time the house had employed Captain Jennings to treat for the purchase of this vessel. There was some demur about the price. This letter was written, in order, if possible, that the vessel might be obtained for the sum of 500_l._; and in the way in which people bargain they tell them, that if they will not take that sum they will not buy it at all. That letter is written by Mr. Zulueta: I need not say that there is no felony in the member of a firm like Zulueta & Co. authorising Captain Jennings, or any other man, to offer 500_l._ for a vessel. Here the evidence with regard to the young man I am defending is a blank: it does not appear he interfered directly or indirectly in any way, or knew what was going on; but it appears that the vessel was ultimately purchased at that sum, dispatched to Liverpool, and the goods were loaded on board the vessel; and then the charter-party was made out, to which I will now call your attention, and which was signed by the prisoner Mr. Zulueta. Now you will see how my observations apply: it is in the usual form; it is printed, and the blanks, as you will see, are filled up, not in the handwriting of the prisoner nor any member of the firm, but in the ordinary course of business by the clerk whose duty it is to prepare the charter-parties; and it is signed, because it had to be signed. Mr. Pedro Zulueta was in the counting-house, and his father was out upon some other business, and Pedro Zulueta signed, “for Martinez & Co., of Havannah, Zulueta & Co.” These are the two papers in the handwriting of the prisoner--a letter to Captain Jennings, saying, offer 500_l._, if they will not take that no more will be given, and the charter-party by which the vessel is chartered from Captain Jennings to Martinez & Co., the house of Zulueta acting as agents, not buying the ship, not entering into the transaction as on their own account, but acting as agents for Messrs. Martinez--that is a paper partly written and partly printed, and the name is subscribed “for Martinez & Co., Havannah, Zulueta & Co.” Those are the only two documents in the handwriting of the prisoner: his evidence I will refer to more particularly by and bye. The evidence shows what I never denied, that the house of which he is a member are civilly responsible for all the house may do. That his house effected the purchase of a vessel at the time--that it was desirable that Captain Jennings should be the captain (and I will give you a reason for that presently)--and that the house caused goods to be shipped in it at Liverpool--and that from that time they heard no more of it, is not denied. It is perfectly clear, if the case rested there, it was merely this--that the house of Zulueta & Co., as agents for Martinez & Co., purchased the ship for Jennings, and that the purchaser made Martinez & Co. the mortgagees of the ship, so as to put them in possession of the property, but to leave Captain Jennings nominally the proprietor and captain; and then they shipped for their principals a quantity of merchandise, regularly passing through the Custom-house on board the vessel, and consigned to the coast of Africa. It is perfectly clear no sort of imputation can be thrown upon any one concerned in that transaction.

But, Gentlemen, let us see what are the circumstances upon which the prosecutor calls upon you to infer, not only that Zulueta & Co., and particularly the prisoner at the bar, purchased this vessel, and dispatched this vessel, and loaded the goods on board it, but that he did it not merely knowing, but for the very purpose, in the language of the indictment, “to accomplish the object of using them in the slave trade.” What is the evidence upon which they call upon you to infer that? First of all they do this, and I do pray your attention to this part of the case, because it is a point affecting, and vitally affecting, the safety of every manufacturer, every merchant, nay every tradesman in this country, who happens to deal in any goods, however lawful, but which may be shipped to the coast of Africa; they say this, you, young man, Pedro Zulueta, a member of this firm, you knew that these goods in this ship were to be used for the slave trade, and you dispatch the ship and goods that they may be used in the slave trade. Why, have you ever admitted you knew it? No, I have denied it, and have offered to deny it upon oath.--Have we proved you ever gave any secret instructions they should be used for that purpose? We give you notice that we call for your instructions, but before the Court and Jury we dare not call for them.--Did you receive any information from Martinez & Co. that they might be used for that purpose? No. We give you notice to produce all the letters from Martinez & Co., and his counsel comes forward and says--Here is every document, here is every account, every scrap of paper at all relating to this transaction,[15] and I offer you the oaths of every body in the counting-house, without examining them myself, that this is all that can be found. No, says the prosecutor, it suits us better to charge you with a felony, and call for documents which might or might not support the charge; but when you have got them here we will not read them before the Jury, we will not lay them before the Jury, but we will do this--in order that Sir George Stephen, sitting near Mr. Serjeant Bompas and instructing him from his own grossly perverted views of the facts and the truth, to misrepresent and to colour almost every material document to be given in evidence in the cause, in order to give them a reply, they say “you may produce them.” That is what they do. This, then, is a case in which they say we will call for your instructions to the captain, because we say, although there was nothing in your handwriting found in the vessel, except this innocent letter offering 500_l._ for the purchase of the ship, and the charter-party signed by the house, there were some secret instructions. We call for all the letters, we will not use one, but we leave you to prove there were none such. We say, you were informed by Martinez & Co. that they were to be so used, and we give you notice to produce the letters; we will not call for them, we leave it to you: and if we were to read twenty different letters, all the letters from Martinez & Co. to Zulueta & Co., you would have from Mr. Serjeant Bompas, with Sir George Stephen behind him suggesting--Oh, there were secret instructions behind! How do we know there was not a letter behind, which contained secret instructions? That is the way that a case for felony is to be conducted; and therefore I beseech you not to look at what my learned friend urges upon you, but look at the facts. The facts are, that this young man offered 500_l._ for the vessel, and that this young man signed the charter-party, and those facts he admitted before the Committee of the House of Commons; he admitted that this ancient and honourable house, without a stain upon its character, purchase the ship, and charter the ship, and ship the goods, as the agents of Martinez & Co., to the coast of Africa. Then, when they have to prove the guilty knowledge that this was done for the purpose of these goods being used in the slave trade, after going through this farce of calling for papers they dare not use, they say this--We cannot prove that this young man ever thought, or wrote, or sent, about the slave trade; we cannot prove he ever said a single word to Captain Jennings that he was to use the ship or goods in the slave trade; we cannot prove that their correspondents ever wrote or said a word to them upon the subject; but I will tell you what we will do, he was never at the Gallinas, but Captain Denman was at the Gallinas, Captain Hill was at the Gallinas, Colonel Nichol was at the Gallinas, and we will prove by them that the slave trade is carried on to a considerable extent there; we will prove through them, that there are such persons there as Rolo, Alvarez, and Ximenes; and we will prove that those three persons are notorious slave dealers; and we trust that the Jury will say, here are goods sent to the coast of Africa--and it is true, because goods are constantly sent there, British produce to the amount of millions is sent there, and forms a great part of our commerce, but it is sent to that part of the coast where these three honourable gentlemen will say that nothing but the slave trade is carried on--and it will then lie upon him to show that they were not intended to be so used.

[15] Pointing to a mass of books and papers on the table.

Now, Gentlemen, if Mr. Zulueta had known as much of the Gallinas as Captain Denman does, who has been cruizing about there since 1835, or as much as Captain Hill knows, who has been upon that coast for several years past, or as much as Colonel Nichol, who has been there twenty years; if he had ever been there or lived there to see the kind of commerce carried on, and to know that there is no lawful commerce at all, but that there is the slave trade only, I should say that you put a man living in England in a very peculiar situation, to which I will call your attention in a moment, but it would raise the question in your minds, whether he might not suspect that these goods might be sold for money, and the money applied in the purchase of slaves, or the slave trade be promoted by the transaction. But, Gentlemen, I beseech you to remember this; they have not proved this, and the contrary appears, that this young man--and I speak of the father as well--that neither he nor his father were ever on the coast of Africa. “Oh, but” says my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, in a question put on re-examination to Captain Denman, “could a person who had traded for twenty years to the Gallinas be ignorant that nothing but the slave trade was carried on there?” If it was so, if he had thought so, it is not by his inferences--whose honourable zeal in putting down the slave trade has carried him so far as to make him a defendant in two or three actions, which may come on to be tried in this country--however honourable his motives and feelings (and I admire the zeal he feels upon the subject, political as well as private zeal)--it is not what he knows which is to determine whether Mr. Zulueta is to be convicted of felony. But it is not that to which I was about to call your attention. If my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Talfourd had reflected when he used that expression in the question he put, “Do you think that a person trading twenty years there could be ignorant of the nature of the trade carried on?”--he would have seen it was wholly inapplicable to the case of Messrs. Zulueta & Co. In the first place, this young man has not been a third part of twenty years in the house; in the next place, the house has not traded to the extent of 20_s._ to the Gallinas, they have never had any communication with it. Mr. Serjeant Bompas opened among many other things which he has left unproved, that he would show that was untrue, and that he had had dealings with them. If that was so, it would have been easy to do it; but they find he never had any dealing with the place; he had no letter or bill from the place, or any article or thing of any sort or kind from any person there, which could convey to his mind whether it was a slave trading place, or a place where a great deal of commerce was lawfully carried on--nothing of the kind. I pray your attention to what it is my learned friend has founded this observation upon. All that Zulueta & Co. have done, as you will see by the evidence before you, is, that they have received directions from their foreign correspondents to ship goods to the Gallinas, and have put those goods on board a vessel, and then dispatched that vessel, and shipped those goods for the Gallinas; and from that time forth they have heard no more of them. Now, I beg to ask you, their correspondence taking place with Martinez &. Co. at the Havannah or Cadiz, but having no correspondence with the Gallinas, unless their curiosity led them, as it did me this morning to look at the map or globe to find the place--and they looked in vain, unless they looked at a pretty large map, to see whether it was a river, or an island, or city, or what place it was--how should they know any thing about it? I agree we did not want Captain Denman’s evidence, for that they had shipped goods for twenty years, and traded there in the ordinary sense of the word, if they had had correspondents there and dealt on their own account with them, and sent them goods from time to time, and had goods in return, or written letters to them, and had letters in return, they might through them have obtained some information of the nature of the business carried on there. But, it is no such thing. What this young man said in his evidence before the Committee turns out to be true; if it had not been so, they had abundant means to contradict that evidence: and Sir George Stephen, whose zeal spares no expense, no effort, would have satisfied you that they had written letters to the Gallinas, and had sent goods there. All that appears is, that from time to time--the transactions being really a drop of water in the ocean of their great mercantile dealings--they have out of 400,000_l._ in ten or twenty years shipped goods to the amount of 22,000_l._, which have gone to the Gallinas. But how should they have known it was for the purposes of the slave trade? Suppose any one of you were a dealer in muskets (for they are some of the goods shipped on board this vessel) and that a person in Spain writes to you, saying, I want a thousand muskets for a place called Gallinas, on the coast of Africa--would you dream, if you prepared the muskets and sold them, and made out the proper papers and dispatched them according to the order--would you dream, that you were committing a felony? That is what it comes to.

Just see how the case stands--Captain Denman knows, and Captain Hill knows very well, that shipments to the Gallinas may be something suspicious, because they say, as far as their experience goes, there is no lawful trade there, and that they are all slave traders there; but how is any body in this kingdom who has never been there, and never corresponded with the place, to know that?

What is the next fact? Captain Hill proves--though it was with the greatest reluctance he ever gave an answer in favour of this young man whom he is endeavouring to send to Botany Bay--at last, he let out by accident that there are places, on the coast of Africa, to which British produce in large quantities is sent, where the trade is perfectly proper, and where goods lawfully are sent and disposed of; and that at many of those places there are persons, who trade largely, and to a very great extent in British produce, who also deal in slaves.

Here, again, I beseech you to turn your attention to the facts and forget the statement. You may be manufacturers of guns or gunpowder, or commission-agents living in the country, who for the purpose of shipment purchase those goods; in either case a party comes and says, I want a thousand muskets and two tons of gunpowder to be shipped to a certain place on the coast of Africa. I ask you--are you first to consult the map to ascertain the place, and having ascertained where it is, are you to go to somebody you may hear of--Captain Hill or Captain Denman--and inquire, whether they have been upon the coast of Africa, and can tell you the character of the trade carried on there? Are you next, the person being a Spaniard or Portuguese, to inquire whether they ever deal in slaves, and if you find they do, are you to say, I will execute no order you give me? That would annihilate two-thirds of the commerce of Great Britain, and would prevent the most useful transactions of commerce which can occur upon the coast of Africa. It is, therefore, I say, in a charge of this momentous character, it is not to be determined upon suspicion. You are not to hang or transport a man upon vague suspicion; you must show that the crime has been committed; you must have before you direct evidence to prove that he must have known--not that he might have known--by inquiry, if it had been duly answered, and in the mean time the orders would be lost--not that he might have learnt, or that the result of the inquiry might be that the goods might by possibility be unlawfully employed--you must have direct evidence that they were shipped for that purpose. The statute does not say, that every one who ships goods to a slave colony shall be guilty of slave dealing; the Act does not say, that whoever ships goods to a place where the slave trade is principally carried on shall be guilty of slave dealing; the Act does not say, that any body who shall ship goods without taking care that they shall not be employed in slave dealing shall be guilty of felony; the Act does not say, that any one who ships goods which may be employed in the slave trade shall be guilty of felony--God forbid that it should say that!--but the Act says, if a man ships goods for that object, if he ships goods with the intent--which as far as in him lies he seeks to carry into effect, that they may be used in the slave trade--that is a felony. Where, in God’s name, is there a particle or scintilla of evidence to that effect here? Where Captain Denman tells you it is a well-known slave trading colony, and that he knew it before he went there? Did you know it? I apprehend, if my learned friend knew it before he was instructed in this case, he knows geography, as he does every thing else, much better than I do. My learned friend says, you are not to shut your eyes to what you are doing. No; I agree if a man commits a crime, or does a mischief, he is not to shut his eyes to the consequences of it. I deny, once for all--and I appeal to the learned Judges whether I am not correctly stating the effect of the law--whether a man, who has no intention to do an unlawful act in the shipment of goods, is bound to make any inquiry as to what is to be done with goods, which, in obedience to the orders of a foreign correspondent, he ships to any place on the face of the earth. He is not bound to make inquiries; if he was, it would throw impediments in the way of commerce more injurious than the slave trade itself in any part of the world. Again, they speak of Messrs. Martinez being slave traders, and they speak of the admission that appears upon the evidence of Mr. Zulueta, that he knew that Martinez & Co. had been engaged in the slave trade. I will show you, when I come to refer to this evidence, which is all-important in this case, that there is nothing of the kind--he speaks of the knowledge he had; he gave his evidence in 1842, and you will find, when you look on a little further, he had learnt it since the transactions in 1840.

Now, suppose he did know it--suppose a commission-agent knows that a foreign correspondent of his house is extensively engaged in the slave trade--he knows, at the same time, he is extensively engaged in a lawful trade in sugar, tobacco, and other commodities--I ask you, whether if that foreign correspondent, by letter, desires him to freight a ship with a quantity of goods, and he does so, he is to be treated as a felon? whether, because a trader in both ways--a trader lawful and unlawful--may use his goods unlawfully, and the shipper knows it and cannot prevent it, he is to be treated as a felon or wrong doer? I deny it: if it were so, the first mercantile houses in the country would consist of none but felons. It would be in vain to suggest houses--though one rose before my mind, whose extent of transactions is equalled only by the honour and integrity of their character, that house trading largely as it does with the Havannah and the Brazils, where all the extensive merchants are slave dealers, that house must sacrifice two-thirds of its trade--and all that loss must accrue to Great Britain, because that trade may enable those who carry it on to carry on also a trade in slaves. It is quite intelligible, that that was the very object of the inquiry before the Committee, where Mr. Zulueta, Captain Hill, and Captain Denman, and a score of other persons were examined before the Colonial Secretaries under both governments, and some of the most practical men of the present day--it was for the purpose of determining and reporting to the House, whether it would be desirable to extend the criminal law of the country, and prohibit the trade altogether with places where the slave trade was carried on, or with persons notoriously carrying it on. Nobody ever dreamt, but Sir George Stephen, that it was illegal to trade with a slave dealing place, or a notorious slave dealer; it is only illegal where you know the trade you carry on is to promote the slave trade, and you know that to be the object. That was one of the objects of the Committee, to ascertain whether it was desirable to prevent the trading with slave dealers, or slave trading places. I may not regularly refer to their opinion; but they made a Report in 1842, and no law is passed at all affecting transactions of that nature--the only Act is that, which, for another purpose, I called my Lord’s attention to, and which made that illegal, not illegal before, namely, the trading by British subjects in foreign ports--not making it criminal to trade with slave traders or slave trading places. Then let us see the result. You are called upon, where the shipment is innocent, and the employment of the ship is innocent, you are called upon to destroy this man, because he has put his name to one or two innocent documents, and because they say it was so notoriously a slave trading place that he must have known that they were to be so used. My answer is in a single sentence--he knew nothing of the kind; they have not proved it; they have proved that Captain Hill, and Captain Denman, and others, conversant with the spot, knew it; they have not proved that Mr. Zulueta knew it--the evidence is entirely a blank upon the subject. If he thought of it at all, and I think that a man is bound to inquire about the matter, he would probably think this--there are a great number of houses in the city of London executing large commissions for the African trade, and a great deal of British commerce goes to the coast of Africa is lawfully disposed of, and promotes the civilisation of Africa; and I have every right to suppose that this goes for a lawful purpose; if that is not so, it must be shown to be for an unlawful purpose. If that is not fair in the mouth of Mr. Zulueta’s house, it is not fair in the mouth of any firm trading in that way with the coast of Africa; and unless it had been shown that Mr. Zulueta himself was personally informed of, or knew, the character of this place, what is proved by Captain Denman or Captain Hill has nothing to do with the question--so much for that part of the proof, from which you are called upon to infer that the prisoner shipped these goods to accomplish this wicked object, because it is proved the slave trade was carried on there.

