TRIAL.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, October 27, 1843.

Before Mr. Justice MAULE, and Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.

It having been known that the trial of Mr. Pedro de Zulueta, jun., on a charge of sending out a vessel for the purpose of trading in slaves was to take place this morning, the Court was crowded by the personal friends of the accused and eminent city merchants, who appeared to take the greatest interest in the proceedings.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas, Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, and Mr. Payne, were engaged on behalf of the prosecution; Mr. F. Kelly, Queen's Counsel, Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Bodkin for the prisoner.

Mr. Kelly applied to the Court to allow Mr. Zulueta to sit near him, instead of being placed in the dock. He made the application, not for the sake of keeping Mr. Zulueta out of dock, but in order that he might assist him in conducting the defence. Mr. Zulueta was a Spaniard, and a great portion of the documents which would have to be referred to in the course of the proceedings were in the Spanish language, and it would be necessary that he (Mr. Kelly) should consult with him upon their nature, which he could not do conveniently if he was placed in the dock. There were many precedents for such a course being adopted, and he hoped it would not be refused in the present instance.

Mr. Justice Maule, having referred to the books and consulted with Mr. Justice Wightman, said, the last and most important case upon the subject was that of Home Tooke, where a similar application was made, and several grounds were urged for its being corn lied with; amongst others, that if compelled to stand in the dock his health might be endangered; on that occasion the Court refused the application on general principles, but granted it upon the ground of ill health. With respect to the application now made, he thought the judges ought to take care that it did not go abroad that a distinction was made between a person of rank and a more humble individual. Mr. Zulueta, it was understood, was a person of property and some station in society, but the Court could not make a distinction between him and any other person charged with felony. The Court could not see any grounds for granting the application.

Mr. Zulueta was then taken into the dock.

The indictment was then read, and charged the prisoner that he, after the 1st of January, 1835—to wit, the 1st of November, in B 0010 2 the fourth year of the reign of her present Majesty, did feloniously equip, man, and navigate a certain vessel called the Augusta, for the purpose of dealing and trading in slaves.

In the second count, the vessel was charged to have been sent out for the purpose of purchasing slaves.

In the third count, to deal and trade in persons intended to be dealt with as slaves.

In the fourth count, intending to purchase persons to be dealt with as slaves.

There were four other counts, in which the prisoner was charged with placing on board the said vessel certain goods to be bartered with persons selling and dealing in slaves.

On being called upon to plead, the prisoner in a firm tone said, I am not guilty.

He was then told by the Clerk of the Arraigns, that, as he was a foreigner, he had a right, if he pleased, to be tried by a jury of half Englishmen and half foreigners, or he might be tried by a jury composed entirely of Englishmen.

Prisoner: No, I have no wish to do so. I am as safe in the hands of Englishmen as foreigners.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas then said, that, before he stated the case to the jury, he had to apply for permission for Mr. J. Gurney, who took short-hand notes for the committee of the House of Commons before whom the prisoner gave evidence, to verify the report, as that gentleman was under orders to be in attendance elsewhere on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Kelly said he had no objection to offer to such a course.

Mr. J. Gurney was then sworn, and verified the report.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas then rose to state the case on behalf of the prosecution, and said it became his duty to call their attention to a ease of very considerable moment, and although he was quite sure that in every case where the welfare and liberty of any person was at stake they would glee their best attention to the evidence against him, yet this, he must say, was a case which would demand their peculiar attention. The charge against the prisoner was one of a novel description. It was very rarely indeed that offences under the Act of Parliament to which their attention would be directed, could be brought before a jury as the subject of their investigation. The case necessarily included a variety of facts, in some degree complicated. The question to the prisoner was one of paramout importance; he was, as they had heard, a person of wealth and rank—a merchant of high standing in the city of London; and he was quite sure they would exercise their utmost vigilance in taking care that justice was fully administered. He was quite sure that unless the charge was fully proved against him they would pronounce him innocent; but, on the other hand, if the evidence was such as to satisfy them that he was guilty, then equally sure was he that they would not permit his rank in society to protect him. The charge against the prisoner was, that he had unlawfully and 0011 3 feloniously equipped and manned a vessel called the Augusta for the purpose of dealing in slaves. It was now happily a matter of history, that there had been a great contest carried on in this kingdom by those who were anxious to put an end to what they rightly considered one of the greatest crimes that could stain human nature, and that on March 25th, 1807, an Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose of removing, as far as laws could effect it, the foulest blot resting on the history of this nation. It was called an act for the abolition of the slave-trade. Down to the period to which he had alluded, the traffic in slaves was carried on as a legal business, by which many persons had amassed very considerable fortunes; and it was only persons of property who could carry on such a trade. Notwithstanding the passing of this act, many persons continued to carry on the traffic; and from time to time acts of Parliament had been passed for the purpose of carrying out the original enactment, which imposed still more stringent penalties upon all persons detected in carrying on the slave trade. The Government of this country having taken such an active part in endeavouring to abolish such a nefarious trade, would naturally be desirous of showing to foreign nations that they would take especial care that no person within their jurisdiction should, in any manner, be concerned in dealing in slaves, and with that view the act of Parliament, the 5th George 4, c. 113, under which the present indictment was framed, and which made the offence a felony punishable by fourteen years' transportation, was passed by the Legislature, in hopes that this severe penalty would have the effect of doing away with the traffic altogether. When they reflected upon the penalty inflicted by the act of Parliament, they considered it probably very severe; but light indeed was it when compared to the fate of the poor slave, who, torn from his friends and country, was doomed, should he survive the horrors of his voyage, to a life of interminable slavery in a foreign land. And it was to prevent such a system being carried on that so severe a punishment had been imposed. In prosecuting such a charge as the present, the prosecutors had to contend with many difficulties. It was only reasonable to suppose that the transactions would extend over a very considerable period of time, and it would also require a lengthened period to obtain the necessary witnesses and documents from Africa, in order to support the charge. It would be necessary for him to refer to transactions which had extended over several years in this particular case. There had already been an inquiry with respect to this vessel in Africa, and afterwards in England, and this had been the means of causing further delay. One of the charges against the prisoner was that of having laden the vessel, the Augusta, with merchandise for the purpose of supplying various persons holding slaves in Africa with the means of keeping them while they were there, and also to enable them to barter for negroes, to be transmitted to Cuba or Brazil, as the case might be. It was almost unnecessary for him to say that it was utterly impossible for any B 2 0012 4 vessel to be openly engaged in an English port for the purpose of slave-trading, without being detected; but he had no doubt he should be able distinctly to satisfy their (the jurors') minds, that the goods were put on board for the sole purpose of being bartered for slaves at the slave factories situated at Gallinas, on the coast of Africa. It would be necessary, in giving a history of this vessel, to go back for a number of years. In the year 1839, the vessel, which was then ca,led the Golupchick, and trading under the Russian flag, was fully equipped for the slave-trade, and was captured on the coast of Africa by Captain Hill, of Her Majesty's brig Saracen, and sent to Sierra Leone. At that time her captain was a Spaniard of the name of Bernardos, and her crew were all Spaniards. The case was taken before the Court at Sierra Leone, which was a mixed commission of Spaniards and English; but, the vessel being under the colours of Russia, she was not there condemned. The vessel was then sent to England, when the Russian Consul claimed her as a Russian vessel, and she was sold by auction at Portsmouth to a person of the name of Emanuel, who purchased her for 600 l. and the auction dues; and the purchase money was paid to Captain Bernardos. A letter was written by the captain to the house of Zulueta, the contents of which he had no means of knowing, but notice had been given to the other side to produce it. A letter, however, would be produced, addressed by the prisoner to Jennings, who afterwards became her captain, and who was included in the present indictment, the purport of which was that he (Jennings) was not to give more than 500 l. for her; but he should be able to show that a short time after this the prisoner became the purchaser at 650 l. The vessel remained at Portsmouth from this time till the following month (October). He (Mr. Serjeant Bompas) thought he should have but very little difficulty in showing that the vessel had been purchased for the purposes he had described. When the vessel was subsequently captured, a letter was found which would, he apprehended—

Mr. Kelly objected to the reading of any letters found in the vessel, unless it could be clearly shown that the prisoner was either a party to them or was cognizant of their existence. The charge against the prisoner was for equipping, &c., the vessel in this country, and the letters were not found till some months after he had ceased to have any thing to do with her.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas proceeded to say that one of the letters contained directions to Jennings, who was to command her to Gallinas, on the coast of Africa, and that letter was written by Bernardos.

Mr. Kelly again objected to the putting in of any such letter; it could not affect the prisoner; had it been written by him it would have been very different.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas said, he apprehended the proposed letters were legitimate evidence; he had, however, no wish to prejudice 0013 5 the case. The letter, he had said, was from Bernardos to Jennings, and he should be able to show that the prisoner had been in communication with them respecting the voyage of the vessel.

Mr. Justice Maule intimated, that it would, perhaps, be better to refrain from stating the nature of the letters, as it was a question whether they could legally be admitted in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas said, he had to prove what was the object in sending out the vessel, and what it was intended she should do—that she was intended for the slave-trade; and to show distinctly that the prisoner was fully aware of that fact. He should be able to show, that, whilst the vessel was lying at Portsmouth, some of the implements used in the illegal traffic were still in her. They were no doubt aware that, in order to carry on this traffic, it was necessary that the vessels concerned in it should carry a large quantity of water, and in this vessel there were a number of large tanks, or, as they were usually termed, “ leagores. ” Of course, it was impossible for her to leave this country with such things on board, for if she did, the intention and object of her voyage would at once be apparent; and accordingly they were all taken to pieces, and in that form were still in the vessel in order to be put together again when required. Besides these, there were means also of placing what were termed slave-decks in the vessel. These decks were moveable, and placed at a distance of about thirty-two or thirty-three inches from each other, and in them the unfortunate beings placed could neither sit nor stand. A quantity of screw bolts, for the purpose of fixing these false decks, were also on board, so that the decks could be replaced in an incredibly short space of time. It would also be shown that a seaman was applied to at Portsmouth, to join the vessel on a voyage to the coast of Africa. While lying at Portsmouth letters were received by Jennings, and a letter was found on board the vessel which had been written from London. The prisoner, in an examination before a Committee of the House of Commons, had stated, that he had the management of the whole of this business; and, therefore, there could be no doubt that he was responsible for the letter. Mr. Serjeant Bompas then read a letter dated the 26th September, 1840, addressed to Jennings, in which complaint was made of his not having asked for sufficient money to enable him to clear the vessel from Portsmouth, and requesting to know by return of post what further amount he required, and directing him to proceed without delay to Liverpool. Although there could be, no doubt that that letter was written by Mr. Zulueta, still when it came into the possession of Captain Hill, it appeared that the signature had been cut out. They would also see, that, although it was made subsequently to appear that the vessel belonged to Jennings, and was purchased in his name, in fact it was purchased and paid for by Zulueta. The learned counsel said, he would next draw their attention to what took place when the vessel arrived at Liverpool. A charter-party was entered into by Jennings, and Messrs. Zulueta on the part of Pedro de Martinez, 0014 6 a merchant at Cadiz, but who was notorious as a dealer in slaves, and was so, as he was instructed, to the knowledge of the prisoner; he having admitted such to be the case before the Committee of the House of Commons.

Mr. Kelly denied that any such admission was made.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas said, that the prisoner, in one of his answers, said Martinez was considered to be a dealer in slaves, and he (the prisoner) believed he was.

Mr. Kelly intimated that if the learned serjeant read further on, he would find a very different construction put upon the answer.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas said, the whole of the prisoner's evidence would be read, and then his learned friend could make his observations upon it. By the charter-party alluded to, it appeared that Martinez had advanced a sum of money to Jennings for the purchase of the vessel, and that he was to pay all just dues and charges; the vessel to be freighted with legal goods, and to proceed to the Gallinas, and thence to America or the West Indies, as Martinez might direct; and the amount of freight that would accrue was to be held as a lien for the repayment of the sum advanced for the purchase of the vessel; and by the same document Jennings admitted the receipt of 1,100 l. from Martinez and Co., through Messrs. Zulueta. All the earnings of the ship were to be accounted for, and Jennings was to receive 15 l. per month for salary, as captain. It was most material to observe, that, although Jennings was the party who nominally chartered the vessel, yet, in point of fact, Martinez and Co., through Mr. Zulueta, employed the vessel. The prosecutor therefore contended that the whole was merely a colourable transaction, and that Jennings was put forward as the owner of the vessel, in order to screen Mr. Zulueta. If the transaction had been genuine, and all the parties honest, why so much secrecy? The vessel then proceeded to the Gallinas, a place entirely devoted to the slave-trade, and no other commerce of any kind was carried on there. It was hardly to be supposed that a person who had been trading there for a long time did not know the place and the trade that was carried on at it. It consisted of five large barracoons, in which the slaves were kept until an opportunity offered of shipping them to their destination. These slaves were mostly purchased by barter for cotton goods sent from England, or by doubloons, which were raised by drawing bills on persons in England. The names of the chief slave-dealers were Rolo, Alvarez, Jimminez, Bruon, and Glassie. The cargo of the vessel in question was consigned to the three first-named persons. Shortly after the vessel sailed from England, in consequence of bad weather it became necessary that she should put into some port for repairs; but, although she was not more than 100 miles, or one day's sail, from Cork or Falmouth, the captain, in spite of the remonstrances of the crew, insisted upon going to Cadiz, eighteen or nineteen days sail, where Mr. Zulueta, and also Martinez and Co., had a house, and at that port part of the damaged cargo was sent on shore, and Mr. Zulueta 0015 7 received the amount of the loss from the insurance office in London. About the 7th January the vessel sailed from Cadiz, and on her arrival on the coast of Africa she was captured by Captain Hill, who was not a little surprised to find her the same vessel which, but a short time before, he had captured and sent to England, in the name of the Golupchick, and which had thus returned under English colours, and with a fresh name. When Captain Hill boarded her, Captain Jennings refused to say to whom the cargo was consigned, and he therefore detained her.