Now, Gentlemen, let me say one word more of Captain Denman: he does not show, in the correct sense of the words, that the slave trade is extensively carried on there; he may be right in saying there is no produce there; but is there no mode of receiving goods and selling them for money, though no goods are exported? There are various towns or villages, one of nine hundred inhabitants, and others of various numbers, and native chiefs also; there are also Europeans, principally Spaniards--I should like to know, whether the native chiefs, and the Spanish population, and the nine hundred, the population of Tiendo, do not lawfully, for pieces of money or doubloons, buy British produce lawfully? It may be said, that they can only get this money by the slave trade; that is, by having previously dealt in slaves; but where is that to stop? If you are to trace the money from hand to hand, in order to ascertain whether, since a bank note was made or stamped, or the money coined, it has not been the medium of some illegal transaction, there is an end to all commerce. It may be, that these men, Rolo and Pedro Blanco, may have sold a thousand slaves for dollars, and may have paid a debt to Rolo, and with that Rolo may have paid somebody else, who may have bought the goods of Mr. Zulueta--I wish to know, whether Mr. Zulueta for that is to be accused of dealing in slaves, or shipping goods to dealers in slaves? There is nothing of the kind, as far as regards that part of the evidence, relating to the character of the place, or as relating to the character of the parties there. My answer to that is, that, however well known to Captain Denman and Captain Hill, it was unknown to Pedro de Zulueta; that he neither knew the place nor the persons, but that there was such a place to which his house had, without a suspicion, shipped considerable quantities of goods for their foreign correspondents--and it would be hard and cruel to say, that because other people possess a knowledge that he does not, he is to be charged as a felon--because he did not know what other parties, who had passed the latter part of their lives upon the spot, knew.

But, Gentlemen, a great deal has been said upon the mode in which this was to be carried into effect; and they say, because this vessel was bought really by Martinez & Co., and with their money--but Captain Jennings was made the captain, and Captain Jennings was made the apparent owner; therefore, that is a mark of suspicion, that is a concealment, that is putting a false colour upon the transaction--and therefore you are to infer that the transaction was with some guilty intent with respect to the slave trade. Upon that, in the first instance, I would say, this is not an indictment against Mr. Zulueta for putting an English captain on board a foreign ship, and treating it as an English ship--such a proceeding is not, that I am aware of, contrary to the law at all; and it can only be important in this case, if the nature of the transaction is such as necessarily to lead you to infer that the object of the transaction was connected with the slave trade.

Now, let me try that in all its parts; let us see if there is any thing in the mode in which the transaction was carried into effect, which ought fairly to lead a Jury to infer that the object in sending the vessel to Africa was that it should be engaged in the slave trade. First, as to the English captain--I had some difficulty in getting the facts out--it is always desirable, when the Jury have some experience in the matter, for the ends of justice--I hope you may be some of you familiar with Spanish maritime transactions: but we have the notary of the Spanish consulate, before whom charter-parties and other maritime documents come, and we have had the judgment of a naval officer upon the spot, and their evidence goes to show, that by the maritime laws of Spain, a Spanish vessel cannot be commanded by an English captain. Then, if Messrs. Martinez & Co. wished to ship these goods to the coast of Africa from England, and they wished at the same time to employ Captain Jennings as the captain, how are they to do it, except by giving an English name to the vessel, putting it under English colours, and making Captain Jennings the apparent owner? And, Gentlemen, is that to be wondered at? Is the character of a British sailor so low, that there is any thing upon which you are to suspect a man of felony, because one of his foreign correspondents prefers that a vessel he is going to freight to Africa should be commanded by an Englishman and not a Spaniard? You will find, from the evidence, that Captain Jennings had been more than once employed by Martinez & Co.--there is no doubt he is a man of considerable experience; he is a man of considerable courage, as all English sailors are--and explained in that way, what more natural than that Martinez & Co., hearing he was in England, should wish that a man they could trust should be employed in bringing out a cargo of goods to Africa, or wherever it was? Therefore it was he would employ Captain Jennings. How was he to do it? If the vessel was their own, it must sail under the Spanish flag, it would be a Spanish vessel, and could not be commanded by an English captain; so, to obtain that object, they employed Captain Jennings, whom they thought a trustworthy person--and in order to employ him, he is obliged to make the vessel appear an English vessel, and make him appear as the owner of the vessel--and this arrangement is accordingly made. And, Gentlemen, let me observe, though it was not given in evidence--but I will not stand upon technical points, I am dealing with the character of a house as high as any in Britain; I believe their Lordships, after some argument, excluded the bill of lading, in which the name of Captain Jennings appeared as the shipper--I do not know how it is--suppose he appeared--

Mr. Justice Maule. He appeared so in the cockets.

Mr. Kelly. I do most earnestly hope that some of you have sufficient experience of the mode in which business is conducted, with respect to ships, to know, that this is not an unusual circumstance. Just consider the object of the voyage: these goods were to be taken to the Gallinas, and they were consigned to those persons whose names you have heard. You have heard that slave trading is carried on there, as it is along the whole coast--that is known to Martinez & Co.--they have a great deal of trade there, and no doubt they would know it; they would know very well that the seas swarmed with British cruizers, for the purpose of interrupting and preventing the slave trade--what more natural? If their correspondents should happen not to be upon the spot at the time the goods arrived, so that they could not be delivered, or that there should be a blockade, and the ship could not enter with the goods shipped by Martinez & Co., the captain must sail back to England or to Cadiz, and get authority from Martinez to alter the destination of the goods; if, on the contrary, they were shipped in the name of Captain Jennings, if he found a blockade, or the correspondents of Messrs. Martinez were not there, or there was any opposition to his communications with the shore, he would have the complete disposal of the goods; he might take them to other parts of the coast of Africa, or any other part of the world, or deal with them as he pleased--and the whole mystery is explained. Every body, who knows any thing of these commercial transactions, knows that a supercargo is sent out with goods, and the shipment is most frequently in the name of the supercargo; and it is for that reason, that in case when the goods arrive at the place to which they are consigned, if there is any difficulty, or any thing which requires the control or disposition of the owner, the supercargo is the party to act, and he can only do that when the shipment is in his name. Here there is a supercargo, or somebody they had confidence in, Captain Jennings, and accordingly the shipment is made in the name of Jennings, in order, in a case of difficulty, that he may exercise a control over the goods. And so far from there being any thing illegal in it, so far from there being any thing unusual in the transaction--because Captain Jennings was made the master, the apparent owner of the vessel, and the person in whose name the goods were shipped--it is the constant custom. If Messrs. Martinez wished to send these goods to the coast of Africa, and if, by reason of any blockade, it would be necessary to give them another destination, they wished to have the benefit of an English captain, Captain Jennings--and by taking the course they did, of making out the charter-party from Captain Jennings to Martinez & Co., and at the same time shipping the goods in his own name, retaining a share of the superintendence as the real owner throughout the voyage, they accomplished that. To tell me, because that is done, which is a matter of constant custom, the good sense of which strikes one at the first sight--for my learned friend to rise and say, this is a concealment, and you are to condemn this young man to transportation--is perfectly monstrous. But I will tell you what the prosecutor ought to have done--and what I should have expected from the experience of my learned friend, who has called Sir George Stephen the public prosecutor--if he meant to say, that a charter-party in this form was an illegal and unmercantile act, he ought to have called persons engaged in the trade, parties engaged in shipments of the same description, or any other foreign trade, to prove that this was an illegal, and consequently an unusual transaction. He has left that in blank. I make the same observation as to the nature of the trade: how is it--when you are called upon here to denounce this young man as a felon, because it is supposed that slave trading was carried on at this place, the Gallinas, and that any body engaged in trade to that part of the world must have known that slave trading was carried on there--how is it, that out of the scores, to say the least, of highly respectable, intelligent, and experienced merchants, carrying on trade in this city, not one is called before you--not a merchant, not a shipper, not an individual is called to speak to any part of this transaction? You are to take Mr. Serjeant Bompas’s statement for every thing--whatever Sir George Stephen instructs him to say in this case, unless you have experience in it yourself, you are to take every thing as proof. I say it became the public prosecutor to call merchants, acquainted with the coast of Africa, to give a fair mercantile character to the transaction; they have not done so; and I protest against the doctrine, that any man is to be treated as guilty, and denounced as tainted with crime, not upon any proof that the character of the transaction is contrary to mercantile usage, but upon the statement of counsel, unsupported by evidence, and more particularly where that evidence is so completely within the power of the prosecutor.

Gentlemen, let me make another observation upon this point--I fear that the length to which this case has been drawn may weary you, and my address more so than any other part of the case; but, for mercy’s sake, consider--

Foreman of the Jury. We are quite glad to hear all you have to say.

Mr. Kelly. I thank you, Gentlemen. What would be my feelings, if any thing adverse was to happen to this young man, from my omitting to say what occurred to me as important? It is said by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, but not proved, that this was done under concealment: they have not called man or boy from Liverpool to prove that any part of the transaction was unusual. I appeal to any man, who knows any thing of the nature of shipments, whether it is possible that this cargo could have been shipped without clerks and shipping agents being employed, and without the cargo and ship undergoing the inspection of the Custom-house officers. All that has been done, and my learned friend and Sir George Stephen know that that has been done; and I believe, in his opening speech, he alluded to evidence from Liverpool; but not one witness has been called. You will see the effect of that in another part of the transaction to which I have not arrived; but when Mr. Serjeant Bompas tells you, that the employment of Mr. Jennings, as captain and owner, and shipping the goods in his own name, was done for the purpose of concealment, I say it is idle; and it is an insult to the understanding of any man to say there was any concealment. Messrs. Zulueta employ Captain Jennings--he employs other people--you heard that that was the mode in which the business was conducted--the Russian consul and Mr. Emanuel are not Zulueta & Co.--it appears that the transaction could not have been conducted but by the house of Zulueta--and yet my learned friend contents himself by saying, that this was secretly done, though he has not called one witness to prove it.

Gentlemen, I was upon the point, that the employment of Captain Jennings, and the making it appear that Captain Jennings was the owner, was a circumstance of concealment. If it was, I have told you the reasons humbly occurring to my own mind for thinking it was not; but suppose it was concealed--concealment, which would facilitate the carrying on the slave trade. Now, Gentlemen, I pray your attention to this question--Was the putting this ship under British colours, and under the command of a British captain, calculated at all to enable it to carry on the slave trade? That is the question. If it was, I clearly admit--though God forbid a man should be convicted upon it!--that it is a circumstance that may require some consideration in your minds; but if I demonstrate to you, that for all the objects of the slave trade, the employment of a British captain, and the employment of British colours, was fatal to it, and rendered discovery, and forfeiture, and punishment, almost inevitable, what becomes of the statement that all this was done clandestinely to facilitate the slave trade? Recollect the account of the trade given by Captain Denman. If it be a foreign vessel, a Portuguese or Spanish, which engages in the slave trade, there are very great impediments and very great difficulties in interrupting it, in searching and in bringing the transaction to light, or the perpetrators to justice, investigating the matter judicially, and finally causing the vessel and goods to be condemned. Our newspapers are filled with discussions about the right of search. Whereas, Captain Denman could, without a moment’s pause, without any obstruction, enter upon any English vessel, and seize the English captain, and search the vessel from top to bottom--while, in an American vessel, and many other vessels, he might be met by obstruction, and it might be the cause of a war. It is true, under some treaties, it may be done; but it is not so as to Russia, because this vessel ultimately, according to my learned friend, defeated justice, and was given up to the Russian government. Where a vessel, therefore, is under foreign colours, there are many difficulties in searching, and if suspicious circumstances appear, in bringing the vessel, if I may so speak, to justice. What does Captain Denman say? “If it is an American vessel, I could not search at all unless by main force, at the peril of a war; if a Russian, it is the same thing; if a Spanish or French vessel, then, under the treaty, a search may take place.” But, remember the mode of searching: if he saw an English vessel, the English captain would feel that of necessity he must, unless he meant to be condemned, tender his vessel, and all in it, to the investigation of a British naval officer; and if the vessel has any thing suspicious about it, you may prosecute it in the British Vice-Admiralty Court, in any of the colonies throughout the world; and, if condemned, as it may be, by British law, by British officers of justice; whereas, if it be a Spanish or Russian vessel, or a Portuguese, or of any other country, there are all sorts of difficulties and formalities before a search can take place; and if any thing suspicious is found, even Captain Hill, with all his furious zeal, would pause before he seized a foreign vessel. Again, supposing there are suspicious appearances, and the officer determines to try the question, it is tried not in the British Vice Admiralty Court--not in any British court at all--but before a Mixed Commission, composed of British, Spanish, and, perhaps, the subjects of other nations, surrounded with all these difficulties, and, I grieve to say, all that corruption which taints the administration of justice in almost every other country but this.

Now, Mr. Serjeant Bompas says--Sacrifice this young man, and condemn him as a felon. Why? Because, the more easily to carry on the slave trade, he fitted out a vessel--not as a Spaniard, with a Spanish crew and Spanish colours, but with English colours, an English captain, and an English crew, which Captain Denman, Captain Hill, or any other captain might search and condemn. Now, I am the humble and inefficient advocate of this young man, and the matter may occur to my mind erroneously; I may take an erroneous view, from the zeal I feel in the case, in presenting it before you, in the terms in which his innocence will ultimately appear; but, unless I grievously deceive myself, that argument admits of no answer, as Captain Denman said there are difficulties in the one case and none in the other--a trial by a British Court in the one case, and a Mixed Commission in the other; that there are great impediments where it is a foreign vessel, and none in the other. And has the prosecutor a right to call upon you to come to a conclusion that this young man is guilty of felony, because he fitted out a vessel with English colours, and an English captain, the more easily to carry on the slave trade? You will have to answer that question, if you think the slave trade could be more easily carried on by an English captain and an English crew. You have heard of the mutiny before they reached Cadiz; if you think an English crew were used, and English colours hoisted, the more safely to carry on the trade, it must be for some reason that does not occur to my mind, and I trust in God it will not occur to yours.

Now, Gentlemen, we come to the next point. They say--Though true it is, that this vessel was not employed in the slave trade, there is the most direct evidence that the man who fitted out the vessel meant to employ it in the slave trade, and really employed it with that object. If you cannot show the orders given by him to the captain so to employ it, the next thing would be to show it was so employed. If this ship had sailed from England to the Gallinas and discharged its cargo, and had taken in a number of slaves; or if it had bartered its cargo against a number of slaves; if that had been done, unless you can show it was done by Mr. Zulueta’s orders, he is not responsible: you may challenge the captain, and you might say, whether Mr. Zulueta intended it or not, it was so used: but there is no such evidence. Captain Hill, with his zeal to discharge his duty and to prevent slave trading, took time by the forelock, and seized the vessel in the hands of the captain before it reached the shore, and you have therefore no means of drawing inferences of what was intended by what was done. But they endeavour to make up for that in this way: they say, we will show that the vessel was originally built for the slave trade; and we will show that, while it was in the hands of Mr. Zulueta, or while Captain Jennings had it under his hands, it had fittings added, or articles furnished, calculated to assist in the slave trade. And I must say, upon this part of the case, it grieves me to refer to the mode in which it has been conducted in terms of reprobation; but I should ill discharge my duty if I did not say, that the mode in which the evidence was laid before you was unworthy the high reputation and the honourable character of my learned friend. I pray you to remember what it is has been proved upon this occasion. He calls a witness from Portsmouth, or two or three; and, as Mr. Clarkson, and my other learned friend, obtained from them on cross-examination they had been lately subpœnaed, the prisoner could not be prepared by any possibility for their testimony; and what do they prove? They prove, that on board this vessel, while Captain Jennings was in command of it, they had seen, I do not know how many, water-casks for slave trading; that they had seen shackles and bolts, and all the muniments necessary to carry on the slave trade. Now, I ask you, is that fair? Is that just? The prisoner is charged, not with having thrown away those things, and destroyed them, and fitted up a vessel, which, for aught he knew, might be used in the slave trade, or might be for perfectly lawful purposes; but he is charged with having dispatched it from Liverpool for the purposes of the slave trade; and, in order to prove that, the prosecutor thinks it right to give in evidence what was done at Portsmouth with these shackles and water-casks which were on board the vessel, and there he leaves the case. I cannot trust myself to speak of that mode of giving evidence. Gentlemen, the way in which they ought to have convinced you there was any thing on board this vessel calculated to carry on the trade, was to show the condition of the vessel at the time she left the port of Liverpool. There all the control of the house of Zulueta & Co. finished; the charter-party was made out, the goods were put on board, and the ship, on the 8th of November, 1840, sailed from Liverpool; then, if this young man is a felon, the felony was completed. What was the condition of the ship then? Had it then the water-casks for the nourishment of the slaves? Had it shackles and other instruments of torture, or for the conveyance of the slaves from one part of the world to the other? Gentlemen, that was the time; that was the place to show it: and it could not be by inadvertence it was omitted. Why, Captain Hill, their witness, who would not drop a single syllable, who could not bring himself to say any thing favourable to this young man (not from any improper motive, he will not understand me to say), that even Captain Hill was obliged to say--“When I seized the vessel, where the slave trade was to be carried on, it was not fitted up for the slave trade;” and one of you gentlemen of the Jury--and from the bottom of my heart I thanked you--put the question in another form through my Lord, and the answer was--“No; at the time the vessel was seized it was not fitted up for the slave trade.” So that you have this fact, that when it left Liverpool it was not fitted up for the slave trade, and had not the means on board to be so fitted up, and when on the coast of Africa it was not so fitted up; but, from their own witnesses knowing that, they call other witnesses to raise a suspicion in your minds that it was secretly prepared for the slave trade, because there were water-casks and shackles on board. And remember the evidence of the cabin-boy: they had the choice of the whole crew, and no one can say that the crew would be favourable to Mr. Zulueta, the owner, or his house; they were discharged as mutineers: they had their choice of the whole crew, and no expense, and no exertions have been spared, and yet they dare not call one of the crew to say what Captain Jennings stated, or what his object was; they called the cabin-boy, who says, “I know nothing of the loading of the vessel.”