Mr. Kelly said, what had passed between Captain Hill and Jennings could not affect Mr. Zulueta, who was in England at the time.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas proceeded to say, that subsequently Jennings gave Captain Hill some letters, which he said were directed to his consignees.

Mr. Kelly again objected, that the letters were written by Messrs. Martinez and Co., and could not, therefore, affect the prisoner. The offence, if any had been committed, was committed in England, and these letters were written by a foreign merchant afterwards.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas would at once admit that these letters formed a very material point in the evidence, and the question of their admissibility was therefore of importance, and ought to be at once decided.

A long argument then ensued, and eventually

Mr. Justice Maule said it would be better not to read the letters then.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas said, that if it should be eventually decided that these letters should be read, they would form a very grave matter for the consideration of the jury. After the vessel was captured the second time, she was again taken to Sierra Leone, where she was detained some time, and eventually sent to England. The main question for their consideration would be whether the vessel was despatched to the Gallinas for the purpose of trading in slaves, or whether it went there for lawful and honest purposes. It would be his duty to open to them the evidence which Mr. Zulueta had volunteered before the House of Commons. He would call their attention to every material part of it, and leave them to apply it to the rest of the evidence. He (Mr. Zulueta) was examined on the 22nd of July, 1842. It appeared that some persons had made statements before that Committee which were considered to reflect upon the prisoner; they were enclosed to him for his consideration, and he felt himself obliged to give an explanation.

The Chairman said to him

“You have seen some statements that had been made to this Committee upon the subject of a transaction in which your house was engaged: have you any observations to offer upon it? I received from the Clerk of the Committee a letter accompanying a copy of certain evidences, which are Mr. Macauley's evidence of the 10th of June, the 14th 0016 8 of June, and the 15th of June; and Captain Hill's evidence of the 29th of June, the 4th of July, and the 6th of July. I will beg first of all to refer to the letter which I had the honour to address to the chairman. My reason for wishing to be examined before this Committee was, that the statements contained in the evidence which I have mentioned are all of them more or less incorrect, some of them totally so. I will begin by stating what has been the nature of our—I will not say trade, for we have not had a trade ourselves—but of our connexion with the shipment of goods to the coast of Africa. We have been established as merchants for upwards of seventy years in Spain, for nearly twenty 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 and Co., of the Havannah, and with Blanco and Cavallo, of Havannah. With them we 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 and Co.

“They are general merchants?—They are general merchants, and their transactions width 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 and Co., of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, to ship goods for the coast of Africa; never from Pedro Blanco, and never from Blanco and Cavallo.

“Have you received orders from Pedro Martinez for shipments for the coast of Africa?—Yes, in the course of business we have received orders to ship goods upon the funds in our hands belonging to them; and we have shipped the goods described in the letter, and sent the bills of lading to Pedro Martinez; but beyond that we have never had any returns from the coast, nor any control of any kind, from the moment the cargoes left the ports of this country.

“You have had no interest in the result of the 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 to the shipments, except the mere fact et buying the goods and shipping them.”

He (Serjeant Bompas) did not know how that could be quite correct. It would appear subsequently, by the evidence in this case, that they had actually received the insurance on damaged goods landed at Cadiz from this very vessel.

“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/. 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 and Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which Blanco and 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.”

0017 9

The jury would probably have in evidence who Pedro Blanco was. No doubt he was a considerable slave-trader.

“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 5s. beyond that, we should have protested, and in some cases we have protested. With regard to the vessel alluded to in this report, the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that which appears from one of the letters; that is to say, Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, had made choice of Jennings to buy the vessel, and lent him money to buy the vessel, because Pedro Martinez wanted him to have a vessel in the trade, for the purpose of taking his goods to their destination.”

It was always satisfactory in a case of this kind to know, that if a statement made were true, the proof of it would be perfectly easy. Evidence, however, must be given sufficient to charge home guilt, before the party could be called upon to make his defence. In this case, Mr. Zulueta was only one of the firm, and he could have no difficulty in proving all the transactions.

“I have now described the three kinds of operations in which we have been concerned, and our knowledge of all of them terminated with the execution of the orders of our correspondents. We had nothing more to do than to follow the orders of the purchaser in shipping the goods. With regard to the purchase of the vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a man who has been employed some time by Martinez: he has served Martinez as a chartered captain, and Martinez having been satisfied with his services, agreed to lend him that money on the security of the vessel, provided it did not exceed a certain amount; which was all the interference we had with it, just to see that a certain amount was not exceeded, 500 l., or whatever it was.

“Then you were to furnish Captain Jennings with money for the purchase within a limited amount, say 500 l., credit being given to him upon you by Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz?—That is just the point.”

It would be shown, however, that there could be no such limit, because Mr. Zulueta did actually give 650 l. for that vessel.

“Captain Fitzroy: The Augusta being purchased by money advanced by your house for Martinez and Company, of Cadiz, she then became the property of Pedro Martinez?—No, she became the property of Jennings; the money was lent to Jennings, and he bound himself by giving security on the vessel to answer for the amount. It is a mercantile operation which is not unusual.”

It was not a very material matter, but it would be for the jury to say whether it was unusual or not.

“Mr. Forster: You advanced the money to Captain Jennings for the purchase of the vessel, Jennings transferring the vessel to you as a security for the amount so advanced?—That is just the description of operation, which is a very general one in business.”

The prisoner then went on to describe the operations. It appeared that Jennings was owner as well as captain; that he stood indebted to Martinez, and gave a bottomry bond for the vessel. If that were the case, there would be no difficulty in proving it.

0018 10

“Mr. Forster: You acted in this transaction merely as agent in the usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in any part of the world?—Exactly, If Martinez had told me, you have got 500 l, in your hands, pay that to Captain Jennings, I should have known nothing more of the transaction; I should have paid the money. But Martinez did not wish to go beyond a certain amount; and he says, you exercise control, do not allow the man to pay more than 590 l. for the vessel.”

The letter treated it as a purchase by Zulueta: there might or might not be directions in the letter; if there were, it was clear that he could prove it. It was quite impossible that there should be time for giving fresh directions, and saying 650 l. was to be paid for the vessel. If a man, when charged with theft, said that he purchased the article, unless he proved it, his assertion was not evidence.

“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 and Co.?—Most assuredly; except with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any thing with him in any way.”

That of course could be proved.

“Captain Fitzroy: Though the process of hypothecating a vessel may be usual between British merchants, is it usual to cover a transaction of Spanish slave-trade with the British flag, by means of such an arrangement as that described to have taken place in the case of the Augusta? —In order to answer that question, it seems to me that it is fair that I should ask where is the transaction of coverings and where is the slave-trade transaction? I know positively of my own knowledge, that there is no such thing at all connected with the Augusta. If I had an opportunity I could make my affidavit of that.

“Sir T. D. Acland: Do you mean that you know that the Augusta was not engaged in any slaving transactions during the voyage upon which she left Liverpool?—Most assuredly not: in fact, my testimony is hardly required of that, because every thing proves that. When she was detained, it was never said that she was upon a slaving operation at all. Before she left this port, after she was bought, she was completely rendered useless for that purpose.”

Of course the leagores must be taken to pieces; otherwise the ship would not be allowed to leave the port. But they were taken to pieces, and left in the vessel in such a way that they could be put to use.

“ Chairman: The charge is, that she was engaged in carrying goods to person engaged in the slave-trade: not that she was engaged in the slave-trade herself?—I most certainly say that I do not know whether the person is so engaged or not.

“Captain Fitzroy: Is it usual to cover a transaction of Spanish trade with the English flag?—I am not aware that a Spanish merchant is prohibited chartering au English vessel.”

No doubt a Spanish merchant was not; but if an Englishman chartered a vessel for slave-trading transactions, whether agent or principal, he (Serjeant Bompas) had no hesitation in submitting that he was guilty of the charge alleged in the indictment. If merchants in England would not accept bills drawn by slave-traders 0019 11 and lend themselves to the transaction, and send goods from England for the purposes of barter, the trade could not be carried on.

“But is it lawful to employ the British flag to cover a vessel that is not owned by a British subject?—I say that that vessel is owned by a British subject.

“Sir T. D. Acland: By whom?—By Captain Jennings.

“Was not the money with which she was purchased, the money of Pedro Martinez?—It seems to mc that English captains and English subjects are not prohibited from borrowing money from Spaniards; she was bought with money lent by Pedro Martinez to Captain Jennings for the purpose.”

If that were true it could be shown.

“Do you mean that the money was a loan to Captain Jennings, at the time he paid it for the vessel?—It was a loan to Captain Jennings.

“Do you mean that the ship was then Captain Jennings's property?—It was.

“Was it in his power to sell that vessel at any port he pleased?—There was a mortgage upon the vessel.

“Mr. William Patten: You have stated that yours was an agency trade?—It is so, and in the multitude of business any one can understand that 20,000 l. in fifteen or twenty years can only be a mere trifle in the business of any merchant, without laying claim to a large business, and in following that business we have executed shipping orders.

“To what part of the coast of Africa has that business been chiefly conducted?—I believe, almost exclusively to the Gallinas.”

He believed it would be found that the Gallinas was a slave-trade station, and nothing else.

“Have the goods that M. Martinez has ordered to be sent to the Gallinas, been all sent to the same individual?—No, to different individuals; sometimes to Pedro Blanco, who was for a certain time an agent of Pedro Martinez on the coast, and sometimes we have sent a bill of lading drawn in this way to order; we have sent it to Pedro Martinez as a voucher against his account.

“Do you know the nature of the trade of Pedro Martinez at the Gallinas?—I know from general report, that Don. Pedro Martinez himself is supposed to deal in slaves, and I believe it is so.

“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.

“ Chairman: Is a ship which is hypothecated liable to be foreclosed at any moment, at the discretion of the mortgagee?—It depends altogether on the terms of the mortgage. If the mortgagee says, You must give me the money when I ask for it, of course he must sell the vessel, if he has not got any thing else; he would always have to deduct whatever freight had been earned. When the security may be called upon to be effective, depends upon the nature of the transaction between the parties.

“Mr. Forster: Your house had nothing to do with any letters that might be put on board the Augusta after she sailed from this country?—Nothing whatever.

“The Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa on the charge of slave-trading?—I believe that was the case.

“Did you not appeal against that condemnation?—Yes, there is an appeal by the owner.

0020 12

“Before the Privy Council?—Yes.

“That appeal is not yet decided?—I believe not.

“Sir T. D. Acland: You stated that your transactions with Africa for Martinez have amounted to about 20,000 l. in fifteen or twenty years. What has been the amount of your whole transactions with Blanco and Martinez of the Havannah during that period?—Perhaps 100,000 l., or a larger sum. For instance, we have received more than forty or fifty cargoes of sugar from the Havannah, consigned to us, and cigars; and we have received bills of lading of specie shipped at Mexico to be sold here, and bar gold, and things of that sort.

Mr. Wood: Have you reason to suppose that the whole of the 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.

“Is that speculating in Spanish bonds on account of the house at Cadiz, or the house at the Havannah?—Speaking technically, I should say it was on account of the Cadiz house.

“The question related to the commerce of the Havannah house?—Pedro Martinez is a Havannah merchant. But with regard to Havannah merchants, we have received large consignments of sugar, cochineal, and sometimes Mexican goods, brought to Havannah and shipped to us here.

“In what course of business have the proceeds of those consignments been disposed of; have they gone in sending supplies to the coast of Africa?—Out of that large amount of money, £22,000 is the amount of all the goods that we have sent to the coast of Africa in twenty years.

“Of all descriptions?—Of all sorts and kinds; I have gone through the invoice book, and found them out.

“Have the proceeds generally been disposed of by drafts from the parties themselves to your house?—By the parties at Havannah, when the exchange turns to their advantage.

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

“Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah to ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for the African trade?—We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of the same kind as those that were in the Augusta; cotton goods, and other things of that sort.

“Has that been recently?—In the course of our operations.

“How many years ago?—In the course of these fifteen or twenty years that we have been engaged in business with them; all that I could see in a moment by my books.

“Have you sent any goods of that description to the Havannah recently?—Not very recently; I think not for some years.

“Have you sent any goods of that description since you first began to send goods out direct to the coast of Africa?—They have been mixed. I cannot draw a distinction between the two destinations. Some have gone to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.

“Have those supplies of English manufactured goods, which heretofore went to the Havannah, to be used there for promoting the slave-trade, 0021 13 been more recently sent direct from this country to the coast of Africa?—No, I do not think that is the case. I should think the contrary is more likely to be the case; but I think we have shipped in some months, or in some years, partly to the Havannah, and partly to the Gallinas.”

There were then some statements to which he did not think it necessary to refer.

“Have you shipped English manufactured goods direct to the coast of Africa, on behalf of both those houses?—Such goods as were in the Augusta I have shipped for one part only. With regard to the house of Blanco and Carvallo, and the house of Pedro Martinez and Co., with both of them I have carried on a large general business. But to Blanco and Carvallo I never shipped a single piece of goods of any kind, except some sugar mills to the Havannah; and with regard to the house of Pedro Martinez, we have shipped such Roods as those by the Augusta.

“From your general knowledge of the trade of the house of Pedro Martinez and Co., is it your opinion that the goods which you so shipped to the coast of Africa were destined to be employed in the slave-trade?—I do not know; they may be, for any thing that I know.”

He humbly submitted that they did believe it. If they sent goods, it was not for them to shut their eyes to the fact. It was like the case of stolen goods. The person who received them might not know positively that they were stolen; but if they were purchased at such a price—concealed in such a way, that there could be no doubt that they were dishonestly come by, it was as much a crime to receive them as if the party knew that they had been stolen. He was not to shut his eyes, and say, “I do not know.”