There is a person to be tried for a felony in fitting out a vessel perfectly lawfully, but for the slave trade, and they seek to show that it was fitted up for the slave trade: they do not show it at the only time it was material to show it, but they seek to ruin and destroy this unfortunate young man, by giving evidence of its state at Portsmouth, when we have from this boy the damning fact for the integrity of their case, that though the water-vessels were changed in their form, which was to make you think that they were sent in a disguised form, they were put on shore at Liverpool, and not put back again. If there had been an inch or a scrap of old iron, or a nail, the ship was in the possession of Captain Hill, and those who acted under him, as long as he thought fit to keep it. It was put into the Vice-Admiralty Court; it was open to the witnesses for the prosecution: I have no doubt they searched it from end to end, and from top to bottom, and every crevice and cranny, and in no place was a scrap of rusty iron found applicable to the slave trade; and yet you are to be told by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, that he will prove it was adapted for the slave trade, when his own instructions had already told him that they gave a false appearance to the case, and the true appearance of the case was entirely left out of consideration. However, Gentlemen, I thank God, whatever may be the consequence, and however terrible to my own feelings as counsel for the prisoner, I had no hand--God forbid!--in such a prosecution.

Gentlemen, it is not only in the mode and to the extent I have pointed out to you, that the evidence has been sought to be perverted--and if there had been a case, and facts to be proved from the condition of the vessel, it is only from the evidence they have submitted to you that it can appear--Captain Hill seized the vessel and cargo; he had the full control of it; every species of information, every scrap of paper on board is in their power, and every thing that could be given in evidence before you has been brought before you.

Gentlemen, I must observe that I am not counsel for Captain Jennings. Captain Jennings, for aught I know, though he is an Englishman, and there is no charge against him, may have been in collusion with Martinez & Co. I am not responsible for his acts. I thought there had been some refusal to give up the papers, but Captain Hill negatived that altogether; he did not say there was any opposition; the vessel did not sail away from him, on the contrary, it sailed up to him. I do not know how that was. He asked for papers and they were given up to him--he made some request which was refused, but as to the running away, or concealment, nothing of the kind was practised; but you have here a felon, in the situation of a partner in the house of Zulueta & Co., trading to the amount of millions, trading with the house of Martinez & Co. to an immense amount in sugar and tobacco, and all sorts of goods passing between Britain and its Colonies, and a little trading upon commission in the last fifteen years, in which the commission put into the pocket of Zulueta & Co., would not pay a day’s salary to their clerks in their office, and you have a charge of felony for what this young man has done as it appears in the evidence to which I have called your attention. To talk of its being a concealment to use an English captain and an English vessel, when it would have insured a prosecution--when it would have insured discovery--when it would have insured punishment--is absurd. They say, here was something in the nature of the vessel, and to enable you to arrive at the same conclusion they prove her condition at Portsmouth, which was altered before the voyage was embarked upon, and they do not prove the condition of the vessel at the only time important for you to inquire into.

Gentlemen, Captain Hill said it would be very easy when the vessel arrived at Gallinas to get the fittings up there; that it would be easy for the factor there, when he expected the vessel, to get them ready. No doubt it would be very easy for a man to get a gun, and load it with powder and ball, and so shoot the Queen. But, good God! are we in cases of felony not to look for evidence, not to look for facts, but to suppose a felony, because it is physically possible that somebody may do something to put this ship into a condition that may be unlawful? So I might say of Captain Hill, that when he went with one of Her Majesty’s ships upon the coast, he was disposed to assist in the slave trade instead of destroying it; he might have harboured the slaves in his vessel, or turned it into a slave establishment, or any thing else. But we are dealing with something more than the life of this young man. You are not to look at what a man 4000 miles off did, but what this man did. What he has done he is responsible for, and he is ready to answer here--he is ready to answer at a higher tribunal; but, in the name of that Judge before whom we must all stand, I implore you, do not visit him with suppositions of what other men might have done, instead of what he is proved to have done in this transaction.

Gentlemen, the evidence in the cause would have gone no further than I have stated but from the circumstance--a most extraordinary one, and unprecedented as far as my experience goes in criminal cases--of a great body of evidence being produced, that being neither more nor less than the voluntary, unsought, and unasked testimony of the criminal himself in his evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons; and it is that to which I have finally to call your attention. I have stated to you, that the house of Zulueta & Co. had enjoyed the highest reputation from the time of their establishment, nearly seventy years ago, until the year 1842. That Committee was appointed, and is declared to have been assembled for the purpose of inquiring into the mode in which the slave trade at various places on the coast of Africa was effected by British commerce and by the employment of British capital. It was suggested, and perhaps truly suggested, that from various British houses, dealing largely in British manufactures, and exporting them as principals, or as agents to the order of Spanish houses, or Portuguese houses, or American houses, particularly in the states of South America--that by reason of those exports, commerce was introduced, and great sums of money procured, which money, being employed in the slave trade, thereby British capital and commerce tended to support the slave trade. The object of the Committee was to determine to what extent this particular allegation was true, and if true, whether it could be remedied by any alteration in the law. It is not necessary to notice the result of their deliberations; but it is important to observe, that upon the Committee were two most zealous men, Lord Stanley and Lord John Russell, neither of whom could have seen enough in the conduct of this young man to justify his prosecution. And this Committee seem to have thought whatever evil might arise in fostering or in facilitating the slave trade, directly or indirectly, by British capital and commerce, that they would too fatally interfere with the commerce and civilization of the Africans themselves, from which, and not the force of arms, the destruction of slavery must ensue, if further restrictions were placed upon general commerce of the country; and no further restrictions have been placed. But in the course of the investigation before this Committee, and at a very late period of their sittings, because it is after this part of this immense volume[16] had been given the house of Zulueta & Co. learnt that some evidence had been given ex parte and in their absence, which they thought threw some reflection upon the honour and integrity of their house. They felt their honour involved, and they felt themselves entirely innocent of the charge--they felt that the house of Zulueta & Co., both here and abroad, so far from assisting in the slave trade, had cautiously desisted from it, and made great sacrifices, even when both nations were engaged in it; and one of their firm came forward to give such explanation as he thought necessary to clear the house, if possible, from the imputation cast upon it--not because he knew more of it than any other member of the firm, that will appear from the evidence; but, because he spoke English more fluently than his father, he came forward and gave the evidence which is before you. And, Gentlemen, but for that evidence the whole case would have been, that the house of Zulueta & Co. shipped these goods and dispatched this vessel, and in the course of their proceedings this letter and charter-party were signed by the prisoner at the bar. But they say, what is wanting, that evidence will complete, and out of his own mouth they can clearly show he has betrayed himself into a most awful predicament--that when he went before this Committee voluntarily, he has admitted himself to be a felon. But, thank God, that is for you to judge of. It is for you, a Jury of British men, not dealing with a fellow-countryman, but where you would be more tender than with any of your own countrymen--it is you, and I thank God for it, who are to decide whether this young man has admitted himself to be a felon: if he has, he must be punished for it; but he has given a fair statement from beginning to end, and if there was any thing false, the prosecutor could prove it false by the clearest evidence; and I can, with that confidence with which I should appeal to Heaven for truth and justice, appeal to you for a verdict of acquittal of the prisoner.

[16] Pointing to a large folio volume in his hand, “Parliamentary Report on the West Coast of Africa,” from which Mr. Kelly read the quotations contained in the subsequent parts of his speech.

Gentlemen, he appears before the Committee upon the 22nd of July, 1842, and the Chairman says to him, “You have seen some statements that have been made to this Committee upon the subject of a transaction in which your house was engaged; have you any observations to offer upon it?--I received from the Clerk of the Committee a letter.” He accounts for having heard of it, and then says, “I would beg, first of all, to refer to the letter which I had the honour to address to the Chairman.” That letter ought to have been brought before you--it is not--we have it not, and have no control over it. The prosecutor could have produced it, because, with the permission of the House, by which he has produced this evidence, he might have produced that letter, or had a copy of it. He says, “My reason for wishing to be examined before this Committee was, that the statements contained in the evidence which I have mentioned are all of them more or less incorrect, some of them totally so. I will begin by stating what has been the nature of our, I will not say trade, for we have not had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the shipment of goods to the coast of Africa.” I pray your attention to this--it is not, as my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Talfourd seems to assume in a question put to Captain Denman, it is not that this house has ever traded, in the proper sense of the word, to the coast of Africa; they never send goods there on their own account, and they never received goods from there; they never had any transaction or correspondence with any person at the Gallinas, or any where else upon the coast of Africa; all their transactions were confined to the execution of foreign orders from the Havannah, and other parts of the world; all that they did being to dispatch the vessels and ship the goods; and from the moment of shipping the goods in England, from that moment their interference entirely ceased. He says, “I will begin by stating what has been the nature of our, I will not say trade, for we have not had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the shipment of goods to the coast of Africa. We have been established as merchants for upwards of 70 years in Spain, for nearly 20 years in this country, and we have had connexions to a large extent in Spain, and in the Havannah, and in South America, and in several other places; among them we have had connexions, or commercial intercourse, with the house of Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and with Blanco and Cavallo of Havannah. With them we have carried on a regular business in consignments of sugars and of cochineal, which they have made to us.” I pray you to put this case--Suppose the house of Zulueta & Co. received a consignment of cochineal and sugars from the house of Martinez, the value of the consignment being 5,000_l._, they convert it into money, and they have that 5,000_l._ at the disposal of Martinez & Co.; suppose any one of the gentlemen, who are doing me the honour of attending to me, had money of Martinez by him, say 10,000_l._, the house of Martinez, instead of drawing it out, order it to be invested in English goods; suppose they write and say, we have received your account sales of sugars and cochineal, we find we are credited for 10,000_l._, and we request you to ship the undermentioned goods by the Augusta, Captain Jennings, for the Gallinas, or any other place on the coast of Africa, and they set one against the other--would you hesitate in doing it? would you dream you were committing a felony? It is not that this is an only transaction (I do not know whether that would affect the case)--there is a trading for twenty years--it is a little more than ten years that they have had transactions of that kind, and have shipped goods to, they did not know who--they have never heard of the goods being seized, or the vessels seized, or what became of the money, whether invested in the slave trading, or any other traffic--all they know is, that they have received the consignments of cochineal or sugars, that they have sold them, and hold 5,000_l._ or 10,000_l._ in their hands--they are ordered this day to pay part of the money by accepting bills, and the next day they are ordered to send the remainder of the money they owe, in brandy, tobacco, or iron, to be shipped to the Gallinas, or any where else, and they act upon it--whether the goods are sold for slaves, whether they are used, whether they are sold for money, and the money spent in the purchase of other merchandise or in the support of the families of those who have received them, to them is indifferent--they have shipped the goods, they have debited the account, and there the matter ends, that is perfectly clear. He says, “With them we have carried on a regular business in consignments of sugars and of cochineal, which they have made to us; and in specie received by the packets from Mexico and other places. We have several times acted for them here in this country, buying raw cotton for instance at Liverpool, and re-selling it very largely; that has been principally with Pedro Martinez & Co.” “They are general merchants?--They are general merchants, and their transactions with us have been of that nature. As general merchants, we have bought stock here for them rather largely; and, in the course of those transactions, we have received orders from Don Pedro Martinez & Co., of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, to ship goods to the coast of Africa.” It must be doubtless so that they received the order one day to remit money, and the next to remit goods to the coast of Africa. If they were slave traders, you have no right to assume that they knew it; it is not proved that they knew it; and if Martinez & Co. were notorious slave dealers, if they are also much larger traders in cochineal and sugars, what right had they to suppose, if, instead of the money they owe, they are to ship merchandise, what right have they to suppose that they will deal unlawfully with this commodity? It is a case to which the law never pointed, and it would go to the destruction of commerce if any man was bound to pause or make any inquiry at all before he shipped. He is then asked, “Have you received orders from Pedro Martinez for shipments for the coast of Africa?--Yes; in the course of business we have received orders to ship goods upon the funds in our hands belonging to them; and we have shipped the goods described in the letter, and sent the bills of lading to Pedro Martinez; but beyond that we have never had any returns from the coast of Africa.”

This is the whole case; it is a full defence to this prosecution, and disposes of the offence it is supposed this young man was committing. And further, he says, “Nor any control of any kind from the moment the cargoes left the ports of this country.” Now here again, if this is false, it might be proved. They have given us notice to produce the accounts, and all letters that have passed between Martinez and Zulueta & Co.; they might have shown that this was false, that they had dealt in some other way, and that they had some interest in the final event of the shipment: they have not proved any thing of the kind. I say they have proved the contrary, and I will never in my person establish so fatal a precedent as to recognise the notion that any man upon his trial for a felony is to prove himself innocent before evidence is given to prove him guilty.

He is then asked, “You have had no interest in the result of the venture?--No, nor any notice, nor any acquaintance, nor any correspondence with any one upon the coast; we have never had any kind of knowledge, either subsequently or previously, of the shipments, except the mere fact of buying the goods and shipping them.” “Your whole interest was a commission upon the transaction?--Entirely. The extent of those transactions has been so limited in the course of nearly twenty years that we have been in this country, that the amount of the invoices that we have sent out has been something like 20,000_l._ or 22,000_l._ in the course of all that time. That is one part of the operations we have performed. The other operations are the acceptance of bills drawn by people on the coast; among them Pedro Blanco when he was there, upon ourselves, on account of Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which Blanco & Cavallo had in our hands: for instance, the people at the Havannah, or in Spain, open a credit with us, and we accept the bills of the parties on that credit with us, just the same as we should do with any other correspondent in any other part.” “You would have funds in your hands, arising from some commercial transactions between you and the Havannah merchant, or the Cadiz merchant; and Pedro Blanco, upon the coast of Africa, would draw upon the credit of those funds, being authorised by the Cadiz or the Havannah merchant?--Yes; and if Pedro Blanco had drawn 5_s._ beyond that, we should have protested, and in some instances we have protested.” This shews they had nothing to do with the owner of the property abroad. They had received consignments, and had accounted for the sums of money, and they either accept bills or consign goods; if bills are drawn beyond the amount due, they protest them, and if they are asked to consign goods beyond that amount, they refuse to do so. “With regard to the vessel alluded to in this Report, the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that which appears from one of the letters: that is to say”--

Now here again, Gentlemen, I must refer you to the mode in which this prosecution has been carried on.

In this evidence before the Committee, the prisoner now at the bar refers to one of the letters received by the house from Martinez & Co.: I must say where the counsel for the prosecution availed themselves of this evidence before the Committee, as evidence against the prisoner upon the charge of felony, I think they were bound to make evidence of every document he referred to in it, as explanatory of the evidence he gave.

I speak this subject to the correction of their Lordships; and I know that their Lordships will overrule and correct what I say, if I am wrong, and therefore I say it with the more confidence, because I know it will not be controverted; I say, that in a prosecution for a felony, or any other crime, if the counsel for the prosecution give in evidence a statement made by a prisoner, charged with a crime which refers to a document, he ought--

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. I understood this was the letter about the 500_l._; that and all the other letters are in the Appendix, and to be found there: they are deposited, every one.