“Has it come within your knowledge that the house of Martinez and Co. are exporters from Africa of the native produce of Africa?—No, because I never tried to get any knowledge of their transactions there of any sort.

“Have you ever received consignments from them, or on their behalf, of palm-oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the coast of Africa?—Never; we never have received any thing from the coast of Africa whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will perhaps appear strange to the Committee that I should not know more of the coast of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had shipped to the amount of £100,000 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 largo amount, an invoice occasionally of about £2,000 or £3,000 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.

“ Chairman: Is there any other part of the evidence which has been given that you wish to observe upon?—It is asked here, in question 5,086, ‘Who was he?’ the answer is, ‘The name is mentioned in the parliamentary papers as being connected with the purchase of a slave vessel; Mr. Kidd; and it is mentioned in connexion with that of Mr. Zulueta, of London.’ Now, as to Mr. Kidd, the very first thing I ever knew or ever heard of his name was to see it here. I never heard of his name at all. I never had a letter from him or through him, or knew any thing of the man whatever. That is, with regard to myself. With regard to my partners, I can say the same. I have been making inquiries 0022 14 about it. My father knew there was such a man upon the coast, but I did not know even that, though I have managed all this business. Our house never had a letter from the man, or knew any thing about him.

“You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in any way?—No, nor any knowledge of him. Then, in the next answer it is said, ‘Zulueta, the gentleman in London to whom the vessel was sent, and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner, is a name well known on the coast in connexion with the slave-trade.’ Now what is known on the coast 1 really cannot pretend to say; but I believe that not many persons can say that which I can say, that neither myself, nor my father, nor my grandfather, nor any body in our firm, has ever had any kind of interest of any sort, or derived any emolument or connexion from the slave-trade. My father had at one time an interest in a bankrupt's estate at the Havannah, upon which he was a creditor. There were some slaves on the estate, and they formed part of the property assignable to the creditors, and my father got the slaves assigned to him; because the other gentlemen and the creditors were not of the same opinion, he got them assigned to him, and made them free; and that is all the connexion we have ever had with any slaves in the world. I do not know how far that may be considered irrelevant to the point, but I state it because we are here mentioned three or four times as connected with slave-dealers, as a name well-known in connexion with the slave-trade. That sort of statement is rather a difficult thing to deal with.

“If it is meant to insinuate by these observations that you ever had any other connexion with the slave-trade than being the shipping agent of goods which were sent to a man who was a dealer in slaves, you entirely deny it?—I assure the Committee, that, although I have a general notion as to what interest Blanco and Martinez have in slaves, yet, if I was put on 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.”

If he knew that the trade of those parties with the Gallinas was in slaves; if he believed that these goods were sent out for the purpose of carrying on the trade, and he did send them, and they (the jurors) were satisfied that the name of Jennings was used on the occasion; then he apprehended that the prisoner was guilty within the indictment. The object of the statute was to prevent the goods being sent out.

“There was nothing upon the face of the transactions which you had with those parties which spoke of a connexion with the traffic in slaves?—Nothing whatever.”

Would any human believe that there would be any thing to show that there was a connexion with slaves? The vessel would not have gone to her destination if, upon the face of the transaction, there was the appearance of dealing in slaves. The answer went on,—

“It is well known that fifty years ago it was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz to insure operations in slave-trading. My house at that time were underwriters, and it was notorious that a policy of that kind would never enter the doors of our house; and nobody would come to offer such a thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both here and in Spain, that we set our faces distinctly against having any interest of any kind in the slave-trade.

0023 15

“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.

“Have you anything further to state upon the subject?—There are several things I have marked; for instance, such as this, ‘You are not bound to suppose that a man will make a bad use of that which he purchases.’ If I wished to put my statement upon that footing, I should have done with it in a moment, for I knew nothing of the use they were put to. I bought goods, but as to what use was made of them I knew nothing whatever. But that is not the position which I wish to assume. It is said here that we sent goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco. To that I say, that we never sent either goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco.”

It was very extraordinary that a little before, when the question was put, “Have the goods that Martinez has ordered to be sent to the Gallinas been all sent to the same individual?” he answered, “No, to different individuals; sometimes to Pedro Blanco, who was for a certain time an agent of Pedro Martinez on the coast.” He now says, “We never sent either goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco.”

He proceeds, “In answer to question 5,474, it is said by Mr. Macauley, ‘I stated that it appears that it is a regular thing sending vessels to him, that is, to Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England to him he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again to the Havannah, and come again into the trade. My answer was intended to describe only the course of that particular transaction, and not to apply to any other case.’ I never received a single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor any body for us.

“ Mr. Forster. —Then that statement is entirely untrue?—Totally, from beginning to end; we never did so, and nobody for us; and nobody to our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in the most distinct manner. In question 5,487, Mr. Macauley 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 Golupchick, 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 Golupchick.

“ Chairman: Have you been concerned in the purchase of vessels frequently for Pedro Martinez or Pedro Blanco?—We have sometimes bought such vessels here as we could resell at the Havannah, such as the Arrogante, which we have bought.

“Upon orders?—Partly on orders, and sometimes on our own account on speculation.

“ Mr. Wood: For what particular trade were they calculated when they reached the Havannah?—I think for the same trade which they were calculated for when they were sold here.

“For the conveyance of merchandize? As well as any thing else. They were sold here publicly.

“ Mr. Forster: If it was legal for them to be sold here, you considered 0024 16 that it was legal for you to buy them?—I never had any doubt of the legality of buying them, or of selling them again afterwards.

“ Mr. Wood: But the questions appertaining to the carrying on of the slave-trade do not confine themselves within strictly legal grounds, but they have other more important considerations attaching to them?—As to that point, there may be a difference of opinion; I would be very sorry indeed, for the sake of catching the approval of other persons, to make a disclaimer of any particular set of opinions whatever; but I believe the only point with which the Committee have to do is the legal point. As to the moral point, it seems to me that I am to judge of that; upon that point, I think I have stated quite enough, having stated distinctly that I never had any connexion, nor derived any profit from the slave-trade whatever.”

There were then several questions, and in the prisoner's answers, he said that he had had nothing to do with slave transactions. He (Serjeant Bompas) would leave it to his friend to read that more particularly.

“Had you ever employed Jennings before?—Jennings had had charge of vessels before, chartered by Martinez, and hence the connexion between Martinez and Jennings. There are some captains in all trades that make a great deal of difficulty about every thing, and others that do not; of course merchants like to deal with those that do not, more than those that do.

“ Chairman: It would appear from question 5,087, 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, papers 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 7,965 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.

“ Chairman: And the log-book he must have read?—I should think so; because if he has not done that he has done nothing. All I mean to say is that it is an ex parte statement.

“Sir T. D. Acland: It was not intended, when she left England, that she should put into Cadiz?—Most certainly not; all the facts of the case show that she went there because she was obliged. I have not seen the log-book, but it must be there, because in the log-book the captain is bound to enter those things, and whoever captured the vessel must have seen the log-book, of coarse. In answer to question 7,967, 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; the are merchants residing in England, and they must conform themselves to the laws of 0025 17 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 7,970, 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 place without ascertaining beforehand whether there are constituted authorities there. I believe that if they like to send goods to any place, they may do it; and as to the fact of there being constituted authorities in the place or not, I do not see what that has to do with the question; besides, there have been such things as treaties made with persons at the Gallinas; so that there must be some constituted authorities there. But I do not know why I should be called upon to know whether there are constituted authorities at the port or not. Then it is stated, in answer to question 7,971, ‘As far as I am able to give my own opinion, I believe that Messrs. Zulueta were perfectly criminal, at least they had a knowledge of what they were doing. I think I am borne out in that by the secrecy they have endeavoured to pursue in putting in a false owner.’ I have answered all that before. I state again, that all the secrecy and mystery of the thing lies in supposing other things different from what appear. Then it is said, ‘In fact there can be no want of evidence to show that Messrs. Zulueta had for a length of time been agents to slave dealers.’ Mr. Blanco and Mr. Martinez may have been engaged, as I have stated, in slave operations; and I have stated that we conducted their general business here.

“ Mr. Forster: Is not Pedro Blanco a partner in a commercial house at the Havannah, who are general merchants?—Yes, I have stated that before.

“Captain Fitzroy: Have you ever discounted any bill drawn by Pedro Blanco on Pedro Martinez and Co., for goods delivered for them on the African coast at the Gallinas?—I have accepted bills drawn by Pedro Blanco and others, from the Gallinas, upon our house, and paid them to the order of several houses in Sierra Leone, and houses in London. I have paid them in money that I had in my hands, resulting from the general transactions of business which I have explained. But discounting would be this: if I had paid those acceptances before they were due, and received some consideration for them; that I never did, but I might have done it in the case of these bills.

“Were those bills negotiated through your hands in payment of goods delivered at the Gallinas?—No; they were drawn generally with the advice attached to them, saying, ‘I have drawn 1000 l. upon you for account of Blanco and Cavallo, or Blanco and Co., at the Havannah.’

“ Mr. Wood: By whose orders were you desired to honour it; was it by the order of Pedro Blanco at the Gallinas?—No; by the house at the Havannah or by the house at Cadiz; sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. Blanco had a house some time ago in Malaga as a general merchant, occupied in shipping the fruits of the country and oil to the United States, &c. In answer to question 7,961, the following is stated: ‘In one of these letters, dated, Cadiz, Nov. 30,1840, is a paragraph to the following effect: ‘In a letter dated London, the 21st inst., which I have just received from Messrs. Zulueta and Co., merchants in London, I had the pleasure of receiving a bill drawn by you on them for 250 l., which I this day place to their credit, waiting your advice of the same.’ There is here certainly a mistranslation of some kind, because it says that this man receives a bill upon us, and credits it to us, which is, of course, contradictory in the very terms of it; because if the bill was remitted to this man upon us, he c 0026 18 would have debited it to us, and not credited it. But altogether there is some confusion about it, I suppose arising from the mistranslation of the documents; because the fact is this, the bill is one of the bills I have already mentioned, drawn from the Gallinas upon ourselves, to the order of a third party. It is a bill drawn at the Gallinas upon ourselves on account of the credit; and therefore it could never have been received by the person in Cadiz. It must have been presented to us here; and, in fact, so it was, the bill is here. I wish to show that that letter is perfectly inaccurate.

“ Sir T. D. Acland: Can you give the Committee any information upon this: ‘The other letters,’ nine of them, ‘were all on slave business, not a word of any innocent trade, but the whole directing how slaves were to be shipped on board various vessels.’ How do you account for this vessel carrying letters upon slave business?—I account for it in this way: First of all, it is impossible for us to answer here what letters will be put on board a vessel at Cadiz; but there is very seldom any communication between Cadiz and the Gallinas; whatever letters there were must have gone by such random occasions as arose. As to the fact that whoever wrote those letters is engaged in the slave-trade, the letters will speak for themselves.

“ Chairman: Those letters were not prepared in the expectation of the arrival of this vessel, because this vessel was not destined to that port, and was only driven there by stress of weather?—Most certainly. I will add one circumstance in proof of that. This vessel was supposed to have been lost, from the circumstance of a boat having been found upon the coast with the name of ‘T. Jennings’ upon it, and it was supposed that it was a boat belonging to the vessel; it was, in fact, a boat from the vessel, but the vessel had not been lost, therefore the vessel was quite unexpected in Cadiz by every soul. It went there from stress of weather, and nothing more. Then it is said, in answer to question 7,972, ‘I think the papers are quite conclusive to the mind of any man that Zulueta was cognizant of what he was doing; but, as far as it is an illegal transaction, it is not for me to judge; but the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone did think it illegal, and condemned the vessel; and moreover, the man who is put forward as captain and owner did not defend the vessel on her trial.’ Now, as to the statement of his being a false owner, I have already stated that he was not. But then, again, with regard to the other part of the business, the man did not defend it, because he was prevented from defending it.”

With respect to the first part of the answer, it was stated that the vessel put into Cadiz in consequence of stress of weather. The evidence that he (Serjeant Bompas) would bring forward, would show that there had been a storm, but that she was within 100 miles of Cork or Falmouth, whereas she was eighteen or nineteen days' sail from Cadiz. The crew did not exactly mutiny, but they were opposed to going to Cadiz; and it was only upon the captain making an arrangement that they should be discharged at Cadiz that they consented to go there, she being dose to the English coast. There was no doubt that when she arrived there certain letters were put on board her; and if they were evidence, the jury would see them. On the next day a further explanation took place before the Committee.

“ Chairman: The committee understand that you have some further observations to make upon the evidence which has been given with reference 0027 19 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 and Co., of the Havannah, with Blanco and Cavallo, 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.”

That was a very serious answer, when the prisoner had stated, from his general knowledge, that the parties dealt in slaves. Though the goods covered only amounted to 22,000 l., yet the bills accepted were, no doubt, on account of the same transactions.

“Can you state how much of the 22,000 l. has accrued within any given period; is it distributed equally over the whole twenty years, or has it grown up in the last four or five years?—In the last few years it has decreased, but otherwise it is spread over the whole number of years. In such a length of time it forms to our minds a mere speck. In the last six months our transactions with the house of Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, amount already to 30,000 l.; and with Pedro Martinez, of the Havannah, to nearly the same amount. With the house of Pedro Blanco and Co., of the Havannah, the amount has been 15,000 l. for what has passed in the last six months; and with the houses generally, at Cuba, throughout the island, it amounts to 100,000 l. altogether, arising entirely from cargoes of sugar and from tobacco, and remittance of bills from therein carrying on banking operations, upon which they draw again, which are negociated in the Havannah, and sent to houses in London to cash, and remittances of drafts on the Spanish treasury at the Havannah, and bills of lading of specie and bullion, and such things from Mexico. I state these things only to show the nature of our trade; and I have been particular, because, as these are large amounts, I wish to show what they arise from. Another fact escaped my attention yesterday, and it is this—that Don Pedro Martinez is owner of several large vessels of 300 tons and 400 tons, which are in the trade of sugar, tobacco, and such things, with us in England, and with Cadiz.”