Mr. Kelly. We will try my learned friend’s accuracy by looking at what it was. He says, “With regard to the vessel alluded to in this Report, the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that which appears from one of the letters: that is to say, Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, had made choice of Jennings to buy the vessel, and lent him money to buy the vessel; because Pedro Martinez wanted him to have a vessel in the trade, for the purpose of taking his goods to their destination.” He says that the object of Pedro Martinez was, that Captain Jennings should buy the vessel, and that it should be conducted in the way he states. That may appear in a letter--how could it appear but in a letter from Martinez & Co. to Zulueta, containing their instructions? That letter my learned friend should have called for--he has given notice to produce it, and he ought to have called for it and made it a part of the examination, as if the witness had produced and read the letter, and it had not been set out in the evidence. He then says, “I have now described the three kinds of operations in which we have been concerned, and our knowledge of all of them terminated with the execution of the orders of our correspondents. We had nothing more to do than to follow the orders of the purchaser in shipping the goods. With regard to the purchase of the vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a man--” Here is a solution of every thing called concealment. “Jennings is a man who has been employed some time by Martinez; he has served Martinez as a chartered captain, and Martinez, having been satisfied with his services, agreed to lend him that money on the security of the vessel, provided it did not exceed a certain amount.” Now the next question is put by Mr. Forster, the member for Berwick. Mr. Forster all the world knows, and I hope you know, is very extensively concerned in the African trade; he is a man as perfectly conversant with this subject as any man in Britain; and I cannot help making the same observation as to him which I did as to Lord Stanley and Lord John Russell, I cannot help thinking, if there had been any thing dishonourable in the character of the trade and to the character of a British merchant, instead of bringing out the true colour of the transaction, as you will see he did, he would have done every thing to hold it up to reprobation. He learns from the witness the nature of the transaction as to the purchase of the vessel, that Captain Jennings had been engaged in similar transactions; he catches at it in a moment, and puts it in a few words--“You advanced the money to Captain Jennings for the purchase of the vessel, Jennings transferring the vessel to you as a security for the money so advanced?--That is just the description of operation, which is a very general one in business.” If the counsel for the prosecution says it is not the ordinary course of business, why does he not call Mr. Forster, or any other gentleman in the trade, to show that it is not correct, and that it is not a usual transaction? He has attempted no such thing; the evidence is a blank; you have only the evidence of this young man. I do not pretend to say that because this gentleman has given a long statement, in which he has vindicated his house from the statement made against them, that you are bound to believe all he says; but I do appeal to you whether, if what he says could be proved false by the prosecutors, they would not have done so? They have proved nothing false. He is speaking of an ordinary transaction of commerce before some of the first commercial men in Britain: there was a check upon his evidence which would have restrained him, if wicked enough to tell a lie, which would have prevented him saying what was not true. I say that the character of the Committee is a guarantee of the correctness of his statement, speaking of it as the ordinary course of trade.

The Chairman then says, “What is the object of such an operation?--I know very little, or almost next to nothing, of the operations in those parts of the world.” Is that true or untrue? That is the very essence of the case, as I submit to you: he has been only six or seven years in the business; they have only in the last ten years had seven or eight transactions, and in the last six or seven years they may have two or three. He says, “I know very little, or almost next to nothing, of the operations in those parts of the world.” Why, are you to suppose that he, by intuition or by magic, was to know all that Captain Hill, Captain Denman, and Colonel Nichol knew in twenty-five years of constant observation? Mr. Serjeant Bompas asks you to believe he knew every thing as well as any body living upon the spot. Then he speaks of the object of the transaction, which I will not weary you in repeating.

Then he is asked, “What advantage would there be in Mr. Jennings taking the articles rather as the owner than as captain under Martinez; was not he commander of the vessel as well as owner of the vessel?--Yes.” “He is made the owner, instead of being captain?--He is the owner as well as the captain of the vessel; he stands indebted to Martinez, and gives a bottomry bond for the vessel.” Then he goes on to illustrate what he says.

Then Mr. Forster says, “You acted in this transaction merely as agent in the usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in any part of the world?--Exactly; if Martinez had told me, ‘You have got 500_l._ in your hands, pay that to Captain Jennings,’ I should have known nothing more of the transaction; I should have paid the money. But Martinez did not wish to go beyond a certain amount; and he says, ‘You exercise control, do not allow the man to pay more than 500_l._ for the vessel.’” “But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of the goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions were entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?--Most assuredly; except with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any thing with him in any way.”

Gentlemen, that reminds me of this fact: my learned friend has sought to give in evidence certain papers, which were found in the year 1841 on board this vessel, and which it is now perfectly manifest were put on board that vessel in Cadiz long after she had sailed from Liverpool; I objected to that evidence. Gentlemen, I will not go over again what I said at the time: I certainly did think, considering that these letters were in print and before my Lords, that the only object of the discussion was to have a legal opinion of my Lords whether these letters were admissible in evidence. My learned friend could have argued the point without referring to the contents of the letters, and so filling your minds with the contents of those letters, which, as they were rejected, ought not to have been submitted to you; for any one, knowing how the human mind is constituted, must feel that in the mind of one or two out of the twelve the effect might have been to draw your attention to something foreign to the matter; and I objected and complained of Mr. Serjeant Bompas for referring to the letters. My Lords held that they were not evidence, but my learned friend seemed to be pressing upon you their contents in opposition to the opinion of my Lord. I will remind you that these letters were written by Martinez & Co., and put on board this vessel at Cadiz months after the vessel had sailed from England. Mr. Zulueta had never heard of these proceedings; and whether he is guilty or innocent, all that is charged against him had been committed months before these letters were in existence, and therefore to attempt to use what Martinez had said or written, against the prisoner, was only calculated to raise a prejudice injurious to the administration of justice. You may easily imagine that Martinez may be, for aught I know, a man who, besides dealing to the extent of a million a year in sugars and other things, does deal to some extent in slaves, and it is possible he may have written letters to his correspondents in Africa relating to the slave trade; and consider the wickedness of using these letters against Mr. Zulueta, who never saw the letters, and could not know any thing of them or their contents, or have any control over them. It was this sentence reminded me of that: he is asked, “But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of the goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions were entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?--Most assuredly; except with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any thing with him in any way.” It therefore comes to this, whatever might have passed between Martinez and Captain Jennings, Captain Jennings may be responsible for, or Martinez; but Mr. Zulueta is wholly irresponsible: all that passed through his hands he is ready to account for and abide by, and stand to the consequences of it; but what took place between Captain Jennings and Martinez is wholly beyond his knowledge; and it is unjust and unreasonable that I, as his counsel, should for one moment permit it to be given in evidence if I could prevent it.

Then Sir Thomas Acland asks him, “Do you mean that you know that the Augusta was not engaged in any slaving transactions during the voyage upon which she left Liverpool?--Most assuredly not; in fact, my testimony is hardly required of that, because every thing proves that. When she was detained, it was never said that she was upon a slaving operation at all. Before she left this port, after she was bought, she was completely rendered useless for that purpose.” Here again have they attempted to prove that the contrary was the fact, and that this answer was false? Remember that this is not said by this young man as if then upon his trial and defending himself against the charge of felony, and when he would have a strong temptation, if capable of falsehood, to say what was false to protect himself against the heavy punishment. All this is said freely. If any one of you were to hear to-morrow morning that another had said of you, you had been offered a bribe to give a particular verdict, you would go before the first tribunal and deny the statement, and request that it might be made public; that is all this young man has said, he is denying the accusation and submitting that what his accusers have said is untrue. If he was saying what was untrue, they could have shown it. He says, “After she was bought she was completely rendered useless for that purpose;” and it is proved that she was--for the leagers, the water-vessels, it was proved to you were rendered useless; and though my learned friend would not admit it, I proved that they were put ashore at Liverpool, and therefore this is every word of it true, and my learned friend has failed in proving it false.

The Chairman then says, “The charge is, that she was engaged in carrying goods to a person engaged in the slave trade; not that she was engaged in the slave trade herself?” Then he says, and here is a very important answer--“I most certainly say, that I do not know whether the person is so engaged or not.” That is, the consignee of the vessel. The Chairman observes, “The charge is, that this vessel was sent to somebody engaged in the slave trade?” And what does he say?--“I do not know whether he is or not; I do not know any thing about him.” Whether they could have proved the contrary as to Ximenes or Rolo, or all of them, I do not know. Then he goes on to say, “It seems to me that English captains and English subjects are not prohibited from borrowing money from Spaniards.” There is no doubt of that; it is quite lawful. “She was bought with money lent by Pedro Martinez to Captain Jennings for the purpose.”

Then Mr. Wilson Patten asked him, “You have stated that yours is an agency trade?--It is so; and in the multitude of business, any one can understand that 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years, can only be a mere trifle in the business of any merchant, without laying claim to a large business; and in following that business, we have executed shipping orders.”

This is another repetition of the observation made before, that it was a shipping order in the transactions of their house, and that he had only executed the orders given by a foreign correspondent. Then he is asked, “To what part of the coast of Africa has that business been chiefly conducted?--I believe, almost exclusively to the Gallinas.”

Then he goes on, and this is the part of the evidence upon which Mr. Serjeant Bompas relies--this is really the only part of this body of evidence given by this young man upon which the learned Serjeant relies in support of the prosecution--“Do you know the nature of the trade of Pedro Martinez at the Gallinas?--I know from general report, that Don Pedro Martinez himself is supposed to deal in slaves, and I believe it is so.” “Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer in slaves?--I do not know, but I believe so. I do not know why it should not be known at the Havannah, if it is known in other parts.” From that my learned friend says he does know it. You must take the whole of the evidence together. He says his house “never had any thing to do with any slave transaction, nor does he know that any vessel that ever went from their house was engaged in slave transactions, but he had heard that Pedro Martinez was engaged in the slave trade;” but you have it from other parts of the case, that he was a large dealer in other transactions quite lawful.

Now this is a statement, not of what this young man knew at the time he participated more or less in the transaction now under your consideration--these transactions took place in 1840--this examination takes place in July 1842. He does not say, that at the time they sent the Augusta they knew that Pedro Martinez was engaged in the slave trade; he says, “I know it,” speaking in the present tense, meaning “I now know it.”

Now, Gentlemen, I beg your attention to a question I besought my learned friend to read, I besought in vain--I thank God I have now the means of reading it--

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Yes, I did read it.

Mr. Kelly. “Have you reason to suppose that a large portion of the trade that they carry on at the Havannah is the slave trade?”--His answer is, “I had no reason to know any thing of the kind; I have known more of their transactions with the slave trade since these things have been mooted than I ever knew before; I have had more knowledge of these things lately than I ever had in my life before; and when I say, ‘I,’ I beg to state that I ought to state, ‘we,’ for all my partners are in the same situation.”

Now, what does this come to? This gentleman tells you, that out of many hundred thousand pounds, a few trifling orders are sent to the coast of Africa; he is asked in 1842 if he knows of their correspondent being engaged in the slave trade, and he says he does only from common report; and in another part of the evidence, when his attention is more particularly called to it, he says, “I had no reason to know any thing of the kind; but since these transactions have been mooted I have known more of their connexion with the slave trade.” What is the meaning of this? I do implore you to remember that we are here upon a grave crime, the effect of a conviction upon which would expose this young man to utter and irremediable ruin, and bring disgrace upon his family; he is called upon after a loose examination upon the subject to explain what he has in a long examination loosely admitted, that a man was a slave trader, and also that these goods were to be so used. Looking at it fairly, what is it?--I had no reason to know it four years ago; but since these matters have been discussed I have inquired more about it, and have found, from the evidence of Captain Denman, that an event took place there which made the Gallinas, and in the character of the trading there, a matter of as much notoriety as the battle of Waterloo, or any other great event.--It appears that this officer of Her Majesty’s navy descended upon the coast and burnt every slave establishment upon the spot, and the consequence is, that reclamations have been made and actions have been brought; it was the subject of investigation before this Committee, and is the subject of proceedings in Courts of Justice, and the attention of every body has been called to it, and of course that brings to the mind of this young gentleman a great deal of knowledge of the character of the place, and those who have lived in it, more than he ever possessed before; and I put it to you, if this was a civil instead of a criminal case, and in which a man was to pay a sum of money, whether the fair inference is not, that, they shipped these goods without knowing that they were to be employed in the slave trade, that they did not know that Martinez was engaged in it till it became the subject of discussion; and I ask you, what is there to establish that it was so notorious that Martinez was a slave dealer, that Mr. Zulueta must have known that the goods were to be so employed? I ask you, why may not Mr. Zulueta, as much as any other merchant or manufacturer in the kingdom, who is asked to sell goods to go to the coast of Africa, why may he not, when there is an immense extent of lawful trade to that coast, have supposed that they were to be used in the lawful trade as in the unlawful trade, which it would be criminal in him to promote? I say that in a civil case, but in a criminal case, if there is a shadow of doubt upon your minds whether he is innocent or guilty--and in this I shall be sanctioned by my Lords the Judges--if doubt be left in your minds, when it was the duty of the prosecutor to remove that doubt, the prisoner must have your verdict. It is not because it is probable or possible that the goods might have been so employed--it is not because there is something doubtful in the transaction--you must be satisfied that he knew they were to be so employed, and that he shipped them with that object--and unless you are convinced of that, there is no case fora verdict of guilty. I say the whole question rests upon the notoriety of the place and the character of the parties, and upon that you find that this gentleman knew nothing at the time of these transactions either of the nature of the trade or the character of the persons there.

Then they talk about the ship, and so on. Then Mr. Forster says, “Your house had nothing to do with any letters that might be put on board the Augusta after she sailed from this country?--Nothing whatever.” And that is the way that was perfectly disposed of, and so the Judges have held in rejecting the letters put on board after the vessel left the country. He says, “The Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa, on the charge of slave trading?--I believe that was the case.” Then he is asked, “Have you reason to suppose that the whole of that large commerce is subservient to the carrying on of the slave trade by the house of Blanco and Martinez at the Havannah?--I do not know; I know that they have large transactions in general business. I know that a short time ago I got 40,000_l._ or 50,000_l._ of Spanish bonds in the market for Martinez. I know that he is a large speculator in Spanish bonds and in securities of state.” Then he names the house for whom that was done. Then he goes on, “Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah to ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for the African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of the same kind as those that were in the ‘Augusta;’ cotton goods and other things of that sort.” Would that make it felony if you shipped goods to the Havannah, if the persons there used them in the slave trade? Where is it to stop? It is essential that it should be so understood by juries, as well as mercantile men; there must be some clear and distinct rule. Men are not, while carrying on their fair and mercantile transactions, to be treading on the verge of transportation every moment of their lives, which they would be if they deal in these goods which are sent in these ships, and may be so employed or engaged.

Then he is asked, “Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah to ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for the African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of the same kind as those that were in the ‘Augusta;’ cotton goods, and other things of that sort.” “Have you sent any goods of that description since you first began to send goods out direct to the coast of Africa?--They have been mixed; I cannot draw a distinction between the two destinations; some have gone to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.” Then he is asked, “How long have you conducted the trade upon the coast of Africa?--As I said before, I do not think we have conducted any trade on the coast of Africa, either legal or illegal.” He persists in maintaining, as I do on his behalf, that his transactions were closed at Liverpool; he knows nothing more about it. Then he is asked, “How long have you acted as agents for Martinez, on the coast of Africa?--As long as we have had any connexions with Martinez; it is part and parcel of other operations; that is to say, in the multitude of other operations that have intervened we have shipped goods as I have said.” And it would be a strange thing if these gentlemen, for the sake of putting into their pockets an inconsiderable sum of money by this purchase--I am afraid to calculate it, for fear I should fall into an error--were to put themselves in jeopardy of an indictment for a felony, and transportation for fourteen years. If they have done so, it must be from some strange ignorance. To suppose they would do so for that which would not pay their clerks’ salary for a day, when they have stood so far above suspicion, is absolutely incredible and impossible.

Then he is asked, “Have you ever received consignments from them, or on their behalf, of palm oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the coast of Africa?”--He says, “Never; we never have received any thing from the coast of Africa whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will perhaps appear strange to the Committee that I should not know more of the coast of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had shipped to the amount of 100,000_l._ to the coast of Africa, or carried on any considerable trade there, we should certainly have known more about the coast of Africa; but in transactions of a very large amount, an invoice occasionally of about 2,000_l._ or 3,000_l._ of goods was a thing that we sent as a matter of course, and did not trouble our heads about, especially as the remuneration we got was a mere trifle, not of itself worth pursuing, if it had not been for the general business we had?”

Now you see, Gentlemen, this in one respect confirms what I do not intend to dispute, the testimony of these naval gentlemen that there are not shipments from this colony; but the question is not whether that is the fact, or what information it conveyed to them, or what information it conveyed to Mr. Zulueta; he says, “We never received any produce from that country but that would not show that there were no produce. “Our shipments were in discharge of former liabilities; we had received sugars and sold them, and we were called upon to make shipments to the coast of Africa, and we do so; and the nature of the transaction is such that we could not have any return;” and therefore he says, “if our transactions had been larger, we should have known a great deal more of this trade than we do. We had a sum of money, the proceeds of sugar and other articles, and we sent a small shipment to Africa debiting the house with that shipment; that being all we knew, and our transactions closing the moment the ship left Liverpool, how can we know any more of it? We know no more, and that accounts for our ignorance.”

Then he is asked about another vessel in which the name of Mr. Kidd was introduced--that is quite unimportant. He is asked, “You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in any way?--No, nor any knowledge of him.” He then says something to which I should call your attention. Something had been said by another witness, “Zulueta, the gentleman in London to whom the vessel was sent, and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner, is a name well known on the coast in connexion with the slave trade.” That is what somebody had said before the Committee, which he came before the Committee voluntarily to contradict; he says, “Now, what is known on the coast I really cannot pretend to say; but I believe that not many persons can say that which I can say, that neither myself, nor my father, nor my grandfather, nor any body in our firm, has ever had any kind of interest of any sort, or derived any emolument or connexion from the slave trade.” Gentlemen, would to Heaven that every gentleman in a mercantile house could say the same I But this gentleman is challenging contradiction, he is speaking in the presence of those conversant with the trade, and in the presence of the Secretaries of State he is laying himself open to contradiction, and he says openly, knowing it will be published to the world, and knowing he may be denounced as a man guilty of gross falsehood if it is untrue, he says, “Neither myself, nor my father, nor grandfather, ever made one shilling by the slave trade:” and yet this young man is to be selected out of the firm and made the victim in respect of the Augusta, and that upon this statement, as my learned friend reminds me; that he who comes before the Committee and challenges disproof--he says, “I challenge any one to say that I was ever engaged in the slave trade--” that that is to be made evidence and offered in a British Court before a British Jury. Now see what follows, and I believe it is not a vain boast, it is not a mere statement--he says, “My father had at one time an interest in a bankrupt’s estate at the Havannah, upon which he was a creditor. There were some slaves on the estate, and they formed part of the property assignable to the creditors, and my father got the slaves assigned to him; because the other gentlemen and the creditors were not of the same opinion.” That is, because the other people did not think there was any thing wrong in the slave trade. “He got them assigned to him, and made them free; and that is all the connexion we have ever had with any slaves in the world. I do not know how far that may be considered irrelevant to the point, but I state it because we are here mentioned three or four times as connected with slave dealers, as a name well known in connexion with the slave trade. That sort of statement--” Well indeed may he say so, and I say on his behalf, “that sort of statement is rather a difficult thing to deal with.” It is indeed, Gentlemen. When I hear my learned friend say, that because he sent out a vessel with an English captain, and because at Portsmouth there are some shackles, and because Captain Hill and Captain Denman knew this was a slave trading colony, therefore you are to convict him; I say, “it is a very difficult thing to deal with.” That is what he said before the Committee; this has been published fifteen months, and before the public; the prosecutor has had it fifteen months--has he contradicted any one letter in it? He says, “My father, and my grandfather, and my house, never had any connexion with the slave trade; except that he took some slaves, because he wished to make them free, under a bankrupt’s estate, and he made them free, that is the only connexion we ever had with the slave trade in the world.” That is his evidence, and I beg you to contrast it with the other evidence of my learned friend and the doubtful inferences he has suggested.

Then he is asked, “If it is meant to insinuate by these observations that you ever had any other connexion with the slave trade, than being the shipping agent of goods which were sent to a man who was a dealer in slaves, you entirely deny it?” He says, “I assure the Committee, that although I have a general notion as to what interest Blanco and Martinez have in slaves, yet, if I was put upon my oath to make any particular statement, I really could not, because I do not know it. Of course I believe it; but my personal knowledge amounts only to that which the knowledge of what we read in a newspaper amounts to.” It is quite evident what he means--I know nothing of their being slave traders: since these matters have been under consideration I have read the newspapers, and I see enough to lead me to suppose that they deal in slaves. But he does not say he had that knowledge in 1840, when these transactions took place. Then he is asked, “There was nothing upon the face of the transactions which you had with those parties which spoke of a connexion with traffic in slaves?--Nothing whatever. It is well known, that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz”--There is another point inviting attention and contradiction.--He says, “It is well known, that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz to insure operations in slave trading.” So it was at that time: slave trading, in all its branches, and of the worst character, was perfectly legal both in Spain, and I grieve to say, also in England, or English colonies. And he goes on to say, “My house at that time were underwriters, and it was notorious that a policy of that kind would never enter the doors of our house; and nobody would come to offer such a thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both here and in Spain, that we set our faces distinctly against having any interest of any kind in the slave trade.”

Now, Gentlemen, is it not grievous, is it not cruel, that this young man, almost just entering life, belonging to a family, belonging to a house, which can say this with truth, that while the slave trade was deemed lawful by the British law and universally practised throughout Spain and the Spanish colonies, and recognized in all its forms, “My house would not execute a policy for slaves?” Is it not cruel, that the youngest partner at the very outset of life is to have his character blasted and held up as a felon, because it is said he had done something to assist that trade?

Then he is asked, “It is further stated, ‘It appears, that it is a regular thing sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England to him, he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ Have you any observation to make upon that?--It is all untrue, the whole of it; I have never received a vessel from those gentlemen; there has been nothing of the kind.” He denies it; it might have been proved, and it has not been proved. “Have you any thing further to state upon the subject?”--Then he states a number of other matters, which as nothing has been said upon them I do not comment upon. Then he says, at the end of the last answer, “‘My answer was intended to describe only the course of that particular transaction and not to apply to any other case.’ I never received a single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor any body for us.”

Then Mr. Forster says, “Then that statement is entirely untrue?--Totally, from beginning to end; we never did so, and nobody for us; and nobody to our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in the most distinct manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay is asked, ‘Have you any thing further to say with regard to the connexion of Zulueta with the slave trade?’ The answer is, ‘I would refer to his connexion with the Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case it appeared that the vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from London.’--That is the same vessel as the Augusta, which I have already explained; it formerly bore the name of Gollupchik.”

Then he is asked about some other matters, but as they have not been made the subject of evidence here I will not comment upon them. He speaks upon the moral point, and he enters into a very lengthened statement in which he says, “I am not here to discuss the moral propriety or impropriety of the slave trade; I have my own opinions upon it, and if I thought it was a justifiable trade I should not shrink from expressing it.” That is the result of a long statement: and, in answer to a very comprehensive question of Sir Thomas Acland, “You have stated in your letter, that your principle is, that of ‘not wishing to derive profit or advantage from the sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable or unavoidable,’ and you have acted upon that principle?”--He says, “That is the principle upon which we have acted.” Then there is a great deal about the nature of various other transactions.

Then we come to something that appears upon another point--a point made a distinct matter, and which I very much rejoice is the last one to which I shall have to refer, and that not requiring any large consumption of your time. Among other reasons urged upon you as tending to the conclusion that this ship, was dispatched for the purposes of the slave trade was this by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, that the vessel in the course of the voyage unnecessarily put into Cadiz, as if there was some previous concert or arrangement that the vessel though dispatched nominally for the Gallinas should go to Cadiz, and that there some one or other should afford them facilities for carrying on the slave trade. Upon that I have some observations to make. First, one does not see how that was to be better promoted by touching at Cadiz than if she had proceeded direct to the Gallinas, and for this reason, if it had been found when she arrived on the coast of Africa that she had taken on board any materials to facilitate the carrying on the slave trade, that would be something to draw an inference from; but no such thing appears. Why she should have touched there to facilitate the carrying on the slave trade I do not understand, and still less do I understand why it is to be imputed to Mr. Zulueta that a vessel to all outward appearance cleared for the Gallinas, that it was intended she should touch at Cadiz; and I pray you to answer the question to yourselves, you cannot answer it to me, if it was intended for the purpose of good or evil she should touch there, why conceal it? Why not give out “with liberty to touch at Cadiz,” if any suspicion attached to the transaction?

Foreman of the Jury. Did we not understand that the English sailors were landed at Cadiz, and took in Spanish sailors there?

Mr. Kelly. No, some English sailors were discharged; but there is nothing about the Spanish sailors being taken in: there is nothing about that--some English sailors, two or three of them, did go on shore, but it was not in any way connected with Mr. Zulueta, or to which he could be a party. You understand, when they had sailed from England some of the sailors rebelled and mutinied; the captain, like a clear-sighted man, said, if I go to Cork these men will all leave me; I will not do that, but as it is necessary to go somewhere, I will go to Cadiz. It was not the result of any previous concert. They say it was intended before he left that he should stop there. If it had been intended I do not see why it should not have been stated in the charter-party, it would not have had a more suspicious appearance that the vessel should touch there than go to the Gallinas direct, the suspicion of the slave trade was the mention of the Gallinas. Captain Denman, who knew the place, might draw his suspicious inference from the mention of the Gallinas, but nobody would suspect it from Cadiz. It was from some mutiny of the men, added to the stress of weather, the master would not go to Cork, he went to Cadiz: it was an event arising from something in the course of the voyage, and not from any thing that occurred before the vessel left England, and it was when the vessel left England that the participation of Mr. Zulueta in the whole transaction ceased; but if it were of any importance for the purpose of the prosecution, you should have had it distinctly explained to you what took place on board the vessel, what the nature of the bad weather was which should have made it desirable to go to Falmouth or to Cork: why do they not produce the log? they have the ship’s papers.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. My learned friend says he has not it.

Mr. Kelly. How did they get the papers from the Admiralty? The log is on board the vessel; some of the crew were on board; none of them were produced but the cabin-boy, who knew nothing; it was more convenient to bring a boy who knew nothing, than men who should enlighten you upon the object. But whether it was for a good or bad purpose that Captain Jennings went to Cadiz, what had Mr. Zulueta to do with it? To make it of any importance, the prosecutor should have proved that Mr. Zulueta had contrived, for some purpose or other, that he should touch at Cadiz. Nothing of the kind is proved upon the subject; all that is said upon the subject is what Mr. Zulueta says. Now what is it that he says? The Chairman says, “It would appear from Question 5087, that your name is supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper, as connected with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page 38, in Class B. Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred to in the answer, and see if there is any trace of your name in that transaction?--I do not find my own name there; I only find an allusion at the bottom to the name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in no way connected with me, and stating a circumstance which I never knew. In Question 7965*, it is stated, ‘The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her way out from England?’ The answer is, ‘Yes, and landed part of her cargo at Cadiz, although it was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.’ Now Captain Hill, who has given this answer, must have known why she touched at Cadiz, and why she discharged part of her cargo, for it must be in the log-book of the vessel. It was because she was nearly wrecked in her passage; she put into Cadiz in distress, and there she landed a part of her cargo, which was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the benefit of the underwriters. Now that has not been stated here, but I think Captain Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of the vessel which he took.”

Now Captain Hill has said the same thing here to-day--the purpose of going to Cadiz was by some previous contrivance, for some purpose of Mr. Zulueta. The log would have shown the state of the weather registered from day to day during the passage of the vessel, and the rebellious part of the crew would have no desire to give Mr. Zulueta much benefit by their evidence.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. It is not fair for Mr. Kelly to state that: the log would not be evidence against Mr. Zulueta. After you had decided against four documents, I would not offer a fifth.

Mr. Kelly. I have to thank my learned friend for this very singular instance of his forbearance; if the log, as it regards this transaction, was not evidence against me, and I do not say it would be, I cannot understand how letters written by other persons found in the vessel could be evidence against me;--but let us waste no more time upon that subject; if the log would not be evidence, he might have called some or the crew; he has only called the cabin-boy; there is no evidence to show the state of the weather; and you are called upon in a case like this to suppose that there was some previous contrivance by which the Captain was to touch at Cadiz.

Then he says, in answer to another question, and the question is directly put to him by Sir Thomas Acland, “It was not intended when she left England, that she should put into Cadiz?--Most certainly not; all the facts of the case show that she went there because she was obliged. I have not seen the log-book, but it must be there; because in the log-book the captain is bound to enter those things, and whoever captured the vessel must have seen the log-book of course. In answer to Question 7967*, it is said, ‘Messrs. Zulueta must be aware that it is contrary to law to act as agents or otherwise for the shipment of goods that are to be employed in the slave trade; they were bound to do nothing illegal; they are merchants residing in England, and they must conform themselves to the laws of England, and they cannot by the laws of England plead ignorance of those laws.’ Now I and my partners are British subjects, and therefore we are bound by the law, and we must obey the law; and I say that to endeavour to elude the law is criminal in my estimation of things. In the answer to Question 7970*, it is stated, ‘I have endeavoured to be particular in making it appear that this vessel was chartered to a place where there were no constituted authorities.’ I think that in the Gallinas there are constituted authorities. It is the first time that I ever heard that it is illegal for any merchant to ship goods for any places without ascertaining beforehand whether there are constituted authorities there.” Then, at the end of his examination, he is asked, “You have given the Committee the names of the parties drawing the bills, and on whose account they were drawn, and you speak of their being drawn in favour of Sierra Leone houses; have you any objection to furnish the names of the houses in whose favour they were drawn?--I say that I have no objection, except that I should not like to introduce names unnecessarily; but the bills are in my hands, and any gentleman can look at them who chooses; they are at the disposal of any body who likes to look at them.” He says, in another part of the evidence which refers to the documents, “I do not like in this transaction to mention names; any gentleman may see at my counting-house documents to verify what I state.” Gentlemen, I am reminded that it will appear that he put in the bills themselves in order to verify the statement; they were produced before the Committee, it is written down in express terms--“The witness produced the bills;” so that you see, when he makes a statement of what were his transactions, he verifies it by the documents, and produces them to the Committee.

Then, the next day, he states a fact which is perfectly conclusive as to this matter at Cadiz. He is asked, “The Committee understand that you have some further observations to make upon the evidence which has been given with reference to your house?--With reference to the destination of the Augusta, from Liverpool to Gallinas, and the fact of its having put into Cadiz unforeseen and unpremeditated altogether, in consequence of stress of weather, I omitted to mention a circumstance which will put the thing beyond doubt, and it is this: an insurance was made at Lloyd’s, from Liverpool to the Gallinas, and it is well known that, of course, we should have forfeited the insurance by going to any other port except from the peril of the sea, and the British consul at Cadiz is well aware of the circumstance, because he is Lloyd’s agent there; and therefore he had to interfere in the whole proceeding; without his sanction nothing could have been done. We have called upon the underwriters upon that account, and it has been paid, and which would not have been paid without its being proved. I stated yesterday that the transactions of my house with Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, with Blanco and Carvalho of the Havannah, and with Pedro Martinez of Cadiz, had amounted in the twenty years to 100,000_l_., I was afraid of overrating the amount; but on reference to the books of the house, I find that our transactions with them in twenty years have amounted to 400,000_l_., out of which the 22,000_l_. that was mentioned is the whole amount of goods that have been shipped by their orders for the coast of Africa.”

Now observe what he here states: he says, I am charged with having known, before this vessel quitted England, that she was to go to Cadiz, and that it was for some unlawful and improper purpose. He says--Not only do I deny that I knew it (I say not only is there no proof that he knew it, but he gives this convincing evidence), he says, before the vessel sailed I effected an insurance upon the ship and goods, and by that policy of insurance there was no provision for going to Cadiz. I need not observe that by the law, if a vessel deviates from the course stipulated in the policy, unless it is matter of compulsion and stress of weather, the policy is forfeited--here it is clear that there was a policy effected, under which the vessel was in no condition to touch at Cadiz--the policy would be forfeited; and yet it is supposed that this old established house, having effected this policy, into which they might have introduced the going to Cadiz, contrived that this deviation should take place, under which, if a loss had happened, they could not have recovered a shilling. It is perfectly clear, whether by accident or design, with which we have nothing to do--I think it was by accident--it is perfectly clear, that Zulueta & Co. knew nothing of it; and if a loss had happened, they could not have enforced it.

Now there are one or two more lines, and one or two only, with which I have to trouble you in this evidence. The witness is asked as to the former transactions of his house upon the coast of Africa: he is asked, “Have you bought other vessels for him (Martinez) than those which have been employed in the slave trade?--Yes, decidedly so; there was the Star, Captain Jennings.” You remember, I think, Captain Denman said there was no lawful trade carried on at the Gallinas--the question is, how far Mr. Zulueta knew that, and I asked him if he had heard of the Star; he said “No.” See what Mr. Zulueta says, “There was the Star, Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent from here to the Gallinas, precisely the same as the Augusta has been sent. She delivered her cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I believe, and from there to Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she came back to Spain, and she was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not Martinez, or any body connected with him; in fact, she was sold for very little. The object of that vessel was just the same as the Augusta, to maintain a legal trade with Gallinas; that is within my own knowledge.”