The cargo put on board the Augusta was worth about 5,000 l,

“Have you bought other vessels for him than those which have been employed in the slave-trade? Yes, decidedly so; there was the Star, Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent from here to the Gallinas, precisely the same as the Augusta has been sent. She delivered her cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I believe, and from there to Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she came back to Spain, and she was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not Martinez, or anybody connected c 2 0028 20 with him; in fact, she was sold for very little. The object of that vessel was just the same as the Augusta, to maintain a legal trade with Gallinas; that is within my own knowledge.

“Mr. Aldam: What is the description of legal trade that was carried on?—Sending out goods to be sold at those places, and to go to other ports, not to carry any cargo from there to the Havannah.

“There has been a good deal of evidence, in which it has been stated that no legal trade is carried on with Gallinas.—I could not say what trade there is at the Gallinas of a legal nature, but I know that these vessels would have taken nothing if there was nothing legal to take, from that place to the Havannah, or to any other place; I am aware that my answers upon this point must be deficient, because I am really very ignorant of the trade of the west coast of Africa.

“Do you suppose that the vessels would be used to carry on a legal trade?—Most certainly I do; because persons find it worth while to send goods there constantly. The Committee will observe, that what the application of the goods is afterwards I cannot say; but I speak of the fact of the vessels having gone there with the intention of returning to the Havannah to bring a cargo of some description here, to pay a freight, and then to go again with the same kind of goods to Africa.

“ Chairman: You have stated before that you have cleared out for the Gallinas from Liverpool?—Yes.

“In carrying on operations of that kind, should you have ever thought it necessary to exercise any disguise as to what part of Africa you were clearing out for?—Not at all.

“You did not imagine that in being, the instrument of sending, lawful goods to any part of Africa you were doing any thing which required concealment?—Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof of that is, that in the bills of entry in Liverpool, anybody could see our names as consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our own names of every thing.”

That Zulueta and Co., did make the shipment was beyond all question true; but if this were a transaction not to be concealed, would not their names have appeared throughout it? The name of Thomas Jennings, however, was in the ship's papers.

“Is there not 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 skipper?—Yes, there is.

“Is not this printed from time to time in the public papers?—It is in general circulation; there is hardly any merchant in Liverpool or in London who is not possessed of one. The Liverpool entries are reprinted in London, Liverpool being such an important place of business. The bill printed in London contains also Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol.

“So that every such transaction is perfectly notorious to every one—Notorious to every one who chooses to read the public papers. There is another thing which escaped me till I came into the room this morning. As I have been in the business from my childhood, I know every thing that is going on in it. The Arrogante, after we sold her at the Havannah, was sent to Vera Cruz with a cargo of Spanish paper, spirits, midas, &c., such as is sent for the South American trade, for the purpose of breaking the blockade of Vera Cruz, which she did break, and went in. It was asked in question 7,147, 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 0029 21 it was our express wish and order that every thing in her that was fit for the 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.”

She could not have got out of the port of Liverpool unless these things had been removed. She would have been seized by a man-of-war had she not appeared like an ordinary vessel. The answer goes on—

“It is stated in the evidence that the Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave-dealers; now we had never in our lives heard of the name of any one of the parties to whom she was consigned.”

That was most extraordinary. Here were persons shipping to the Gallinas for twenty years; there were five persons slave-dealers residing there; and notwithstanding the house had consigned goods there for that length of time, the prisoner did not know the names of three out of the five. That was a fact of which the jury would judge.

“You mean that the first time you heard their names was when the order to ship those goods was given to you? Yes, and the circumstance of three consignees is a regular thing with distant consignments, such as South America and Africa. There is such an uncertainty attending the residence of parties in those places, that we invariably put a second and third consignee in addition, in case the first should not be in the way.

“Mr. Forster: Some bills were referred to in your former evidence drawn by Mr. Pedro Blanco upon your house: have you any objection to put those bills before the Committee?—Not any. And I ought to state now, as I have been looking at the bills more closely, that they are not all drawn to the orders of Sierra Leone houses, but to the orders of other Spaniards, and those people endorsed them to the Sierra Leone houses. This does not alter the case materially, but for the sake of accuracy I mention it.

“You will put them in for the inspection of the Committee?—Certainly. (The same were delivered in.)

You only hesitated in giving the names yesterday from motives of delicacy, not from any motive of concealment?—Yes, I do not wish to withhold any thing, but I am indisposed to introduce any name. I have no wish to conceal any thing whatever. I have been consulting with my partners upon this subject, and I have a request to make to the Committee. Our position is one which is certainly an unpleasant one. I think that what I have stated will have proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that we have not in any way intended to elude the law.”

Then it was suggested that if there were any difficulty there should be a new Act of Parliament. He (Serjeant Bompas) had read more than he should have done, because he was anxious that it should not be said that he had omitted any thing in the prisoner's favour. After examining that statement, it would be for the jury to say, whether or not they were satisfied that he had the means of knowing, and did know, that Pedro Martinez was a dealer in slaves at the Gallinas. The next question which they would have to decide was, whether this vessel was going to the Gallinas for the purpose of supplying the dealers in slaves with materials for carrying on their business, and for the use of slaves while at that † 0030 22 station. If the prisoner knew it, that would be an offence within the Act of Parliament. How were the jury to ascertain whether he knew it or not? The goods sent were partly iron pots, which were used in the warehouses to boil rice for the slaves; there were goods proper for barter in exchange for slaves, so that as far as evidence could be laid before them, it would appear that these articles were to be used for trading in slaves. The prisoner did not profess that he knew of any trade being carried on at the Gallinas, except that relating to slaves. How could they know what was passing in the mind except by actions? Was this transaction carried on in the way it would have been conducted by any person who did not believe and know that it was connected with the slave-trade? Had there been a bona fide open, honest, mercantile mode of carrying on the business? Or had there been a concealment of the name of Zulueta throughout the transaction? If a man received goods, and concealed them in a way in which no honest man would, that was evidence that he knew they were stolen. After hearing all the evidence, it would be for them to say whether the prisoner was guilty of the charge imputed to him or not. He could not, however, sit down without saying a few words in reference to an observation that had been thrown out as to who was the prosecutor of this indictment. Although that was a question which did not concern any person, still there could be no wish for secresy. The prosecutor was Sir G. Stephen, the solicitor who instructed him Mr. Serjeant Bompas. He was the son of a gentleman whose name had been known as long as there had been any attempts to overthrow this trade; he was the nephew of a man who deserved the praise and gratitude of all for his exertions to abolish slavery, the late Mr. Wilberforce; and feeling that it was necessary for some one to come forward as the prosecutor, he did not shrink from the responsibility, and did not shrink from taking all the responsibility upon himself. With that, however, the jury had nothing whatever to do; they must give their verdict solely upon the evidence adduced before them.

Captain Henry Worsley Hill, R. N., examined by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd. I commanded the ship Saracen, on the coast of Africa, from about October, 1837, to June, 1841. I was engaged there for the protection of British commerce, and the prevention of the slave-trade; she was a man-of-war. I became acquainted with the river Gallinas in the course of that service. If a large ship in navigated, it is necessary to go round a large coast of shoal, it may be from 150 to 200 miles. There is a nearer navigation for small vessels, but it depends much on the draft of water. On the river Gallinas there are several small towns. The inhabitants are negroes, blacks; the European population are chiefly Spaniards. When I first became acquainted with the Gallinas there were barracoons there. I was on my station from December, 1838, till May, 1841. I had sailed there in 1837, but did not land there. I knew there were barracoons there for years, and the slave-trade was exclusively carried on there, I afterwards landed and became acquainted with the establishments. The barracoons are now destroyed by an arrangement made by Captain Denman and the chiefs; I was present when they were destroyed, and saw distinctly the whole slave-establishments destroyed, there were six or 0031 23 seven. The first time I was on shore there, and saw the barracoons, was in November, 1840; I was cruising off there two years for the prevention of the slave-trade, but had no personal inspection or knowledge of them till November, 1840. The barracoons are places for warehousing the slaves till they are exported, and for no other purpose. I made the plan now produced. The river has never been surveyed. This gives a general view of the river and the barracoons before they were destroyed on it, to the best of my ability. The first place we landed at was Dombacoro.

Mr. Kelly: I object to this being given in evidence against Mr. Zulueta, who never saw the place. If any thing is to be built upon reputation as to the pursuits and property of these individuals, I am bound to object. I submit that it can only be done by direct legal evidence of the fact to be established.

Examination resumed: The barracoons are extensive buildings of themselves, and the buildings necessary for people to live in to attend the slaves are numerous; there may be fifty or sixty buildings, I suppose, in Dombacoro alone, for people to live in to look after the slaves. At Tiendo the slave establishment covers a large space of ground; each barracoon may keep 500 or 600 slaves. At Dumbocoro there was nothing but barracoons. Teendo, immediately beyond the slave establishment, is a native town; the slave establishment is towards the point. At Jaccra I saw nothing but slave establishments. Carmasuro is an island where there is a large slave establishment. I saw nothing but slave establishments. At Carmeteendo the same. Them is another slave establishment at Paisly, and at two other islands there are some small slave establishments.

Do you know any other trade or commerce carried on there except the slave-trade?—None whatever. I was at the whole of the slave establishments I have mentioned, went over them all before they were destroyed, and saw nothing but the slave trade. If there had been any commerce carried on I must have known it. A native king told me there was no trade but the slave-trade. A merchant named Ignatio Role was on board the Saracen for two or three days. Captain Denman had taken a slave-ship, and he was taken. I never saw him buy or sell a slave: but I should certainly say he was a slave dealer, and wholly and solely a slave dealer. He resided at Jacria, a slave establishment. I went all over his stores, and every thing; there was no sign of any thing there but the slave-trade.

Mr. Kelly again objected to this species of evidence being given.

Mr. Justice Maule: The witness has not that acquaintance that we have with what is requisite to constitute evidence.

Mr. Kelly: I hope that he will understand that he is not to state what he heard, but what he saw.

The Witness: I was speaking of a conference with Rolo himself.

Mr. Justice Maule: He is not speaking of any thing he knows from hearsay.

Examination resumed: I never saw him there. I did not see him in any occupation. It must have been in November that I saw him, a day or two previous to our going into the Gallinas to make some arrangements with the chiefs; there is no establishment there called by his name. Jacria is the establishment there. He came on board the vessel, and was detained by the prize officer. He is a Spaniard to the best of my belief. I was not personally acquainted with a merchant named Alvarez. I knew Don Angel Jimminez there, and hay seen him at Sierra Leone as well. We fell in with a vessel called the Golupchick several times, and chased her; we finally succeeded in detaining 0032 24 her in April, 1839. She was sailing under Russian colours. A man named Thomas Bernardos was commander of the vessel at that time; the crew were chiefly Spaniards, there might have been one or two Portuguese. She was equipped for the slave-trade, there was no doubt of it in my eyes. She had more water-casks than were necessary for an ordinary or fair trader. They are large vessels called leagores: they are not called leagores because they are employed in the slave-trade. Any vessel may have leagores on board, but she had a larger quantity than was necessary for a merchant, considerably larger, arid that is one of the fittings of a vessel engaged in the slave-trade; they are forbidden articles, prohibited by treaties with foreign powers. She had a sliding cabouse which held a very large boiler, that is another article which is also prohibited; the hatches were covered over with temporary planks. There were some other trifling things, quite sufficient, according to our treaties with foreign powers, to authorize me to seize her, as a vessel fully equipped for the slave-trade, had she been under the Spanish flag. I seized her believing her to be Spanish, although sailing under the Russian flag, but it did not appear by the papers that she had been in a Russian port. I sent her to Sierra Leone, and tried to prosecute her in the British and Spanish Mixed Commission Court, as a Spanish vessel; but she was not received into Court, being under the Russian flag, and with Russian papers. I then determined to send her to England, that the Lords of the Admiralty might dispose of her as they thought proper, because I felt fully satisfied she could not be a Russian vessel. I sent her to England; to be condemned as a slaver. Bernardos went in her to England, but previous to sending her to England, I tried her a second time, in the Mixed Commission Court of Sierra Leone. In February, 1841, I again saw that same vessel at anchor at the Gallinas—she anchored as I went on board of her. She was then named the Augusta, and was under the English flag. I am perfectly satisfied it was the same vessel I had captured before. I found a man named Jennings in command of the vessel at that time. I asked for the ship's papers directly I went on board, and got them.

Mr. Kelly: —I must object to any thing that takes place between the witness and Jennings.

Examination resumed: It is my duty to demand the papers, and I received them on demanding them. I received other papers afterwards. I returned them to Jennings, and on his refusing to answer a question which he was bound to answer me, as commanding a British man-of-war, I insisted on detaining the vessel till that question was answered. I afterwards received a packet of papers from Jennings. I took them on board my own vessel on purpose to read them. It was dark, towards the close of the evening, when I received the papers. I sent on board the Saracen desiring that a certain number of men should be sent. I left an officer in charge of the vessel. I detained the vessel; she was afterwards taken to Sierra Leone. I prosecuted her there, and she was afterwards condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court. I have seen nothing of the vessel since.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly: I think you say, that, although you were for some two or three years cruising on the coast of Africa, it was not till November, 1840, that yon landed at the Gallinas?—I landed on an island in the river, for about half an hour, previous to that: with that exception, I had landed not at the Gallinas. There are several villages up the river Gallinas inhabited by natives. The river Gallinas extends some distance into the interior; at least I believe so. I have been up it perhaps ten or a dozen miles, and there is a native village called Mina, another called Tardia, and another called Tiendo. I have been up at 0033 25 least twelve miles. I cannot say whether the river is navigable farther up than I went; I should think not from the appearance of it, except for canoes. I cannot say that people could pass considerably higher up. I did not see canoes higher up than where I went, nor could I see far up, as rivers are always very winding; as high as I went it was navigable for canoes, but I never saw canoes there. I was on this coast for the protection of British commerce, and for the prevention of the slave-trade. That commerce consisted, among other things, in the exportation of the merchandise of Britain to various places on the coast of Africa. I know that British merchandise, in British and other vessels, is exported to a very considerable extent to various parts of the coast of Africa.