Now I do think--I should rather say I venture to submit to you--that it appears to me, that this answer which might clearly have been contradicted, because there are specific facts stated which could have been contradicted if untrue--this answer, if true, is perfectly decisive of this case. What is it? Gentlemen, this is the nature of the transaction: he says--My house has had other transactions of the same description with the coast of Africa; we sent out the Star to this very place, the Gallinas. And the question is, whether Messrs. Zulueta & Co. had any reason to know that this was an illegal trade. If the goods had to their knowledge been bartered for slaves, if the Star had brought an illegal cargo, and if she had been seized and condemned for slave trading, then they might begin to suspect--Here is one vessel we have sent to the Gallinas for Martinez & Co. seized, we must consider before we send any more. But here was a case in which they had sent in a ship, commanded by Captain Jennings, a cargo of the same description--the transaction had been legally completed without any thing partaking of an illegal character--the ship had taken a cargo of wine and gone to some other part of the world, and then returned to England and been sold at Liverpool. Then I pray of you--and nothing can be safer than to ask you--to put yourselves for a moment in the situation of the party charged with this offence. Suppose that you had been charged with putting on board a ship a quantity of merchandise for the Gallinas--the question is, if you would have any reason to suspect there was any thing illegal in it? If you had the year before, when these British cruizers were in the seas, sent a cargo of the same goods for the same house to the same place, and the transaction had been legally completed, and if you had heard that the ship had carried a cargo of goods to Madeira, would not you say, I have done one transaction of this kind, I know nothing illegal in it, and I may enter into another of the same description? And that it was so here, you have the evidence that the Star had been there, a case in all forms of this transaction, and never impugned in the slightest degree. The present transaction of the Augusta is of the same character, and yet you are asked to believe that Zulueta & Co. knew that this last transaction was altogether unlawful and to encourage the slave trade, when they had completed a former transaction without any suspicion of any thing illegal in it.

Then he is asked some questions about the nature of the trade, and he says, “I could not say what trade there is at the Gallinas of a legal nature, but I know that those vessels would have taken nothing if there was nothing legal to take, from that place to the Havannah, or to any other place; I am aware that my answers upon this point must be deficient, because I am really very ignorant of the trade of the West Coast of Africa.” You are called upon to believe that this is all false, that he knew all about it; and he says--“At this period I am ignorant of it:” and it is not because a man is ignorant that he is to be impeached. He is asked, “Do you suppose that the vessels would be used to carry on a legal trade?--Most certainly I do; because persons find it worth while to send goods there constantly. The Committee will observe, that what the application of the goods is afterwards I cannot say, but I speak of the fact of the vessels having gone there with the intention of returning to the Havannah to bring a cargo of some description here, to pay a freight, and then to go again with the same kind of goods to Africa.” Then he is asked about Liverpool; and the Chairman says, “You have stated before, that you have cleared out for the Gallinas from Liverpool?--Yes.” “In carrying on operations of that kind, should you have ever thought it necessary to exercise any disguise as to what part of Africa you were clearing out for?--Not at all.” Nor did he. “You did not imagine, that in being the instrument of sending lawful goods to any part of Africa you were doing any thing which required concealment?--Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof of that is, that in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body could see our names as consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our names of every thing.”

Now here again is a matter in which the prosecutors might, if they had thought proper, have contradicted this gentleman, and overset the foundation of his case. He says--“True it is that the goods may have been shipped in the name of Captain Jennings, but the whole of the transactions were conducted by our house, and the name of our house appeared in all the documents in Liverpool.” It is impossible there should have been any concealment: they might have produced the documents, or official copies of them, from Liverpool, and have shown that the shipment was not in the name of Zulueta & Co., and have contradicted him; they have produced no one document, and you are bound to suppose that it is true; and if it was so done--and there is no doubt of it, though Captain Jennings’s name may have been mentioned as the shipper, what becomes of the charge of secrecy, or any thing clandestine? It fades away before you, and vanishes before the truth, as it now appears.

Then he is asked, “Is not there a document officially published daily in London and at Liverpool, stating the daily entries at the Custom-house of all goods shipped, with the description of the goods, and the name of the port and of the shipper?--Yes, there is.” “Is not this printed from time to time in the public papers?”--There were on the Committee people connected with Liverpool, and knew every thing about the trade, or they could not have put these questions.--“It is in general circulation; there is hardly any merchant in Liverpool or in London who is not possessed of one. The Liverpool entries are reprinted in London, Liverpool being such an important place of business. The bill printed in London contains also Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol.” Then he is asked, “So that every such transaction is perfectly notorious to every one?--Notorious to every one who chooses to read the public papers. There is another thing which escaped me, till I came into the room this morning. As I have been in the business from my childhood, I know every thing that is going on in it.” Then he speaks of the Arrogante, but as that has not been made the subject of evidence, I do not trouble you with it. Then he was asked, “whether the Augusta was equipped for the slave trade the second time; the answer was ‘She was not.’ I wish to state, that before any goods were put on board of her”--he states, that an order was given, which we have evidence was obeyed--“it was our express wish and order that every thing in her that was fit for that trade should be taken down and the vessel put in the same condition as any other merchant vessel; and we should not have loaded any thing in her if that had not been done. It is stated in the evidence that the Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave dealers; now we had never in our lives heard of the name of any one of the parties to whom she was consigned.”

Now, Gentlemen, what becomes then of the evidence you had from either of the honourable officers called before you to prove that they, who almost lived upon the coast of Africa, knew that these parties were notorious slave dealers? and yet you are called upon to infer that Mr. Zulueta, who had never been there in his life, knew it himself, notwithstanding this account which he gave when not charged with felony. If he gave it now you might suspect it, but it was a voluntary statement; he need not have gone voluntarily to tell a series of falsehoods, he might have left it uncontradicted; but he is asked with reference to the persons to whom these vessels were consigned, Alvarez, Rolo, and Nimenes, and he says, “neither he, nor any of his house, ever heard of the names before.” If it were otherwise it could be proved, and it is not proved. His evidence is used against him, and it is surely but fair to use it as far as it goes for him. You have this young man freely coming forward and stating that, as to these parties to whom the goods were consigned, “I knew very little about it, and as to these people I never heard of any one of them.” Then, what becomes of the effect of the evidence of Captain Denman and others, which no doubt they have given truly, as to the nature of the slave trade? This gentleman never having been there and knowing nothing about it, how can you fix this dreadful charge of guilt upon him upon evidence which leaves him entirely untouched upon this important part of the case, and untouched by this part of the evidence given by himself?

There is a good deal more said in the course of the evidence which I do not feel it right to read. I know you must be wearied as I am myself by the exertions it has been my duty to make, and therefore I do not go over the rest of the evidence. The effect of the whole is, that as to these goods having been shipped, and this vessel consigned to the coast of Africa under the circumstances you have heard mentioned, the part that was taken in it by Mr. Zulueta, the prisoner, was but a small part, but as far as it went it was perfectly legal. The question remaining is, whether he participated in the transaction with the object, that is in order to accomplish the object, of the slave trade. That is the question to be submitted to you. The whole evidence shortly stated is, that Captain Denman and others familiar with the spot knew that the slave trade was carried on there to a very great extent, but the evidence does not show that this unfortunate gentleman, the prisoner, knew any thing of the place or the persons by whom it was carried on, that is a matter of speculation, and the only mode in which the case could be completed so as to induce you to find a verdict of guilty is, by bringing before you the evidence he himself gave upon the subject.

Gentlemen, take that evidence as it is; I am sure you will consider it fairly--consider it altogether; consider that if it had been false in its material parts, it could have been contradicted, and if it be true, as you have every reason to believe it is, what does it prove? It proves that these gentlemen, in trading with Spain and Portugal, and Africa and the Brazils, must trade with persons more or less engaged in the slave trade, and it proves his own solemn declaration, that in this transaction, as in every other in which the house was ever engaged, neither he, nor as far as he knows, his father or grandfather, ever had any participation, direct or indirect, to the most minute particular in this nefarious trade. He does not confine himself to a mere denial; he states facts, and points to other facts as far as concerns his father and the early history of the house; he details the taking of slaves under a bankrupt estate, and liberating them at a time when there were not the same opinions upon the subject which happily exist; he points to those facts as in confirmation of his solemn declaration, that as far as his own knowledge goes, that neither himself, nor to his belief his father, nor his family, nor any member of the house were directly or indirectly concerned in the trade, but endeavoured earnestly, and heartily endeavoured, to discountenance it.

Gentlemen, such is the case before you, and I have only to say in conclusion, not only do these facts appear in evidence before you, but I shall call before you a body of witnesses to the character of this gentleman; I shall call before you some of the most honourable and eminent men in the City of London in all branches of commerce, who have known this gentleman in trade, and in every way; and they will all tell you, Gentlemen, that to their experience and knowledge, according to the language in which they may express themselves, what was told you by one witness in the box before you, that this young man was a good son, a good brother, a good father, and a good and honourable member of society, incapable of wilfully evading or violating the law. Such is the character he has hitherto sustained, such is the character I shall sustain before you, and when I have called those witnesses to establish that character, rare indeed for a man so young, I shall then with confidence, under the Judge’s directions, leave this case in your hands, knowing well that when all that is dear in life, and all that which is more dear than life, his honour, is resting upon your verdict; it will not be upon vague suspicions, not upon doubts, but upon what does not exist here, clear and direct and positive proof of guilt, that you will convict him of that offence, of which he is incapable from his heart’s core.

I shall sit down confidently awaiting your verdict of Not Guilty, which will restore this young man to that high and honourable station, and to that happiness which he has hitherto worthily enjoyed.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER.

Mr. James Cook, sworn. Examined by Mr. Bodkin.

Do you reside in London?--Yes.

Are you a colonial-broker?--I am a colonial-broker under the firm of Truman and Cooke.

How long have you known the prisoner at the bar?--From ten to fifteen years.

What character has he borne during the time you have known him?--A very high character: I consider Mr. Zulueta to be one of the most honourable men in the City of London. It falls to my lot to be acquainted with a very large circle of the mercantile community. I am in close connexion with most of the large houses--Messrs. Baring, Messrs. Rothschilds, and houses of that stamp--and if I were put in a position to make any exception as to honour and integrity among the houses I have named, including Mr. Zulueta, the young man at the bar, I should put my finger upon him as the exception, as the most honourable and most straightforward man I ever knew.

Is that the mode in which you have heard him spoken of among mercantile men?--I believe I may say, without exception, it is generally understood to be so.

[Adjourned.

THIRD DAY. MONDAY, 30TH OCTOBER, 1843.

The names of the Jury were called over.--All present.

The Defendant took his place within the Bar.

Alderman Sir John Pirie, Bart., sworn. Examined by Mr. Bodkin.

I believe you are extensively connected with trade and shipping in the City of London?--Yes.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--Perfectly.

And the defendant, who we understand is one of the firm?--I believe so.

How long have you been acquainted with him?--I should think about twelve years.

What character during that time has he borne among those who have known him for veracity and honour as a British merchant?--I have always considered him as one of the most respectable merchants in the City of London; a gentleman very unlikely to give encouragement to this nefarious trade.

Anselmo de Arroyave, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

I believe you live in Tavistock Square?--Yes.

Are you a merchant of this City?--Yes.

Extensively engaged in business?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands behind you, Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--Yes.

How long have you been acquainted with his firm?--With his firm I have been acquainted about thirty-two years--the firm in Spain.

How long have you known the gentleman who stands at the bar?--I should think about twelve years.

What character has the house, and himself a member of it, borne for the honourable nature of their transactions, their integrity, and their compliance with the laws of this country?--I always heard that they were men of the most correct principle in all dealings; his father and grandfather always bore the best character.

Mr. Justice Maule. I understand the gentleman to give him a very high character; I cannot hear the expressions.

Mr. Clarkson. Is there a house, in your judgment, in the City of London, which bears a higher character for principle and honour than the house of Zulueta?--It stands second to none.

Thomas Hallifax, Esq. sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you a banker of the firm of Glyn, Mills, & Co.?--I am.

How long have you known the gentleman who stands before you?--The firm have been known to our house, I believe, eighteen or nineteen years; I cannot say the precise time I became acquainted with Mr. Zulueta, but I should say from ten to fifteen years.

Have you had an opportunity of knowing during that time the reputation he bore in the City of London for the honour and integrity of his dealings and conduct?--I believe him to bear the highest possible character; I believe him to be a man of the highest honour, and the most amiable disposition. I have known him as connected with his eminent firm in the City, and also in private, and I have great pleasure in giving to the best of my knowledge the high character he has borne from his amiability and irreproachable conduct.

Samson Ricardo, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you a merchant of the City of London?--I am a member of the Stock Exchange.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--Very well.

You know the house and the whole of the members?--Yes, perfectly.

Have you had transactions with them?--Yes.

What has been the character and reputation of the gentleman in the dock for honour and integrity in his personal conduct and his mercantile dealings?--The highest possible, and most straightforward: he is quite incapable of engaging in any transactions of a questionable nature.

The Honourable Baron Lionel de Rothschild, sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you acquainted with the gentleman who stands in the dock?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--I have known him the best part of twenty years.

What character has he borne for honour and humanity as a man of business?--Most highly honourable as respects personal character, and as respects his firm the best and most straightforward.

Is he a man of humane disposition?--I should think perfectly so, incapable of being connected in any way with the offence charged.

Manuel Gregorio de Isasi, sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you a merchant of this City?--Yes.

Where do you carry on your business?--In Water Lane.

Are you concerned in shipping at all?--No.

What is the business in which you are engaged?--A wine-merchant.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--From his childhood.

Did you go to school with him?--Yes.

You knew him before he came to this country?--Yes, quite well, at Cadiz.

You are yourself from Cadiz?--Yes.

Have you had an opportunity of forming an opinion of the character he bears and deserves for integrity and honour, and his feelings of humanity in his personal character?--The highest, and his family at Cadiz. I should say that in every relation of life it is so.

José Maria Barrero, sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

You are at the head of the consulate of this country from Spain?--I am.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--Yes.

Have you known him long and well?--About twenty years.

That is very much the greater part of his life I suppose?--Yes.

What has been his conduct and character in the City of London?--The highest possible.

Are you acquainted with him in his relations in private life, as well as his conduct as a merchant?--Yes.

Have you had an opportunity of knowing whether his character and conduct in private life have been altogether unexceptionable?--Yes.

Charles Tottie, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you a merchant in this country?--Yes.

Are you also at the head of the consulate of Spain?--I am consul for Sweden and Norway.

Do you know Mr. Zulueta and his firm?--Yes.

What have you to say to his Lordship and the Jury respecting his character for integrity and humanity?--I have known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta for upwards of fourteen or sixteen years, and I always considered him of the highest character, and a truly Christian man. His cousins and my sons went to school together.

What has been his character for humanity and veracity?--Oh, very high.

Dr. Neil Arnott, sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Your name is Neil Arnot?--Yes.

You are a physician?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands by your side?--I have known him from his youth as physician to the family.

Have you had an opportunity of forming a judgment with relation to the character he has borne for honour and integrity as an individual and as a merchant?--From the many opportunities I have had of conversing with him, and knowing him in the character of a physician to his family, I have had an opportunity; also, as physician to most of the Spanish ambassadors; and I have known him as a countryman of theirs.

What character has he borne?--His father spared nothing on his education; it was the best this country could afford.

Is he a man of veracity and humanity?--In all the relations of life, kindred, friendship, and acquaintance, I consider him as standing very high.

Has he always borne the character of a humane, upright, Christian man?--As much as possible.

Charles Dodd, Esq., sworn.

I believe you are a solicitor?--I am.

Where do you live?--In Billiter Street, my house of business.

Are you acquainted with Pedro de Zulueta the prisoner?--I am.

I believe you have known him from his youth?--I have known him for twelve or fourteen years most intimately. I have the highest possible opinion of his honour and his integrity, and his moral and religious character. I have considered it a great blessing that my sons formed a strict intimacy with him, believing him as incapable of committing an offence against the law as it is possible for a man to be.

Christobal de Murrieta, sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you of the firm of Aguirre Solarte and Murrieta, merchants of London?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands in the dock?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--About eighteen years.

What is the reputation which he has borne for honour, veracity, uprightness of conduct, and humanity, during the whole of the time you have known him?--The highest in both ways.

You mean the highest in all ways?--Yes.

Mr. Charles Dodd, Jun., sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

You are the son of the gentleman who has been just examined?--I am.

Have you formerly been at school with the prisoner at the bar?--No, I have not been at school with him; I have known him since the year 1831.

What opinion have you formed as to his character for honour, veracity, and integrity of conduct?--I do not believe a more honourable man exists. I have felt the greatest pleasure in his acquaintance since when I first left school; and when I was forming those acquaintances which would conduct me through life, there is no man whose society I regretted losing more than Pedro de Zulueta’s when he left Camberwell.

Hugh Sandeman, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you a stock-broker in this City?--Yes.

Do you know Mr. Zulueta?--Yes, perfectly well, for sixteen years.

What opinion have you formed of him during that time?--Of the very highest description, and in all my intercourse with houses in the Royal Exchange, I have never found but the same opinion was expressed by all of him as a private individual, and as a member.

Has his moral and religious character been perfectly unexceptionable--Perfectly so.

William Gibbs, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you of the firm of Anthony Gibbs & Son of this City?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--Perfectly well.

And every one of its members?--Perfectly well.

Have you had an opportunity of ascertaining the reputation which Mr. Pedro Zulueta has enjoyed in the City; whether it is an unexceptionable character, morally as well as religiously speaking?--I consider him as entitled to the highest honourable character. I have always heard him so described.

Have his transactions been to your knowledge of that character?--Perfectly; all marked with integrity and honourable conduct.

Timothy Bevington, Esq., solemnly affirmed. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

Are you a member of the Society of Friends?--I am.

The Society has expended much money and labour to put down the traffic to which reference has been made in the course of this trial?--Yes.

Do you know Mr. Pedro Zulueta?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--The last ten years.

What character has he borne during that time?--Excellent.

Do you know the house of which he is a member?--Very well; they have been my next door neighbours for many years.

Regard being had to the nature of the charge against him, what can you say as to his general character for uprightness and honour?--I have been perfectly satisfied in all the transactions I have had with him.

Have you always heard him spoken of as a man of humane and honourable conduct and feelings?--Perfectly so.

William Tindal, Esq., solemnly affirmed. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

You are a member of the Society of Friends?--I am of that persuasion.

Are you a ship-owner of the City of London?--I am.

Do you know Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I know him well.

How long have you known him?--I have known the elder Mr. Zulueta for fifty years; the younger one ever since he came over.

During that time have you had opportunities of ascertaining the general character and reputation he has borne in all the relations of life?--Yes.

What can you say to his Lordship and the Jury in those respects?--He has been a very exemplary character, both as a merchant and in moral character in every way.

Do you know a house in the City of London which stands higher than that house?--There is not one; and also they have the same reputation in Cadiz.

For humanity and integrity?--Yes, for humanity and integrity, and in every way as merchants.

Samuel Jones Loyd, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

You are a banker in the City of London?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co., of which this gentleman is a partner?--I have no personal knowledge of the gentleman, but I know the house by character.

What character did the house bear in the City of London for general honour?--They have a very high reputation in every respect as mercantile men.

Frederick Huth, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Bodkin.

Are you a merchant in the City of London?--I am.

I believe you are one of the Directors of the Bank of England?--My son is.

How long have you known the house of Zulueta & Co.?--For the period of forty years. I have known them forty years.

Are you acquainted with the member of the firm who is unfortunately where he is now?--Perfectly so.

How long have you known him?--For twelve years.

As to individual character, how can you speak of him during the time you have known him with regard to integrity and humanity?--I cannot better describe him than that I know of no man in the City of London or any where else, a merchant, of whom I should give a higher character.

Have you ever heard a suggestion against his character as an individual, or against his regularity as a merchant?--Nothing whatever.

Abraham Mocatta, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Bodkin.

Are you one of the firm of Mocatta and Goldsmid?--I am.

You are bullion dealers in the City of London I believe?--Bullion merchants.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known him about sixteen years.

Have you also known the firm of which he is a member?--Yes, I have known them for that time or longer.

Have you any knowledge of their transactions in the City, the reputation they bear?--I have always understood them to bear the highest character that I have known as gentlemen of character. I have known the gentleman as a neighbour of mine for several years. He was in the habit of visiting our family, and we have the highest opinion of him; he was considered particularly humane and considerate of the wants of others.

Edwin Gower, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Bodkin.

Are you of the firm of Gower & Co.?--I am.

Merchants in this City?--Yes.

How long have you known Mr. Zulueta.--I have known him ever since he has been connected with the City of London, he and his senior.

And his family I suppose before him?--Yes.

What reputation has he enjoyed during the time you have known him, and his family, and the house as a mercantile firm?--I should say, as our connexions and theirs are very similar, we have almost daily more or less intercourse with him, and I never heard the most distant rumour against his character; I believe it to be quite unimpeachable: and the house, as a house of business, stands as high as any house in the City of London.

George Rougemont, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Bodkin.

Are you a merchant in the City?--I am.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known the house for a great number of years, and always heard it spoken of in the highest terms. Mr. Pedro de Zulueta I have been acquainted with and visited him perhaps six or eight years, and I have had frequent opportunities of seeing his conduct as a son, as a husband, as a father, and as a neighbour, and have always found it in the highest degree unexceptionable in every respect. I consider him an amiable and kind-hearted man, and quite incapable of any thing of the kind laid to his charge.

Joseph Sadler, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Bodkin.

Are you a merchant?--I am.

In the City of London?--Yes, Sadler, Harris, & Co. is my firm.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known him ten or twelve years.

What character has he appeared to bear as a man of integrity and humanity?--The very first character; I should say he is the last man I have known that I consider would be guilty of that which is charged.

F. I. Vanzeller, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. Clarkson.

You are the Portuguese consul I believe?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--I have known it well.

Do you know Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta for ten years.

What character can you give of him, as a general character, to the Jury for humanity, integrity, and good conduct of every description?--The very highest character possible.

Is that the reputation which the house of which he is a member has borne in the city of London?--Certainly.

SUMMING UP.

Mr. Justice Maule. Gentlemen of the Jury--Pedro de Zulueta is indicted for an offence against an Act of Parliament made for the prevention of the slave trade, for employing a vessel for the purpose of accomplishing objects declared to be illegal by that Act; that is to say, dealing in slaves, and also having loaded goods on board a vessel for that purpose.

Now, although this case has occupied a very considerable portion of time, I do not think it will be necessary for me to add much to it in the observations I shall think it necessary to make to you with respect to the evidence. It is not very long, and the points to which it goes are not very numerous--I mean the evidence on the substance of the charge. The case occupied about fifteen hours on Friday and Saturday, but the evidence did not occupy much above four hours. It will not be necessary for me to occupy much time in observations upon it, and I should think it will not be necessary for me to read over the evidence.

The offence, as I have told you, is put in these two shapes--the employing a vessel, and the loading goods for a purpose prohibited by the statute; that is, for the purpose of dealing in slaves. The charge is not, it does not necessarily import, nor is it necessary to support it, that it should be proved that the ship in question, the Augusta, was intended to be used for the conveyance of slaves from the coast of Africa. If there was a slave adventure--if there was an adventure of which the object was that slaves should be brought from the coast of Africa, that there should be slave trading there, and if this vessel was dispatched and employed for the purpose of accomplishing that object, although it was intended to accomplish that object otherwise than by bringing home the slaves in that vessel, that is within the Act of Parliament. So, if the goods were loaded for the purpose of accomplishing the slave trade--whether it was intended to bring back the slaves in the vessel in question, or that they should be brought away in some other vessel, or whether that was a matter left undecided at the commencement of the adventure, and to be determined according as matters might turn out to be convenient for the accomplishment of it--in any of these cases the crime charged in this indictment would be committed, the allegations in the indictment would be supported, and the prohibition of the Act of Parliament would be violated. The Act would have been very imperfect indeed, if it had prohibited slave trading and had not prevented any dealing of that description, except where the same vessel was to bring home the slaves; if, at all events, it went out for the purpose of carrying goods which were to be bartered for them. From one of the witnesses, who, in the course of his public duty was conversant with what takes place on this slave coast of Africa, we hear that it frequently happens that the slaves are got away by a different vessel from that which carries out the goods which formed the fund for their purchase. That is the nature of the offence.

Gentlemen, I do not think there will be any great difficulty in some of the preliminary questions you will have to decide upon this occasion. One is, whether the prisoner at the bar did at all dispatch, did at all employ this vessel, the Augusta, or did at all load any goods on board; because, though a person may employ a vessel and load goods--he may do that quite innocently--the fact, that he employed a vessel and loaded goods, is by no means conclusive of his guilt till you go further and show that he did it for the illegal purpose charged in the indictment. If it had not been shown that the prisoner at the bar did employ the vessel, or load the goods, the inquiry would have been stopped; for the purpose never could have been brought in question, and there would have been an end, or rather there would have been no beginning of this enquiry: but with respect to that branch of the case, there appears to have been no doubt made on the part of the prisoner that he did employ this vessel. He says he did it as the agent of Pedro Martinez & Co., and that he did it without knowing what the purpose was for which the vessel was employed, or whether it was employed in the slave trade; and that he did load the goods on board the ship--and there appears to be to the value of a good many thousand pounds, a considerable cargo (the value I get only from the cockets), a considerable quantity of goods. The vessel undoubtedly was dispatched with the knowledge of the prisoner and through his agency to carry goods to the coast of Africa. So much does not seem to be a matter in dispute.

Then the matters in dispute are two--one, whether this vessel was dispatched for the purpose of slave trading at all; if it was not, there is an end of all question. If it appears that there was no slave trading, or intention of slave trading, no person is guilty of the violation of the law charged in this indictment. There is no offence on the part of any one, if a slave adventure was not contemplated by the persons engaged in this transaction. Unless you decide that question in the affirmative, that is to say, unless you think there was such an adventure, there is no case made at all against the prisoner at the bar. It has been contended, and strenuously--not in a separate form, but mixed up with the other point in the case to which I will next draw your attention--it has been contended on the part of the prisoner, that there was no slave adventure, that the ship Augusta went to the Gallinas loaded in this way not for the purpose of dealing in slaves, or for any unlawful purpose, but that she went either for some lawful purpose, or else without any purpose of dealing at all: you will say whether there could be any such possibility. It has been contended that at any rate the ship did not go for the purpose of slave trading. If you are of opinion there was no slave trading contemplated, that that was not the object of the voyage, there is an end of that question; but, supposing you should think there was slave dealing intended, and the vessel went out for the purpose of slave dealing, then there is another important question--and that is the object of the evidence to character--whether, supposing there was a slave trading intended, the prisoner was cognizant of it?

It appears from the evidence, that the Gallinas is a place described by some witnesses of great experience--two captains in the navy, and Colonel Nichol, who was the governor of a district in the neighbourhood, whose employment was mainly to watch the slave coast of which the Gallinas forms a part, and to contribute to the putting down the slave trade--that the Gallinas is a place of slave trading, and of no other trade at all. It seems that the Gallinas is a river navigable for vessels of some size about twelve miles, that there were some barracoons for slaves which were destroyed by Captain Denman--destroyed, as it is alleged, by Captain Denman some time ago--there being about six establishments called barracoons, which seem to be very large buildings in which five or six hundred negroes may be confined, and are confined when brought from the country till they can be exported in vessels carrying on this trade. These barracoons have, by way of appendages to them, store-houses for the various stores that may be wanted for those negroes, and also some places of residence for the Europeans, who appear to be some thirty in number, who live there; there is nobody else living there, except that there are two or three negro villages or towns, not places of any trade, but inhabited by those uncivilised savages. The country produces nothing, and exports nothing but slaves--that is the description of the place given by that gentleman. It is said, and I think with great probability, that the Gallinas is not generally known as a slave trading place, in fact, it seems very little known at all; it seems to be a place where any other description of felons may resort to concert their schemes and hide their stolen goods, and which, of course, they do not make public, and which is not likely to be known by honest and true people. Except those employed as police or otherwise in aid of justice, as these captains were, of course it would not be spoken of at all. There might be slave traders in London knowing it very well, but they would be perfectly silent probably, and hardly mention it by name even in speaking one to another. It is very probable, therefore, that the place was not very well known; that when these persons spoke of the Gallinas, they might say the Gallinas on the coast of Africa; and a person might be very conversant with the geography of Africa in an honest way, who had not been active in putting down the slave trade, and yet might not know where it was, except that it was on the coast of Africa. It is important to show not only that it is on the coast of Africa, but that it is itself a slave trading place; and that fact appears to be very evident from the case on the part of the prosecution. Probably those honest persons, those honestly dealing persons who know best about it, are those who have been called upon by their public duty to ascertain it. Such persons have been called, and they give it this character and description, and they state that it is distinguished from other parts of the coast of Africa; for on other parts of that coast it is said slaves are sold as one article of export, but that other things, such as palm oil--I believe that is the principle thing--and ivory, and wood, and other things, are sold in immense quantities on the coast of Africa; but that that is not the case at the Gallinas. They might be carrying out goods to other parts of Africa, intending to bring home palm-oil or slaves, as might be most profitable; they might intend to bring home an honest commodity, and not have to do with this dishonest and perilous commodity; but it appears difficult to conceive what a person carrying a cargo of goods to the Gallinas could intend to do with it, unless he intended to have those goods employed in the slave trade. The prisoner might say they were to be employed by others in the slave trade; that would be plain and simple: it is wrong, but it is a plain and simple account of that which was intended to be done. It is a place, as it appears, without any trade; and if there be an obvious plain interest in a person carrying goods to that place, it appears to me that it may be taken that they were for the purpose of the slave trade. If that be the plain and obvious inference, it appears to me that might be the inference very properly drawn by Colonel Nichol, that this was a slave adventure, unless the contrary were proved.

It is possible that this might be an adventure, not slave trading; if so, nothing can be more simple than to prove it; Martinez & Co. might prove that it is an honest adventure. If it was a dishonest adventure, it could not be expected that Martinez & Co. should be called to give evidence at all; but if it were an innocent adventure it would be very easy for them to be called. It is true that persons are to be convicted, not by evidence they did not produce, but by evidence produced against them; not on suspicion, but on conviction; but where such evidence is offered of the trade being slave trading, as is offered here, namely, that the vessel was loaded with goods, that a cargo of goods was dispatched to a place where slave trading is the only known object for which vessels ever go, a slave mart and nothing but a slave mart, you have a case, though it is an answerable case; but if the answer, which if it exist could be easily given, is not given, it may very fairly be inferred that the vessel was proceeding on a slaving voyage, a voyage either for the purpose of bringing home slaves, or of landing those goods for the purchase of slaves. That, Gentlemen, is the first question you have to consider. You will say whether, considering the nature of this charge, and considering that the vessel is chartered to go from this place to the Gallinas, that being the place and the only place mentioned in the charter-party for the outward voyage, she might have been subsequently employed in voyages to the West Indies or Madeira, at the discretion of the charterers; but it will be for you to say whether, in your judgment, in your opinion, on this occasion the vessel did not sail for the purpose of her being employed, or the goods on board her being employed, for the trading in slaves. If you are not satisfied of that, it will be your duty to give a verdict of not guilty. You need not trouble yourselves to go further, but the prisoner must be acquitted.

Gentlemen, I have not read over to you the evidence which establishes these facts I have mentioned to you, namely, that the vessel was chartered. You have heard the charter-party, and you have heard what Mr. Zulueta says in his evidence, that he did dispatch the vessel, and that the house were the agents in sending the vessel abroad, and in putting the goods on board; and you have heard the remainder of the evidence. I suppose I need not read the evidence which the captains gave at such great length.

Foreman of the Jury. No, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Maule. These are facts not disputed, except that it is disputed that the vessel went out for the purpose of slave trading--that is an inference to be drawn or not from the evidence.

Then the next question, and an important question is, whether the prisoner at the bar, Pedro de Zulueta, is a person who was cognizant of that fact. It certainly is a very grave and serious charge, and one of a very highly penal nature. It is, however, a trade, which till a recent period was lawful for persons in this country, and many persons of very good character certainly did engage in that trade, and a great number of persons justified it. I suppose those same persons would now say it is not to be engaged in, because it is a prohibited thing--it is a regulation of trade enforced by very severe penalties made by this country--but that the dealing in slaves is in itself a lawful, right, good, and proper thing, which ought not to be prohibited. Those persons would now consider slave trading as a thing prohibited only by positive regulation. There is no one who does not at once perceive that practical distinction between them. There is no person who, in point of feeling and opinion, does not perceive the difference there is between a thing which is prohibited by positive law, and that kind of thing, against which, if there were no law at all against it, the plain natural sense and conscience of mankind would revolt. This trading in slaves, in the opinion of a great many persons, is itself an abomination, a thing which ought to be considered with the greatest horror, whether prohibited or not; but those who think it was right when it was not prohibited, probably do not think it so very bad if it be committed now, since it has been prohibited by law, only that it is to be avoided on account of the penalty to which it subjects the individuals engaged in it.

This has some bearing on the question of how far considerations of character would have weight with respect to such an offence; but it is necessary undoubtedly on the part of the prosecution that there should be a case made of knowledge on the part of the prisoner, of the purpose for which this adventure was meant. Now, with respect to that, it is taken partly from what he says before the Committee of the House of Commons, and partly what is given in evidence here, that the house of Zulueta & Co., (of which the prisoner appears to be an active member, and with the whole proceedings of which in this matter he appears certainly according to the statement he himself made to the Committee of the House of Commons to have been quite conversant)--and it is admitted that the house of Zulueta were the doers in this country of whatever was done with respect to this vessel, the Augusta--the Augusta had been called the Gollupchik, had been captured as a slaving vessel, and she was then fitted up with the apparatus fitted to that traffic; she was brought to this country and proceeded against, and ultimately sold, whether sold under a condemnation which turned out effectual or not does not distinctly appear. Some one has said that the Russian Government claimed her, and she was given up to the Russian Government. It appears, however, that she was sold at Portsmouth; I think she was sold to Mr. Emanuel, or some person for whom he acted, for 600_l._, and the expenses, which were about 30_l._ Then she was bought with money furnished by Zulueta & Co., the amount being 650_l._--it does not exactly appear by whom--according to the testimony one would say, bought by Jennings, who was employed as captain on the voyage in question, a letter having been previously written by the prisoner’s house, stating to Jennings that they could not give more than 500_l._, but it appears that ultimately 660_l._ was paid for her. On the occasion on which that money was paid, the witness says, “I sold her to Jennings and Bernardos; Bernardos came with Jennings--they came together and paid the money.” Now, probably you must not take that quite to the letter. This was a ship sold, not by means of a written instrument as the subject of a British registry, but as any other British chattel might be sold, such and such a bale of goods, merely by agreement altogether verbally, that one should have the goods and the other the money, the article being handed over when it was so sold. All that the seller cares for is, that he shall have his money. Whether there are one or a dozen persons present he may very properly, as a matter of business, leave it to them whether one or all of them is to pay the money. The witness who is called, Mr. Emanuel, seems to have thought that Bernardos and the other bought the vessel; but it seems, according to the charter-party, that the other party, Jennings, is the only purchaser. According to a representation I think made at the bar by Mr. Kelly, the real purchasers were Pedro Martinez & Co., who wanted Jennings for some purpose to appear as colourable owner, and wanted Jennings to command the vessel. An Englishman could not by the laws of Spain command a Spanish owned vessel, and Jennings therefore, if he was to command her, should be apparently made the owner of her, and that is the reason suggested why Jennings was made the owner (if he was the owner) by the desire of Pedro Martinez & Co.