Do you not know that British merchandise, to a very considerable extent, is from time to time exported to the Gallinas in a lawful manner?—I have known English vessels arrive at the Gallinas, and part with a little of their cargo. I have never known an instance before the Augusta, of an English vessel arriving at Gallinas consigned to deliver her cargo. I have known one or two English vessels dispose of part of their cargo at the Gallinas, but I do not know of its being for a lawful purpose, because I am fully satisfied that from the Gallinas there is no export but slaves, therefore I cannot think it was lawful. I have known British vessels sell part of their cargo, but I doubt whether it was for lawful purposes, because there was no produce in exchange for it. I never knew of ivory or palm oil being exported from the Gallinas. I am only speaking of the period of my knowing the Gallinas. I have never known British produce or merchandise landed there without doubting the legality of its purpose, because there was no produce to give in exchange, no produce to be met with.

In your judgment was there any thing illegal in the landing of British produce for the use either of the native chiefs, or inhabitants of the towns and villages you speak of?—That is a question which I cannot presume to answer. I seized this vessel because I considered her trade illegal. I have seen a vessel called the Gil Blas. I think she landed goods at the Gallinas. If that is the vessel I mean, she was commanded by a man named Sargeant; at least I think he landed some goods there. I did net see him. He gave me to understand that he did, and received something in exchange. I think the Gil Blas was there while my vessel was there. I did not think it necessary to seize the Gil Blas. I heard from the man who commanded her, that goods were landed there. I was not present when he sold them, nor do I know to whom he delivered them; but he gave me to understand he had sold those goods to Pedro Blanco. Sargeant brought off to me from Pedro Blanco a dozen fowls, and a sheep, which I was very glad of. I had never seen Pedro Blanco in my life. I had had no fresh provisions for some little time, and he gave me to understand the dozen capons had come from Marseilles, in a vessel which had that morning sailed with slaves. I cannot remember how long the Gil Blas was off the Gallinas; it might have been a day or two. I do not know of any other yes, Is that landed goods there, which I never thought of seizing. I do not remember ever seeing the Star there. I do not remember the name. I do not remember a vessel called the L'Inferna. I think I remember the name of the Milford. She did not, to my knowledge, land goods to a very large amount at Gallinas. I do not remember the Sublime. I was on a cruising visit My station was extensive, I was a good deal at the Gallinas, because it was a noted slave-place. I sometimes remained at anchor there two or three days together, and sometimes my duty would call me away for two or three months together. It is impossible for me to say what 0034 26 goods were landed there. I can only guess at the population of the villages. I should say that at Tiendo there might perhaps have been 800 or 900; at Tardia 200; and Mina 700 or 800, but it is only guess from casually visiting there. There is another native town further down the river, the name of which I do not know. I only saw it. It was not thickly populated by any means.

“As far as you could judge, is not the British commerce to the coast of Africa exceedingly serviceable to the natives?—That depends on which way it is to be taken. If British commerce is to be employed in the slave-trade, I doubt its being serviceable to the natives. My station extended from Portandique down to Madagascar. Undoubtedly British commerce must be of great benefit to Africa.

“Within your own experience on the coast of Africa, is not a lawful trade carried on to a considerable extent by the same persons who likewise carry on the slave-trade?—I have not seen those persons trading, and therefore I cannot say. I do not hesitate in saying that I believe, in many places on the coast of Africa, the same trade is carried on by the same persons, both the slave-trade, and exchange of the produce of the country, but I do not believe that to be the case at the Gallinas. I do not think at the Gallinas there is any trade but the slave-trade. Speaking from hearsay, I should say that at many places on the coast, a lawful trade and the slave-trade is carried on by the same persons; but, at the Gallinas, I am as confident there was not as it is possible to be, from my experience of the place for a long time, from being on the spot. I have been a great deal off Gallinas, and during that period I saw no other trade, nor the sign of any other trade than the slave-trade. I state that from my knowledge derived from my personal presence at Gallinas. Officers in my situation are entitled to a share in the value of the vessel seized, if condemned. Supposing a vessel and cargo to be of the value of 10,000 l., condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court, half the proceeds would go to the Crown, and the other half would be divided among the captors, after all the expenses were paid, of which the admiral gets one-sixteenth, and the captor gets one-eighth of the remainder. I think that is it to the best of my knowledge. If the vessel be condemned in the Mixed Commission, I believe it is nearly the same, but half goes to the nation under whose flag she is sailing; a mixed Commission Court is a commission composed of commissioners of two or various nations, to determine cases of foreign vessels. The Act of Parliament authorizes us to seize Portuguese vessels, and prosecute them in the Vice-Admiralty Court. I do not know exactly how the proceeds are to be divided. The mixed Commission decides on Spanish or Portuguese vessels, and the British Vice-Admiralty Court decides on vessels sailing under British colours. I do not remember having ever seen a Spanish vessel with a British captain. When I first seized the vessel under the name of the Golupchick, she was not in every respect fitted up for the slave-trade. I do not think she had a slave deck. She was, however, in many respects fitted up for the slave-trade, and that led me to seize her. I gent her to England, and know nothing more of her. I heard nothing from the Admiralty Court about her. When she bore the name of the Augusta, and I seized her from Jennings, she was certainly not, in my opinion, fitted up for the slave-trade. I did not seize her for that the second time, I seized her for her trade. I saw nothing, I do not know what might have been under her cargo. I was on the coast of Africa from October 1837, till June 1841; and from December 1838, until April or May 1841. Gallinas was within my station in the first instance. I had charge of a station during that period, from Admiral Campbell, extending 0035 27 from Cape Palmas up to Cape de Verde Islands; and then there was another senior officer, Captain Denman, appointed. The extent of coast over which my duty extended varied according to the orders I received. From October 1837, till December 1888, I was on the coast at different parts, from Sierra Leone as far as Madagascar; but from December 1888, till I left the coast of Africa in May or June, 1841, it was confined to the coast between Cape Palmas, Portandique, and the de Verde Islands. I was up at Portandique for a month. My duty extended over about 1,000 miles, I suppose. The sort of British commerce exported to Africa during that period, was gunpowder, muskets, brandy, tobacco, and cotton goods. I do not think it is possible to distinguish articles for the slave-trade, and articles for legal commerce; at least I do not know how to distinguish them.

Mr. Justice Maule: The articles sent in both instances, I suppose, are articles welcome to African consumers?—Yes; I am speaking of the west coast only. I do not think it is possible to distinguish whether it is paid for in slaves or in palm-oil; the same things are welcome in the same place.

Mr. Kelly: With regard to these articles, when exported to various parts of Africa, is the return sometimes made in doubloons, or money, and sometimes in ivory, dye-wood, palm-oil, and other commodities producible in Africa?—When goods are landed, and doubloons are obtained, the chances are a hundred to one but the doubloons come from the Spaniards; and I never knew a Spaniard engaged on the coast of Africa, except in the slave-trade. When you get produce in exchange, it is certainly more likely to be got from the natives, and it is a fair exchange. I think I knew but of one Spaniard who got produce in exchange for merchandise; at least, I do not know whether he is a Spaniard or not. His name was Canot. I think he exported palm-oil as well as slaves; but he told me he was agent of Pedro Blanco. I never saw any of the house of Zulueta and Co. in the course of my travels on the coast of Africa, to the best of my recollection. I know neither of them personally. I saw Mr. Zulueta for the first time before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd: You were asked whether you saw any slave-fittings on board the Augusta when you captured her, and you say, none. Did you examine any of the cargo?—No; when I first saw the vessel the hatches were grated, and I think when I seized her the second time she had new hatches, and no grating at all. I saw nothing to induce me to believe that she had slave-fittings when I seized her as the Augusta. I examined her so far as going down into the hold; but I did not disturb the cargo. I do not know what might have been under the cargo. There might have been many things. I did not find any leagores.

Mr. Justice Maule: Are you able to say whether she was, or was not, fitted to carry slaves?—Had she been equipped for the slave-trade I should have seized her at once; but she was not, in my idea, and to the best of my belief.

Mr. Serjeant Talfourd: Not for taking slaves on board?—She had not, what we consider, slave equipments—leagores, hatches, open gratings, irons, and coppers; I saw none of those things. The first time I went on board the vessel I was on board perhaps two hours. The next day I might have been as long, perhaps. I might have gone on board three or four times.

I suppose they might get the equipments, if they came into the port and discharged their cargo?—In many places. If the residents at Gallinas expected a slave-vessel to come out without slave equipments, they 0036 28 might take care to procure them by other vessels, and might have them perfectly ready. Slave equipments are very soon put on board, in an hour or two; it would take a very short time to put on board slave equipments for a vessel of the size of the Augusta. They might send off their water-casks in two, three, or four canoes, and they would be all on board; and if they do not choose to lay a slave deck, they might put mats over the casks, and put the slaves under these mats. They might embark 500 slaves in two hours afterwards, and be under weigh, and be off.

A Juror: When you went on board the Augusta, did you see any thing which would justify you in saying she was a slaver?—Certainly not.

Re-examination continued: I believe the proceeds of the Augusta amounted to somewhere about £3,800. Half of that would go to the crown. I have not got a sixpence.

You would get one-eighth after the sixteenth?—I am afraid there is some £300 out of it for the expenses of the Privy Council Committee.

Does it sometimes happen that the expenses swallow up the whole affair?—It does.

John Brown examined by Mr. Payne: I am clerk in the Admiralty. I produce two letters, numbered 14 and 17; one dated 20th Aug. 1840, the other, 26th September. I also produce Non. 11 and 12; the memorandum for charter party, and the additional memorandum of charter party.

Captain Hill identified these papers as obtained on board the Augusta, and in reply to Mr. Kelly said that they were given to him by the Master; he did not find them by search.

Albino De Rinna (looking at the letter dated 26th Sept. 1840): I presume the postscript to this letter to be the handwriting of Mr. Zulueta, the prisoner's father. This dated 20th Aug. looks like the handwriting of Mr. Zulueta the son (the prisoner). I believe it to be his. I believe the signature to this charter party to be the prisoner's. The other I do not know. I do not know the writing of the body of the first letter.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly: I believe you are a notary to the Spanish Consulate?—I am. I have known the house of Zulueta and Co. some years. The prisoner and the rest of the firm maintained the highest character for integrity and propriety of conduct.

To the best of your knowledge as to their character, do you believe them to be wholly incapable of violating the law?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas: That is not a legal question.

Witness: As far as my knowledge goes, I should say it would he impossible for them to violate the law. I have had business transactions with them. I know they were agents for several houses in Spain, the Havannah, and other places, and have carried on business for many years to a very great extent. My impression is, that vessels under the Spanish flag cannot be commanded by English captains. I have been admitted a notary about twenty years. I am a native of this country, and acquired a knowledge of the Spanish language here. I have had a great deal to do with commercial transactions with Spain and Spanish merchants. My connexions are almost exclusively Spanish. I never knew a vessel under the Spanish flag commanded by an English captain.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas: Who are the firm of Zulueta and Co.?—The father, Don Pedro de Zulueta, and the son. I have no certain knowledge who the others are. I do not know whether the other son is a partner. I do not carry on any other business than a notary. I never did. I became acquainted with captains and shipping by having often to prepare various documents connected with shipping.

The following documents, produced by Mr. Brown, and identified by Captain HILL, were then read.

0037 29

“London, 20th August, 1840.

“ Sir, —In reply to your favour of yesterday, we have to say that we cannot exceed £500 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.

“We remain, Sir, your obedient servants, “ Zulueta and Co.”

“Captain Jennings, Portsmouth.”

“London, 26th September, 1840.

‘Captain Thomas Jennings, Portsmouth.

“ Dear Sir, —We have received your letter of yesterday whereby we observe that the sum we have remitted you will not be sufficient to cover all the expenses to clear the ship. We much regret you have omitted mentioning the sum you require, which prevents our remitting you the same by this very post, thus causing a new delay in leaving that port, so contrary to our wishes.

“You will therefore write us to-morrow, that we may receive your reply on Monday morning, informing us of the amount necessary to finish paying all your accounts and expenses, to remit you the same by Monday night's post, in order that you may be able to sail for Liverpool on Tuesday, or Wednesday at the farthest. You must not omit stating the amount required; and waiting your reply we remain very truly, “Dear Sir, “Your obedient servants.”

[Signature cut out.]

“According to our Liverpool House notice, you will go there to the Salthouse Dock.

“Captain Thomas Jennings, “Broad Street, “Portsmouth.”

“MEMORANDUM FOR CHARTER PARTY.

“London, 19th October, 1840.

“It is this day mutually agreed between Mr. Thomas Jennings, master and owner of the good ship or vessel called the Augusta, of the burthen of tons or thereabouts, now lying at the port of Liverpool, and Messrs Pedro Martinez and Co., of Havannah, merchants.

“That the said ship being tight, staunch, and strong, and every way fitted for the voyage, shall, with all convenient speed, load from the factors of the said Messrs. Pedro Martinez and Co. a cargo of legal goods, which the said merchants bind themselves to ship, not exceeding what she can reasonably stow and carry over and above her tackle, apparel, provisions, and furniture; and being so loaded shall therewith proceed to Gallinas, on the coast of Africa, or so near thereunto as she may safely get, and deliver the same, after which she may be sent on any legal voyages between the West Indies, England, Africa, or the United States, according to the directions of the charterer's agents, (restraint of princes and rulers, the act of God, the queen's enemies, fire, and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation, of whatever nature and kind 0038 30 soever, during the said voyage, always excepted). The freight to be paid on unloading and right delivery of the cargo, at the rate of 100 l. sterling per calendar month that the ship may be so employed, commencing wire this present month, all port charges and pilotages being paid by the charterers. And days on demurrage, over and above the said laying days at pounds per day. Penalty for non-performance of this agreement 500 l. The necessary cash for strip's disbursements to be furnished to the captain free of commission. The charterers to be at liberty of closing this engagement at the end of any voyage performed under it, on settling the freight due to the vessel. The captain being indebted to the charterers in certain sums as per acknowledgment elsewhere, the freights earned by the vessel to be held as general lien for such sums, and in any settlement for such freights the said advances to be deducted from the vessel's earnings.

“ Thomas Jennings. ”

“For Pedro Martinez and Co. of Havannah, Zulueta and Co.”

Mr. Serjeant Bompas then proposed to read a document referred to in the charter-party; but

Mr. Kelly objected. He said he knew nothing whatever about it, and he did not believe it of any importance; but as it was only signed by Thomas Jennings, and bore no other signature, he contended that it was not admissible.

The learned Judges having conferred together for some time,

Mr. Justice Maule said the document was not admissible.

George White, examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas. —I served a notice to produce documents, at the office of Mr. Zulueta, on the 20th inst., and left another copy at the office of Mr. Lawford, his solicitor.

Cross-examined.—I am not clerk to Sir G. Stephen, but have been employed by him. I am a clerk in a wine-merchant's office. The notice I served was not signed or dated. I have since served notices at the offices of Mr. Zulueta and his solicitor, which were signed.

Mr. Kelly said he did not intend to object to the notice; he merely intended to offer some observations upon it, to show the manner in which the business had been conducted. He had not got the document referred to by his learned friend.

William Thomas, examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas. —I am a clerk in the bank of Messrs. Glyn and Co.; they are Messrs. Zulueta's bankers. In August, 1840, I paid a cheque or bill drawn by them, of 650 l.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas then called upon Mr. Kelly to produce the cheque.

Mr. Kelly refused to produce any cheque, unless it was proved to be a cheque signed by the prisoner.

The Witness said he could not tell whether that sum was paid upon a bill or cheque.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. —To whom was it made payable?

Mr. Kelly objected to the question, upon which a lengthened discussion arose, with respect to the production of the cheque or bill.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas then called for a number of documents, and amongst them a letter dated September 25, 1840, being one from Jennings, to which the letter previously read was an answer.

Mr. Kelly said there could be no doubt that Zulueta and Co. had paid for the vessel, as agents for and on behalf of Martinez and Co., of Cadiz; and as to books, papers, and documents, every thing relating to this transaction was in court, as were also all the clerks of the firm, both English and foreign, and ready to give every information in their power.

0039 31

Another letter was then called for, upon which

Mr. Kelly again said, he should once more object to any thing being offered in evidence, or any documents put in unless such documents were proved to be within the knowledge of the prisoner.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas said he was about to prove that the vessel was purchased by the prisoner for 650 l, and that Jennings and Bernardos were actually present when the money was paid, and contended that such evidence was strictly admissible.

Mr Serjeant Talfourd, on the same side, said it was further proposed to prove that the statement made by the prisoner, with respect to the sum paid for the vessel, was untrue in every particular. The prisoner said he acted as the agent of Martinez and Co., who authorized him to give any sum not exceeding 500 l. for the vessel, whilst it appeared that the sum actually given was 650 l.

Mr. Kelly denied, in the most positive terms, that his learned friends could prove the least falsehood in the accounts.

After another long argument with respect to the inadmissibility of the evidence objected to,

The Witness, in answer to questions by the Court, said, Messrs. Zulueta had a pass-book, which was made up very frequently, and in that book all cheques and bills which had been paid were returned. He had no doubt that the bill or cheque in question had been returned, but he could not speak positively.

Mr. Justice Maule —I thought, perhaps, the witness might know something about the matter, but he appears to know nothing.

The learned judge then said, that as it was proved that the bill or cheque had been returned to the prisoner in the usual course of business, and as notice had been given to produce all papers, documents, &c., he thought the evidence might be gone into.

The Witness, in continuation, said, the amount was paid with six 100 l. notes, and a 50 l., the number and dates of which he gave.

Mr. Emanuel Emanuel, examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas. —I reside at Portsmouth. I know a vessel called the Golupchick, which I purchased for a friend for 600 l. and the auction expenses. I afterwards sold her to Captain Bernardos and Captain Jennings. I cannot tell the exact date, but I believe it was about the 1st of September, 1840. I received in payment six 100 l. notes, and a 50 l. note, (these notes were the same paid by Messrs. Glyn on behalf of Zulueta and Co.) I did not receive any papers or documents with her. She was sold by public auction. I did not deliver any. I merely gave an order to the ship-keeper to deliver her up, which order I requested to be returned to me. I have not got it. I took no account of it. It was not a business transaction. I bought her for a friend, and took no notice of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly. —Who originally sold her? She was advertised to be sold by auction at the Exchange Rooms, at Portsmouth, by Mr. Robinson, an auctioneer.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas. —The money was paid by the party who purchased her. Although I bid for her, he attended the auction room.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas said he now proposed to put in the papers of the vessel The were produced by Mr Brown, the clerk from the Admiralty.

The cockets were first read; they related to bales of shawls, cloths, cottons, muskets, matchets, copper and iron pots, gunpowder, &c., the produce of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas then proposed to put in the bill of lading; but

Mr. Kelly objected, and contended that it could not be received in evidence against the prisoner. It not only did not in any shape bear his 0040 32 name, but there was not any proof whatever that he ever saw or heard of it; it could not be made evidence against him.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas said the name of Zulueta, of Cadiz, was upon it, but it certainly did not mention the London house.

Mr. Justice Maule inquired of Captain Hill, whether he found any papers on board which seemed to trace any of the property to the London house of Zulueta and Co.

Captain Hill said he found no papers of the sort whatever, except the letters first read, and none connecting the house in London with the ownership of the cargo. The only papers he obtained had been produced in court.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas next proposed to put in evidence some letters received from Captain Jennings by Captain Hill; and to prove the handwriting of Messrs. Martinez, called

Mr. Sebastian Gonzales Martinez, who said, I reside at Hampstead. I know nothing whatever of the house of Martinez and Co., of Cadiz. I am not connected with them, neither do I know the handwriting of any of the firm.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clarkson. I know the prisoner, and have known him all his life; he has always borne a most honourable and up-right character; he is a good son, a good father, an excellent husband, and an honourable merchant.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas then offered the letters in evidence.

Mr. Kelly decidedly opposed any such evidence being given.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas and Mr. Serjeant Talfourd argued the point at very considerable length, and

Their Lordships, without calling upon Mr. Kelly to reply, decided against receiving the proposed evidence.

The further hearing of the case was then adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow morning.

Mr. Clarkson applied to have the prisoner released upon bail till to-morrow morning, instead of being locked up in Newgate all night.

Mr. Justice Wightman granted the application upon the same amount of bail as hitherto being again entered into.

The prisoner was then released from custody.

SECOND DAY, Saturday, October 28. Link to Annals.

Mr. Justice Maule and Mr. Justice Wightman entered the court at ten o'clock, whenthe trial, which had been adjourned from yesterday, was resumed.

The prisoner, upon being called, immediately entered the dock.

The court, as on the preceding day, was crowded. The chief portion of the audience consisted of some of the first merchants in the city of London, and the interest excited as to the result of the trial appeared unabated.

William Thomas Onyon, examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas: I reside at Portsmouth, and know the vessel first called the Golupchick and afterwards the Augusta. I also know Jennings, the captain, and Mottley, his mate. I was on board the vessel for some time. No direct application was made to me to join the vessel. I am a teacher of navigation, 0041 33 and was employed in the Augusta to give the mate instructions. I saw the captain receive letters; he generally cut the names out.

Mr. Kelly objected to this evidence; it could not be legitimate as against the prisoner on any conceivable ground.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas contended that he was entitled to show, by Mr. Zulueta's conduct, that he knew the purpose for which the voyage was to be undertaken. A letter was found on board with the name cut out, and it was important to show that Jennings was receiving letters from the prisoner at the time, and cutting out the names.

Their lorships decided that the evidence was not admissible.

Examination resumed: When on board the vessel I found a bundle of deck screws wrapped up in canvass.

Mr. Justice Maule: About how many were there?

Witness: About twenty-two. The deck-screws are for the purpose of fixing temporary decks for slaves; they go through the deck, fasten through the beam, and a nut at the bottom fastens the deck on. By taking out the screws the deck is removed. I found them in a secret place, at the back of a cupboard in the cabin of a ship.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas: How came you to be looking there? Just explain it.

Witness: A boy had been putting a soup tureen into the cupboard; he happened to put it too far; it fell; I got up to recover the tureen and, in searching about I found these screws. I put them on a table, and Mottley opened them. They were put into the cabin abaft by the boy Clarke. This occurred about the middle of September, 1840. I also saw some shackles amongst the ballast. I cannot say how many there were, as they were mixed with the ballast. I have been to sea myself, but have left it about four years. There were false tops to the bed places, by which I mean vacancies between the deck and the lining. There was an opening of about four inches, so as to enable things to be stowed away. They would then be concealed. There was a kind of moulding which opened, and then there was this vacancy. It was not at all perceptible.

Cross examined by Mr. Kelly: The articles I have mentioned were calculated, I presume, to carry on the slave-trade. I gained my knowledge of such a fact from the representations of Mottley, who had been on the coast for years. I heard that the Golupchick had been sent to England, having been seized as a slaver. I believe before a vessel sails out from a British port for the coast of Africa it is examined by the Custom House authorities, to see if it is fitted up, or has any articles, for the slave-trade. These articles were at Portsmouth, before the vessel went to Liverpool, where she received her cargo.

Joseph Banks, sen., examined by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd: I am a cooper. I reside at Portsmouth. I recollect the Golupchick being at Portsmouth in 1840. I was employed to take to pieces a number of water-casks. They were double “leagores.” They were of different sizes, but these held about 1000 gallons each. There were about a dozen of them. They were entire when I went on board. They were stowed on either side, full of water. Mottley appeared to me to assume the command of the vessel at that time. I saw Jennings there. I did not know Bernardos. I received directions from a person calling himself Jennings. He took me on board the same day in the shipwright's boat. I found the casks in the hold of the vessel full of water. Of the large kind there were about twelve, and I should say fifty of the smaller kind. I numbered each stave of the large casks. I rased them with a proper rase-iron which coopers use. I took the hoops from them, took the heads down, put the hoops inside, and made close packages of them, in the same way as other casks are packed for the Indies. I packed them so as D 0042 34 to lie in as small a compass as I could, but so that they could be put together again. After the ballast was taken out, and the vessel was re-ballasted, I stowed them on the top, each cask in a separate pack. I knocked down a quantity of the smaller ones, and others were left for water for the voyage. This occupied me for about three weeks; from the 8th to the 19th of September we were positively engaged in that work. After putting, the large casks into the hold, our attention was attracted by a noise in one of the smaller casks when we upheaded it. It proved to be what was called shackles, when I was in the West India trade. We did not count them, but I should consider from the size and weight of the cask there were nearly 200 pairs. Nothing was done with them that I saw. To all appearance they had been in the vessel before. I left the cask near the same place that we found it. I did not take that cask to pieces; we took the head out, hearing the noise. I believe my son put the head in again.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clarkson: It was necessary to hammer the casks to separate them. We took all the hoops off. Sometimes it makes a great deal of noise. I had my own son to help me; the ship's crew I could command at any time, when I wanted to get large casks out of the hold. I do not know when the ship was sold as a condemned slaver. I heard that the sale was in August. I did not go to the sale. The vessel left Portsmouth within two or three days. They said she was going to Liverpool. I never saw any person come on board in particular. There were young men coming on board, wanting to get engaged as men in the vessel. I do not recollect anybody else. The ballast was iron. The shackles were on the starboard side abaft. I should say they did not form part of the ballast—the ballast was pigs of iron, such as is generally used. I left the shackles in the same cask on the starboard side, on the top of the ballast. The ships company were on board the vessel the day I left, and no one else that I know of, except two shipwrights. I believe they were Portsmouth shipwrights—Case the younger, and Case the elder. They had been working on board the vessel previous to my entering, and after I left. They are not here to-day. There were also-two scrapers and caulkers on board—I believe Portsmouth men. The Queen's solicitor, Mr. Greetham, called on me to become a witness last Thursday. That was positively the first time of my being called upon by anybody to attend. I never mentioned to any person that there were two shipwrights whose name I knew working on board the vessel, both before I went on board and afterwards. I was never taken before a magistrate on this subject. I cannot give any account of the condition of the vessel when she left Liverpool, because I left her at Portsmouth.

Henry George Moon examined by Mr. Payne: I am clerk to Mr. Vandenbergh, at Portsmouth. I remember the arrival of the Golupchick. I went on board the day of her arrival with Mr. Vandenbergh. I think it was on the 10th of June, 1889. Thomas Bernardos described himself as captain; but the vessel was under the charge of an officer of Her Majesty s Government. I took a letter on shore from Bernardos, addressed to Zulueta and Co., in London. I took it to the post.

Mr. Payne called for the above-mentioned letter, which was dated June 10, 1839.

The letter was looked for, but could not be found; and

Mr. Kelly, stated that it was in their possession a few days ago, therefore he had not the slightest objection to his learned friend examining any of the clerks as to what had become of the letter, and also if they thought proper, as to its contents: but he (Mr. Kelly) should not consider any person so examined as a witness in the case.