At the end of the charter-party there is a recital, that whereas the owner, Jennings, is indebted to the charterer in a certain sum of money, as appears by an acknowledgment elsewhere, he consents that the earnings of the vessel shall be a lien for the money. Now that refers you see to another document, which other document, if we had it, would throw some light upon the transaction, but it is not called for or produced. The circumstance of Jennings being the commander, and made owner for the purpose of being the commander in apparent consistency with the law of Spain, may account for that which has been put very powerfully on the part of the prisoner as having been inexplicable on the supposition that any slave trade was intended; for, they say, if the slave trade was intended, why not have a Spanish captain; because then, though perhaps within the terms of the treaties there might be a power of search on the part of British cruizers, no power was given by foreigners which was not watched by those who gave that power, and such power might be exceeded by those who exercised it, who were not lawyers or special pleaders; and it is said it would be much more convenient in case of search to have that difficulty thrown in the way than the total absence of all difficulty which exists when a ship professes to be British owned. But if Jennings was an adventurer, if he were, as suggested, a very clever and intelligent person, and very conversant with every thing to be done on this occasion, a competent master of the vessel, supposing the slave trade to be intended, a thing which requires qualities one is sorry to see exercised so ill--a great deal of courage, sagacity, and presence of mind, and an unscrupulous readiness to employ them for the commission of this felony, not to be found in every body--a man of such a description would be the paramount object of a slave trader, whose aim would be, whoever the owner may be, to elude all search, so to manage the thing as that the cruizers of any country shall not stop him. Probably, if the adventure succeeds, it must succeed by such means; so that one sees a perfectly good reason why, consistently with this being a slave trading voyage, it may have been English owned.

The sale is negotiated in the first instance by Zulueta & Co.; they say they do it for Martinez. The vessel was bought by Bernardos or Jennings. I do not know whether I called your attention to that, that Bernardos was the man who commanded the vessel on an undoubted slave voyage when she was seized and brought into Portsmouth. Whether Pedro Martinez or the captain bought the ship, or however it was bought, that transaction appears to have been managed by Zulueta & Co., and through the intervention of Jennings.

Then there comes the transaction of chartering. The vessel was chartered subject to this proviso at the end of it, and the charter-party is negotiated entirely by Zulueta. Whatever Pedro Martinez & Co., supposing there were such persons (and it may be taken that there were such persons, though the evidence of there being such persons is, that Mr. Zulueta says so in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons, and it is a fact the negative of which could easily have been proved, but it has not been proved); you may fairly assume, therefore, that there are such persons as Pedro Martinez & Co., for that observation of the learned counsel for the prisoner on the statement of Mr. Zulueta before the Committee is as far as it applies to that particular part of the evidence well founded, namely, that if it were not true the contrary might be proved; but that is not true in the generality to which Mr. Kelly applied it, for there might be a great many statements in that evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons which were not true, but which the prosecutor would not be allowed to prove were not true--I mean those not connected with this particular transaction. There are many things stated in that evidence, which I apprehend, if false, the prosecutor would not be entitled to prove the falsehood of; but I apprehend that does not apply to the existence of Pedro Martinez & Co. But they appear to have existed and to have employed as their agents in this country Pedro Zulueta & Co., and whatever is done in this country by Pedro Martinez is done by Pedro Zulueta & Co. just as much as if they had done it themselves; they knew as much about the matter as the parties themselves; they negotiated this charter-party, and they dispatched the vessel and put on board all the goods. The goods appear by the cockets to have been entered in the name of Captain Jennings; I do not know that that is a circumstance of any suspicion; it is not proved to be out of the way, and I do not see any good reason for suspecting the integrity of the transaction arising out of that particular circumstance. It seems to me, therefore, that Zulueta & Co. do stand in a very different situation from that put a considerable number of times to you by the learned counsel for the prisoner, namely, the situation of a person who is simply the manufacturer or dealer in goods, and who has those goods ordered, such a weight of gunpowder, and who inquiring, “Where shall I send it?” is answered, “Send it on board the Augusta, now lying at Liverpool.” It would be a strong thing from that circumstance to infer that a person sending that gunpowder had any thing to do with slave trading: but that appears not to be the nature of this transaction. In regard to there being a slave trading, all that is done, is done by Zulueta & Co. It is not merely that they had goods sent on board the ship, but they chose the number of the goods to be sent on board the ship--goods which they had bought, for which they had negotiated, and they made out such charter-party, and that charter-party provides that the ship shall proceed to Gallinas, on the coast of Africa.

Gentlemen, that is I think pretty nearly all the evidence that there is in the case. You have the evidence of the captains on the subject. If you think that this was a slaving voyage, you will consider the conduct of Zulueta & Co. in buying, and chartering, and loading it, and dispatching it. Now, Zulueta & Co. are shown to be merchants with very extensive connexions and concerns, and the prisoner particularly is a person of great knowledge and education, and generally speaking one would say that as merchants, though that is a matter for you to consider, I do not know that I can put it higher than this, that they are persons of great skill and great experience. The prisoner had the whole management and direction of the voyage to a particular place to carry goods to that place, that being a place not without suspicion; the vessel itself also being a vessel which had been used for the slave trade, though it might be innocently used afterwards; but, still your attention has been directed to that circumstance, and it has been particularly directed to the circumstance that every thing applicable to slave apparatus was ordered to be removed before the vessel was dispatched. That would be a thing of course to be done, whether the vessel was going on a slave expedition or not, for as has been suggested, the officers of Government always examine a vessel, particularly on going to the coast of Africa. With a view to this, I should think it would be quite a matter of course, even if the vessel was intended to be sent to promote the slave trade, that she should not go out with shackles or leagers, or any thing of that kind on board, for if they are on board, the vessel would be at the mercy of any Custom-house officer; it would be quite advertising the adventure. And there being found these shackles and these leagers on board the vessel at Portsmouth, and their being so dealt with, I do not think at all helps on the case for the prosecution, for the vessel undoubtedly had been a slave vessel, it had been fitted up with these things, and would naturally have them on board her, and as naturally, whether she was intended to be sent out on a slave expedition or not, these things would be taken from on board her; and you find that they were taken from on board. The fact of their having been on board, when the schoolmaster and the cooper saw them on board, does not appear to me to be any thing against her, for she had been a slave vessel. On the other hand, the circumstance of their being taken out and landed before she sailed on her voyage does not appear to be any thing for her, for both these circumstances would have taken place whether the voyage was an innocent or a guilty voyage; those circumstances, in my opinion, have no bearing on the question. Whether the vessel was intended to be engaged in slave trading or not, that is a point I have already put to you in considering whether the voyage was a slave voyage, or for the accomplishment of the slave trade. I did not before advert to the circumstance of these things being on board, and I mention it now only, as it has a sort of colourable look, to show why it is I do not lay any stress upon it.

I was observing that though people in general might not be well aware of this trade being intended to be carried on, yet persons not extremely simple, but skilful people, may be fairly taken to know what the object is with which a voyage is undertaken when they themselves are the agents, supplying, chartering, loading, and dispatching a ship for the voyage. It may be that the object may be concealed from them, or that they may not know that this voyage to the Gallinas was a slaving expedition. A simple person, who knew nothing about these matters and had not some special acquaintance with the trade, might know nothing at all about it, they might not know the nature of the trade carried on at this place. The mention of Gallinas on the coast of Africa would not convey to the mind of an ordinary person that it was to a mere den where this traffic and nothing else was carried on; but this vessel is sent to the Gallinas by these gentlemen, who are very skilful persons, who negotiate the whole transaction. Now, it may very generally be taken that people know what they are about, unless they can show there was some particular concealment, some hinderance to their knowing to this extent that this was a place connected with the slave trade, and so exclusively engaged in the slave trade as it really seems to be; but, supposing that a case is made which requires an answer, if it is shown that there was a slave trade, and that a person did employ a vessel in that business, and did load it for that business, that certainly is a case raising some degree of presumption against the person who has been engaged, and one would be very glad if the case were of a description in which it had been met by a decisive answer in point of fact.

It is said on the part of the prisoner, first, that this was not a slaving voyage. Now, if it had been a slaving voyage--it is possible that there might be a case, which unless fairly answered would lead to the presumption that that was the object--in which an answer might exist, but where it would be impossible for the prisoner to get it, you would feel a difficulty in acting on such a case; but in the present case, supposing that this was not a slaving expedition, the answer exists, and the answer might be given with the greatest ease. There appears to me no reason why it should not be given. The house of Martinez & Co. have a house at Cadiz, and a house at the Havannah, and if they did not send this vessel for the purpose of the slave trade, and they were quite innocent in this matter, any one of them or their clerks might with the greatest ease be called. There is no deficiency of funds here, and it would put an end to all question if they could say, “This was not for the slave trade; these goods were to be employed for--and then they might fill up the blank, I do not know how, but by some words expressing an innocent purpose, and that would be a full answer; but there is an absence of all answer that bears on the question whether there was slave trading intended or not.

Now, supposing you should be of opinion that there was no slave trading intended, there is an end of the case. I think you may perhaps be of opinion this vessel was intended for slave trading. Supposing you are of that opinion, then you come to that which is the anxious and important question, namely, whether the prisoner was cognizant of that fact. It is alleged that the prisoner is not the exclusive manager of the concerns of the house; it is not very likely he should be; he appears to have been fully cognizant of this particular matter; and, supposing that considering the exclusive part taken by these gentlemen in this transaction of dispatching the vessel, supposing you should think that a case requiring an answer, then you will consider whether it should not have an answer, if one exists. Now, it appears that the prisoner is not exclusively cognizant of all the transactions of this house. There are two other partners; there are--though it is not in evidence, but it may be presumed that there are--clerks and persons employed in the house of Zulueta, all or any of whom might have been called. It is alleged that the profit on this transaction would be extremely small. I do not think that the petty gain of this one transaction is the matter, for it appears that Pedro Martinez & Co. do a great deal of business, and it is possible that whenever persons have a large and valuable business to conduct, there is some small portion that the correspondent and agent would willingly get rid of if he could; but he is not allowed to pick and choose, but he must take the whole. That is one of the grounds they put; the other is as to character.

Now, inasmuch as there are two other partners, and it is probable there might be some other persons in the concern, there arises this consideration. It is true, supposing that there were a case made, but that the prisoner was innocent of it, that he could not call Martinez & Co. on that supposition as he might on the supposition of there being no slave trading, for Martinez & Co. would not be innocent persons, and they would not be willing to come into this country and say, “We carried on the slave trading, but it was disguised from our correspondent Zulueta & Co.” If you think there is a case requiring an answer, the question then is, would there have been any difficulty in the prisoner calling his two partners and others conversant with the business of the firm, and proving that Zulueta & Co. knew nothing at all about this, that they had not the least suspicion, that Martinez & Co. never communicated the fact to them, and that the illegal purpose was utterly unknown to them, for some reasons which the prisoner cannot give, but which his partners could? It would be extremely desirable they should do it, if the defence existed in point of fact.

Supposing the case made to require an answer, there are two modes of answering a charge. The one is, that of calling a great number of persons to prove that it was unlikely, from the high character of the firm, that they should engage in such a transaction; that is one. Another mode, is calling three or four persons, who if he were guilty must know it, and who will prove that he was not. The former of these modes has been adopted on this occasion. You have, however, the case before you. I do not think it necessary to go any further into the evidence, having, I conceive, stated the effect of it sufficiently. If you are satisfied that there was a slave trading, you will consider whether Zulueta, the prisoner, was cognizant of it, and shipped these goods, and dispatched the ship for the purpose of accomplishing the object of slave trading; and then, in considering that, you will consider the observations, as far as they are entitled to attention, and the evidence of the very high character of the prisoner--a character I should say very strong indeed, and almost conclusive, supposing the case were one that did not admit of an answer in point of fact. If he has the means of showing that he did not do that with which he is charged, and he only says, I will prove that I am extremely unlikely to do it; I do not say how far you should give weight to that sort of evidence. You ought to be well satisfied of a fact of this sort, before you find him guilty of such a charge as this.

Foreman of the Jury. We beg to retire, my Lord.

A Juryman. May we find on any particular count?

Mr. Justice Maule. You will consider the charge as that of employing a vessel, or loading goods on board, for the purpose of accomplishing the slave trade. The great question is, the knowledge and intention of the prisoner. If the thing was done with his knowledge and intention, and it was for the purpose of slave trading, there is no doubt that he bought and dispatched the ship, and loaded the goods. I do not see why you should trouble yourselves with any particular count.

[The Jury withdrew at Twenty Minutes before Twelve, and returned into Court at Ten Minutes after One, finding a verdict of “NOT GUILTY.”

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. My Lord, there is another indictment against the prisoner for a misdemeanour. It appears to me that it involves necessarily the very same question, and therefore, as far as I can judge of it, and of course with the authority of the prosecutor, I feel that it would be wrong to put the prisoner again on his trial for that offence. It seems to me that it will depend upon the same evidence, and I cannot but conclude that the Jury will come to the same conclusion. I will take the opportunity of saying one word. Observations having been made with respect to myself when the former case was going on, when I could not interfere, I can merely say, that with regard to myself, the prosecutor, and of every person connected with the prosecution, there was no possible fact or document which I could have admitted, which could have done the prisoner the slightest benefit.

Mr. Justice Maule. That observation was made in Mr. Kelly’s address.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. It was impossible we could have any view but that the Jury should have the whole before them, and we rejoice in the result.

Mr. Kelly. With regard to what has fallen from my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Bompas, I am greatly obliged to my learned friend for making that observation to his Lordship. As far as respects that part of what has fallen from my learned friend, which respected the other indictment, it will be desirable in the course of the present session--I do not say to-day or to-morrow--but in the course of the present session, to empannel a Jury, and that the prisoner, Mr. Zulueta, should be acquitted in respect of that indictment. With regard to the other observation which has fallen from my learned friend, I beg to assure him, which I do with the utmost possible sincerity, that I never intended to say any thing which could be construed in the slightest degree as disrespectful to him. There is no gentleman at the bar less deserving of any disrespectful observation than my learned friend.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Your observations were made in public, and therefore I felt it necessary to say what I did. Your Lordship will order the expenses to be paid?

Mr. Justice Maule. Certainly: I think that it was a very proper case for inquiry. The most convenient course will be just to swear the Jury in the second case, and take a verdict.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. If the Jury have no objection.

The Jury were sworn to try the Indictment for Conspiracy.

(The Jury were charged with the Prisoner in the usual way.)

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Gentlemen, you have heard what I stated to the learned Judges. The case has been already before you, and I am quite satisfied with your decision; you will, therefore, find the prisoner Not Guilty.

The Jury immediately pronounced the Prisoner “NOT GUILTY.”

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

Transcriber’s Notes

Inconsistent, archaic and unusual spelling, hyphenation, spacing of abbreviations and capitalisation used in the source document have been retained. Missing and unnecessary quote marks have not been corrected, unless listed below. The same applies to apparently missing and unnecessarily repeated words have not been deleted, except as listed below.

Depending on the hard- and software and their settings used to read this text, not all elements may display as intended.

The spelling of proper and geographical names has not been standardised (Macauley / Macaulay, Findlay / Finlay, Nallow / Narrow, Jenning / Jennings, Gollupchick / Gollupchik / Golupchick / Golupchik / Goluptichick, Talford / Talfourd, Nichol / Nickol / Nicolls, Arnot / Arnott, etc.)

The differences between the Table of Contents and the text itself have not been rectified.

Page 22, cassada: possibly an error for cassava.

Changes made

Footnotes have been moved outside text paragraphs.

Some obvious minor misprints and typographical, formatting and punctuation inconsistencies and errors have been standardised or corrected silently.

References to Questions 7958, 7961, 7965, 7967 and 7970 have been changed to 7958*, 7961*, 7965*, 7967* and 7970* respectively cf. their numbering in the text.

Page vii: Page number 225 changed to 235

Page 75: question number 5052 changed to 5552

Page 103: closing quote mark deleted after ... on the vessel.

Page 130: closing quote mark added after ... without delay,

Page 133: second Question 6785 changed to Question 6785*

Page 144: paragraph number 6875 (second occurrence) changed to 6876.

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