0043 35

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly. —I saw nothing of the vessel when she sailed on her voyage from Liverpool. She was ultimately given up to the Russian Government, with her papers.

Thomas James Clark, examined by Mr. Sergeant Bompas: I am nineteen years old, and have been following the sea about two or three years. I sailed on board the Augusta. I entered on board at Portsmouth harbour, to go to Liverpool at first, but went from Liverpool in the vessel. Some of the sailors were hired at Portsmouth, some who joined at Portsmouth afterwards went all the way in the vessel. When we sailed from Liverpool there were about twenty-one or twenty. two men on board. I shipped as cabin boy. I had nothing to do with loading the vessel. After we left Liverpool we had a heavy gale—the wind lasted some time. It might be several days after we sailed. We were not a very great distance from Cork or Falmouth. There was a fair wind back, if the skipper had had a mind to run back. There was a great disturbance with the crew about going back. They said the ship was not safe to go in. She was to sail for the coast of Africa. The skipper refused to go back; he said he would lose his crew if he did. They said she was not safe to go to the coast of Africa. It was at last determined to sail to Spain. I do not know whether the wind was fair for Spain or not. We were some time before we got to Spain. I dare say it was a fortnight. We went to the port of Cadiz; the best part of the crew were discharged there. I believe it was through the captain's misconduct that they left. We remained at Cadiz a month, or it might be two months. Part of the cargo was discharged at Cadiz; the best part was removed out into small vessels. There was some tobacco damaged and discharged. Some part of it remained.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly: I was on board this vessel at Portsmouth. I remember a number of large water casks, and a great many small ones being on board the vessel at Portsmouth, and that Banks and his son were working at them some time.

Mr. Kelly: Were they not all taken out at Liverpool, and sold by Mr. Toplis, the agent who had the sale of the goods?—I know they were put on shore. I do not know whether they were not put on board again. I did not see them on board again. No iron bolts and screws were thrown overboard that I recollect, while the vessel remained at Portsmouth.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas. —There was a great quantity of water when the vessel sailed from Liverpool. There were several great puncheons on deck. In consequence of the storm we knocked several of the heads in, to help the vessel. One or two went over with the sea. I have been to North America; never to Africa. I do not know what water is usual in going to Africa.

The Honourable Captain Joseph Denman, examined by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd. I commanded a district of the African coast for two years. The river Gallinas was within the district. I was myself constantly within sight of the river for a period of eight mouths. When I was not there myself, I stationed another vessel to watch the place, and report the circumstances that occurred. There were not less than six slave factories on shore—eight in the whole, six principal ones. No trade whatever was carried on there except the slave-trade—exclusive slave-trade. I did not know any of the proprietors of the barracoons personally. I never saw any of them on their warehouses or premises, except one, whose name I believe was Martinez. The name we knew him by was Pedro Fernandez. I have seen Ignatio Rolo. I have seen him on board the Saracen, at the Gallinas. He was landing from the Saracen, commanded by Captain Hill. I never saw him on any of these factories, D 2 0044 36 except on the factory at which he landed. He was landed in a man-of-war's boat—it was not by his own choice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly: There were to my knowledge some three, four, or five towns on different branches of the river; there were several branches. I went up about ten or twelve miles. I am positive that there was no trade carried on there but the slave trade. Every vessel that landed a cargo there I knew of, during a period of ten months, from March or April 1840, till February, 1841. I never heard of a ship called the Sublime landing merchandise there, to the value of £13,000 or £14,000, during that period. I must state, in order that I may not be misunderstood, that I do not deny that vessels landed their cargoes there. I say that the slave trade is carried on exclusively, because there is no produce exported from thence. There are two branches of import—one is, the provisions which are eaten; the other, goods used by the slave-dealers to buy slaves with. There is no produce exported from there; I do not mean to say to a hundred-weight or a ton, but nothing to call produce. I have known the Gallinas since 1835, and although I more particularly directed my attention to it for ten months, yet during the whole of the two years I had vessels stationed at the Gallinas, and I had reports from the place.

Mr. Kelly: As you have stated that there was nothing but the slave-trade carried on there, and that there are no exports, do you mean to include or exclude from your observation, the fact of merchandise being landed and purchased there, and being paid for in money; so that a stranger carrying it there, and selling it, and receiving money, would not know but the whole proceeding was perfectly lawful?—My answer to that is, that a person landing goods in that way would not be guilty of slave-trading, but all those goods would of necessity go into the slave-trade. The natives have no means of paying for goods, except by what money comes from the slave-trade or slaves; there is no produce, and no money coined in that country.

But, as regards the shippers from this country; suppose any one shipped, not as an agent, but on his own account, the shipper receiving money for what he exports; do you mean that there would be any slave-trading in that?—Not of necessity, if he did not know of the circumstances.

Mr. Justice Maule: Suppose he had come away in ballast; is that a transaction that ever happens?—I have never known of such a case. There was no English trade carried on during the time I was there.

Mr. Kelly: During the time you mere there, do you mean that no English vessels went them?—Two or three English vessels passed and had some little dealings—the Augusta for one. I know from the chiefs what trade took place at the Gallinas for some years before. I do not know of the Sublime landing goods and disposing of them to the amount of £13,000 or £14,000. I think there has been no such vessel there during the two years, certainly not during the ten months. The trade I have mentioned has taken place there since 1835.

In the year 1839, do you know of a vessel called the Milford having landed and sold goods at the Gallinas, to the amount of between £6,000 and £7,000?—I was in another part of the world at the time; I have no reason to doubt it; it is very possible. That does not alter the question, in my opinion, whether the slave-trade exists there or not.

I am asking whether there is not lawful commerce there—whether there is no exportation of merchandise to the place; paid for in money, and ships coming away in ballast, or going on their expedition? I know of 800 tons of goods landed there, and no vessel went away with money 0045 37 and bills, except in cases where they were consigned with cargoes from the Havannah, which was the case with nine out of ten.

Then the sort of business is this—some vessels do carry commodities to a great extent, and receive payment in bills and money, and sail away?—These are the exceptions; such cases do occur.

Others, you mean, would go and carry their goods there, and receive slaves in return?—No, that is not the system of trade. The system of trade is this, a vessel is sent from the Havannah, consigned with goods to a slave factor—Rolo, for instance, or any of these men at the Gallinas; and she sails again in ballast. The freight is paid at the Havannah: that is the general rule.

Will you allow me to ask you, in accordance with your sense of the slave-trade, in what way you make out that that vessel is engaged in the slave-trade?—I do not say that the vessel is of necessity engaged in the slave-trade, because of necessity people do not know what they are about; but the consequence of that is of necessity the slave-trade, and the way the payment is ultimately made. It furnishes the means to persons there to carry on the trade.

Then a person living in England, or any where else, exporting produce there, might get money for it, without knowing to what purpose it would be applied?—Very possibly.

With regard to the Gallinas, I am quite sure that in the account you have given us, you mean to represent it precisely as you believe it to be. Allow me to ask, whether you had not a hand in destroying certain property there—the slave factories—if you please, and which is the subject of one or more actions against you at the present moment? There are certain actions brought against me.

I do not ask you whether you had any hand in it, but be so good as to tell me when that event took place?—About November, 1840. I have been to various other parts of the coast of Africa where the slave-trade is carried on. At most of the places on the coast there is both a lawful trade carried on, and the slave-trade. Gallinas is the only exception of which I know; I know that from my own personal presence on the spot.

So that any one in England exporting to half-a-dozen places where there is a lawful trade carried on, as well as the. slave-trade, might as well export to the Gallinas?—Where there is a consignment it would imply a knowledge of the place.

How is any merchant or manufacturer who receives an order to send £5,000 of goods from Liverpool to the Gallinas to know, unless he has had the advantages that you have, that Gallinas is an exception?—Supposing that he knows nothing of the character of the parties who employ him and to whom they are sent, he does not of necessity know what he is about.

We will suppose that the person sending goods is ordered to send them to half a dozen places, of which Gallinas is one, how is he to know that Gallinas is the exception; that the goods there may not go to fair traders, as well as in the other five places?—If he knows any thing of the person shipping the goods, or the persons at the Gallinas to whom they are sent, I should suppose he would know enough to know that they were nothing but slave traders.

Are there not many persons along the coast of Africa who carry on the slave trade, and who also carry on a very extensive lawful trade?—Most undoubtedly.

How is a gentleman in England, in America, or any where else, who sends his ships and exports his merchandise to these persons, to know whether it is for a lawful or an unlawful trade?—If he does not know 0046 38 any thing of the Gallinas, he is not of necessity guilty of doing any thing wrong.

Is there any thing to restrict or prevent you searching any vessel sailing under the English flag, and commanded by an English captain?—It is our duty; we do it without opposition and without further inquiry. If an English vessel is seized, she goes without further delay or further impediment before an English tribunal. By some treaties a foreign vessel would go before a national tribunal; a French vessel, for instance, would go to a French tribunal; a Spanish or a Portuguese vessel would go before a mixed commission court. I first left England for the coast of Africa in February, 1840. I knew the Gallinas in 1835. Before I went there in the discharge of my professional duties, I did not know that there was such a place as Gallinas; I knew nothing about the coast of Africa.

You did not know that the Gallinas was a place where, more or less, slaves were bought, than at other places? I never had any reason to inquire or know any thing about trade in Africa.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd: I knew nothing about trade in Africa, or any where else. I believe all the persons at Gallinas are agents, not actual merchants. There are twenty or thirty Europeans employed there altogether. There was not a white man there to whom goods could be consigned, except slave factors. The natives in the towns and villages there have no means of paying for British produce, except by slaves; the country produces nothing but slaves. It is impossible that a merchant could trade to the Gallinas for twenty years without knowing the nature of the trade.

Lieut.-Colonel Edward Nicolls examined by Mr. Serjeant Bompas: I have been acquainted with the coast of Africa since the year 1822. I was governor of the Island of Ascension, and afterwards of Fernando Po, five years at each place. It was my duty to attend to other parts of the coast, and make observations upon it. I have received reports from upwards of 200 officers in the navy and commanders of merchant ships, of different parts of the coast; and I have sent a small schooner attached to my station off Fernando Po, to make reports of the different slave-trading stations, and what was going on at them. I know the river Gallinas; I have been there myself. It has been within my observation since 1822. I visited it in 1822, in her Majesty's ship Victor. We did not stay there long; we were chasing slavers off the place. I was on the coast from 1822 to 1834. I left the coast in December, 1834. I had continued communication with the princes. During that time the trade carried on at the Gallinas was the slave-trade. Not a particle of produce was exported from thence that ever came to my knowledge by all the information I received, and by my own observation. The country around Gallinas produces nothing but slaves, and trees, and leaves; very little, if any thing, else; hardly what would subsist you.

Do you know of the existence of slave establishments there?—As notoriously as this court is here. I have seen them myself, and had reports of them from the officers that I sent there. I was only there once. I knew Pedro Blanco from reports. They kept out of my sight; they did not come near me. It is the duty of every British officer upon the coast to suppress the slave-trade as far as possible. It was a part of my duty; I had no authority to seize slave-ships, but to give information to her Majesty s squadron: I believe I did that to some good amount. It was my duty to obtain as much information as I could of what was going on along the coast, and communicate it to naval officers, to enable them to seize the vessels. My station was distant from the Gallinas about 1500 miles, except when I, have been journeying down the coast. Fernando 0047 39 Po is a long distance from the Gallinas, and so is Ascension. I have been running down the coast and obtaining reports, both myself and my officers. I had the means of ascertaining the way in which the slave-trade was carried on. You cannot get slaves for money; I never saw a slave got for money: they cannot be got without British manufactured goods, supplied by British merchants. The general course is to barter English manufactured goods for slaves, who are brought from the interior of Africa to places where the trade is carried on. Slaves are usually brought to the Gallinas for the purpose of being sold, or bartered for the goods which they meet with there. It is notoriously the most infamous slave-dealing port on the whole coast of Africa. There is a continual drain of slaves from all parts of the interior contiguous to it, continually coming down to the Gallinas. There is nothing going on there but the slave-trade.

Mr. Kelly objected to these long speeches and remarks about the notoriety of the Gallinas. He did not see how it could bear upon the prisoner. There were many persons in court who never heard of the Gallinas till that day.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas: In order to show the dealings there, we must call witnesses.

Mr. Brown, the Admiralty clerk, sworn. Produced a letter, No. 18, which was handed to Captain Hill, who deposed: I believe this to be in the handwriting of Bernardos. This is one of the papers I found on board the ship when I seized her; it was not delivered to me by Jennings, I found it by search.

Mr. James Brodie, a clerk in the Post-office, deposed that the letter passed through the Post-office, on the 23rd September, 1840.

Mr. Kelly: Why, this is the letter we have had the discussion about.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas: We have had no discussion yet. You may now make your objection.

Mr. Kelly: My lord, this is a letter which is alleged to have been written by Bernardos to Captain Jennings. What has this to do with the prisoner at the bar? Your lordship will find it printed in page 34 of the report.

Serjeant Bompas then proceeded to argue the admissibility of the letter. He was about to allude to the nature of its contents, when

Mr. Kelly rose, and said he had again to complain of the manner in which this case was conducted. His learned friend had no right to state the contents of this letter. It was before their lordships, and they could see the contents; and whilst he was making a legal objection to its admissibility at all, here was his learned friend trying to make a statement to the jury which, of course, could not afterwards be removed from their minds. He should protest against his learned friend making any allusion to the contents of this letter, or of any other, until its admissibility had been ruled by their lordships.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas denied the charge of unfairness, and then proceeded to argue the point at length.

Mr. Kelly was about to reply; but

Mr. Justice Maule ruled in Mr. Kelly's favour.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas then intimated to the Court that that was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Kelly then rose, and said he should submit to their lordships whether there was sufficient evidence agaist the defendant to go to a jury. The indictment charged Mr. Zulueta with employing 0048 40 a vessel in order to ship goods and do certain acts, the object being a trading and dealing in slaves. That the defendant was a party to the purchase of the vessel there was no doubt; but the great question was, whether there was any evidence of the defendant having any knowledge as to the intended employment of the vessel, or that the goods were intended to be used in dealing for slaves. The evidence against Mr. Zulueta consisted of this—that he wrote a letter on the 20th of August, by which he authorized Jennings to give a certain amount of money for this vessel; that the vessel was afterwards purchased, and the defendant put the name of his firm to the charter-party, as agents for Martinez. The interference of the defendant in any way, either with respect to the vessel or the cargo, depended entirely on his own evidence before a committee of the House of Commons. That evidence, stated shortly, was this—that the firm of Zulueta and Co., in despatching the vessel, and causing certain goods to be shipped on board of her, acted as agents for Martinez, but that they had no idea that either the one or the other would be used for any illegal purpose whatsoever. If their lordships held that, because a mercantile house in this great commercial city executed the orders of a foreign house, and shipped certain goods which were lawful, but which it was possible might be unlawfully employed, evidence of that fact was proper to be submitted to a jury, he knew not how any mercantile house could execute any order, or ship goods to any part of the world, for a house partly dealing in the slave-trade, or having communication with certain parts of the coast of Africa. If that were to be permitted, he knew not how commerce could be carried on in this country. There was no evidence to show that Mr. de Zulueta had used that ship, or shipped those goods, for the purpose of their being employed in the slave-trade. The prosecutor was not to make observations, and then call on the prisoner to clear himself; the case must be made out by affirmative testimony. Such a case might be established, if letters could be produced which had passed between Martinez and the prisoner at the bar, containing something from which the fair inference might be drawn that the prisoner knew that the ship would be used for the slave-trade. In this case, however, there was no proof whatever that the prisoner had received an intimation, or that he had given an intimation, that these goods would be so employed. He therefore submitted that there was no case made out, calling upon him, he would not say for an answer, but for observation.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas was about to reply; but after a short consultation with Mr. Justice Wightman,

Mr. Justice Maule said that the case should go to the jury.

Mr. Kelly begged leave, before addressing the jury, to take another objection, or rather several objections, both to the indictment, and to the manner in which the indictment had been supported.

Mr. Justice Maule said, that, having ruled that the case should 0049 41 go to the jury, he could not suffer the same point to be argued over again.

Mr. Kelly respectfully submitted that he was going on totally different grounds.

A discussion took place between the Court and the learned counsel, which ended in Mr. Justice Maule saying, if Mr. Kelly grounded his application for another hearing upon the fact of his having, through oversight, omitted to put all his arguments forward at first, he might proceed.

Mr. Kelly said that such was the fact. He had inadvertently omitted to urge the arguments which he now wished to place before their lordships.

Mr. Justice Maule permitted him to proceed.

Mr. Kelly then urged that the act of the 5th Geo. IV. c. 113, only made it felony for a British subject to trade in slaves in a British colony, or within the British dominions, but did not extend to British subjects acting in foreign places, neither portions of the British empire nor British colonies. It did not, and could not, of course, make it a felony for foreigners to carry on the slave-trade, except within the British dominions or colonies. Now, the charge in the present indictment against M. de Zulueta, was for equipping, manning, &c., a ship to trade in slaves at a foreign port, Gallinas not being a British colony or settlement. That he, Mr. Kelly, was right in attributing that construction to the act 5th Geo. IV., was perfectly clear by the provisions of the 6th and 7th Vict., c. 98, which appear to have been framed with a view to rectifying and supplying the omission in the former act. That act (6th and 7th Vict.) made it a felony for British subjects to trade in slaves, or to take any part in the slave-trade in any part of the world; and, if the offence were proved against M. de Zulueta, he would be amenable under the provisions of that act, but not in the present case; for the offence, as alleged, took, lace in the year 1840, three years before the passing of the act of Victoria. The learned counsel argued the points at considerable length, and with great ingenuity.

Mr. Justice Maule said that he could not attribute such an absurdity to the act 5 Geo. IV., chap. 113, as Mr. Kelly suggested was attached to it by the provisions of the 6th and 7th Victoria, c. 98; and with respect to the other objection which Mr. Kelly had taken, on the construction of the 6th and 7th Victoria, regarding the fitting out and equipment of vessels for the slave-trade, he thought there was sufficient evidence that the ship was equipped in London, to go to the jury.

Mr. Bodkin suggested an objection to the impannelling of the jury, on the latter remark of his lordship, touching the felony being charged as committed in London; but after a few words it was overruled.

Mr. Kelly rose to address the Court and jury on behalf of the prisoner. The learned gentleman commenced by observing, that their lordships having determined that this case was fit to be submitted 0050 42 to the consideration of the jury, he should now proceed to discharge the painful and most anxious duty imposed upon him of addressing them on behalf of the prisoner at the bar; and he should but ill discharge that duty, if he hesitated for one moment to denounce this as one of the most unconscientious proósecutions that ever any individual dared to bring forward in an English court of justice. He hoped to be excused if, in the course of his observations, he should express himself with undue warmth, and that, if so, it would be attributed to the anxiety he naturally felt when he knew that all the interests in life—all the happiness here—he had almost said, hereafter—of the young gentleman now at the bar, depended upon the verdict which the jury would have to pronounce. The prisoner was a young man, only twenty-seven to twenty-eight years of age. He was born in Spain, of a Spanish family, and was a member of a mercantile firm, of which his father was now the head; during the later years of his life he had been brought to this country, where from time to time he bestowed his attention upon the business of the counting-house, and so far participated in the extensive commercial concerns of the firm. The transaction in question was but a very small affair among many large matters the house of Zulueta and Co., as agents, conducted, and for it, to his consternation and unspeakable astonishment, the prisoner, a young man of spotless character, whom one of the witnesses for the prosecution had described as a good son, a good brother, and, though young, a good father, and an honourable member of society, found himself charged with a felony, upon evidence on which it would be his (Mr. Kelly's) duty to comment, for which he would be liable, if from the weakness or want of skill of his advocate he should be convicted, to be transported for fourteen years, his property would be forfeited, and he would be rained in character and happiness for life. He would ask at the outset, was this a prosecution that ought to have been brought forward? His learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Bompas, after having opened the case, thought it necessary to rise again, and to announce to the jury that Sir George Stephen was the prosecutor of the present indictment. The jury had before heard from the lips of his learned friend, that the British Government had long exercised its energies and mighty power to put down the odious traffic in slaves. They had learned that the whole of the conduct of the firm with which the prisoner was connected was known, both to the present and the former government. Lord John Russell, whose duty when in office it had been to protect the interests and character of Great Britain with reference to the slavetrade, had been a member of the Committee of the House of Commons which had inquired into this very transaction. Lord Stanley, his successor in office, had also been a member of the same Committee; and, therefore, both the governments with which those noble lords were connected were officially, regularly, and fully acquainted with all these transactions; and yet the government, so far from thinking that a case for prosecution was founded before 0051 43 that Committee, had freely and completely acquitted the prisoner at the bar of any guilty participation in the transaction, as he (Mr. Kelly) trusted the jury would acquit him by their verdict. Not only had the government past and present, so far from dreaming of any guilt, agreed to a report of a totally different character; not only that, but the Anti-Slavery Society existing in this city, though fully acquainted with the whole case, had not thought fit to prosecute, and it had been reserved to Sir G. Stephen alone, whose name appeared at the back of the indictment as a witness, but who had not dared to go into the witness-box, to come forward—for what purpose he (Mr. Kelly) knew not—to prosecute an indictment, which, if it succeeded, must for ever crush and ruin a young man whose character and reputation, he could demonstrate, were above all that sort of suspicion which, though it might be a fit reason for inquiry, ought to be no more a ground for a prosecution for felony, than it ought to be a ground for a conviction without inquiry at all. And what was the charge brought? The young gentleman for whom he (Mr. Kelly) appeared, Pedro de Zulueta, was the eldest son of his father, a gentleman who, though now advanced in years, had filled the very highest offices in his own country; amongst them, that of President of the Cortes (a post analogous to that of Speaker of the House of Commons in this country); he had been the representative for the city of Cadiz, so long as his commercial pursuits allowed him to remain in Spain; and had reached that advanced age without a shadow of imputation upon his character. During the whole of his life he had been engaged in commercial transactions of the largest and most important nature and extent, under a firm of which not only he, but his father and grandfather before him, had been the principals. For seventy years the firm had carried on the most extensive concerns—aye, during a period when not only Spain, but also this country, was engaged in slave-traffic; but the firm had even then abstained from, and had not embarked a single copper farthing in, the slave-trade. So far from it, it would appear that when, owing to a bankruptcy, some slaves became the property of the firm, Mr. Zulueta, the father of the prisoner, immediately gave them their freedom; in short, at the only time he could ever have been said to have been the holder of slaves, he instantly manumitted them. He, however, now found it was in vain to look back to a long life spent in honour, honesty, and integrity; it was in vain to look back to deeds of charity and kindness, and to a character unsullied, when he found his own son indicted as a felon in a British court of justice, merely for signing his name to one or two documents in relation to a transaction which passed through his mercantile house, as commission agents to the firm of Martinez and Co., at the Havannah. He (Mr. Kelly) felt he could convince the jury, when he came to refer to the evidence, which had been most unfairly adduced, treated, and perverted, that this was the whole that could be charged against the unfortunate young gentleman at the bar. It appeared that, in the absence of his 0052 44 father he signed a letter and another document, in a perfectly regular, fair, mercantile transaction, out of which the profit gained by the house was of trifling and trumpery amount; and for these two acts he was now at the bar of the Central Criminal Court, and the jury was asked, by its verdict of guilty, to fix upon him the crime of felony, and to consign him to the dreadful consequences of such a verdict. He must say that a proceeding of this kind did no honour to the zealous efforts made for the extinction of the slave-trade by Great Britain, and by British money. Those who wished their efforts to succeed, who really wished to aid in the great and noble exertions made, would not treat as felons the merchants of this country, who, without having the least reason to suspect any thing unlawful, traded with the coast of Africa. Let them by British cruisers seize and secure slave vessels; but let them remember, however, that slavery would not be abolished by the art of war, but by the arts of peace, and that civilization of which commerce was the basis. Wherever there was commerce, there must in time be civilization and moral improvement. Wherever there was commerce there must be commercial people, there must be education persons to carry on trade, systems of jurisdiction, persons to administer the law, all the best objects of life promoted, and there the slave-trade would cease, not by force, but by the effects of civilization. Before he concluded, he would, however, satisfy the jury that there was not the slightest ground for charging the prisoner with lending himself, either directly or indirectly, to that odious traffic at which humanity shuddered, and which no British house had done more to prevent and destroy than had the house of Zulueta and Co., both in this country and in Spain. The charge against the prisoner, in fact, was that he had equipped and despatched a certain vessel, and had shipped certain goods, in order that such vessel and goods might be employed in the slave-trade. He wished that his learned friend (Mr. Serjeant Bompas) had, in opening the case, been more explicit as to the object of the equipment on which he meant to rely as a ground for the charge. Did he mean that the prisoner despatched the vessel in question intending that slaves should be taken on board? Did he mean that the goods shipped were intended to be bartered for slaves? Or did he mean that they were shipped in order to be sold for money, which money was afterwards to be laid out in the purchase of slaves? Whatever were the object, he trusted that he should be able to prove that the prisoner was perfectly innocent. The charge was, in fact, left general, and was that Mr. Zulueta, in some way or other, knew, when he, as a member of this firm, took some part in the despatching and shipping the vessel and goods, that the vessel, or goods, or both, were to be employed in the slave-trade; but whether by Martinez, or by the consignees, or by Jennings, the captain, his learned friend had withheld even from the jury. Sending goods to be converted into money for the support of the slave-trade, and sending goods to barter for slaves, would constitute an important distinction in law; 0053 45 but he (Mr. Kelly) would make no distinction in fact. On behalf of the prisoner he entirely disclaimed that he had the slightest notion or idea of giving the least countenance or aid, either directly or indirectly, by any person, in any place, or in any form, to the slave-trade; and he contended, that, without unwarrantably perverting the facts from their real sense and fair effect, it was impossible to throw even a shade of suspicion on any part of the previous conduct of the firm. He prayed the jury to consider what the real nature of the transaction was, and to remember that the charge was made from statements given by Mr. Zulueta, voluntarily and freely before the Committee of the House of Commons. From these statements the circumstances of the transaction were to be collected, and they were these. The prisoner, a native of Spain, of excellent education, of amiable character, and of great intelligence, thought he might be of considerable use to the firm to which he belonged by coming to England. He entered into the concern, and, as he spoke the English language much better than his father, he took a prominent part in the conduct of affairs, so far as mere speaking was concerned; but the evidence in the cause showed that the correspondence was conducted, and the orders given, principally, if not entirely, by his father; and it was by mere accident that he signed his name to two documents, not prepared by him, in the ordinary course of the business of the house, which had transactions with almost all parts of the world, but largely with Spain and the Havannah. With the coast of Africa, however, the house had nothing to do. It happened that for many years they had transacted business with Messrs. Martinez and Co., who carried on trade with the Havannah and Cadiz, and who had also some dealings with various ports on the coast of Africa, and among others at Gallinas. Out of transactions to the amount of from between 300,000 l. and 400,000 l., the whole transactions with the prisoner's house in respect to the African trade did not amount to more than 18,000 l. or 20,000 l., in the course of ten or twenty years; and it appeared that, upon some five or six occasions, Martinez and Co. had desired Zulueta and Co. to furnish them with this trifling amount of British manufactures, and to send them on board any vessel they might buy, to any place on the coast of Africa which Martinez and Co. directed. For their correspondents, Martinez and Co., they ordered goods of their Liverpool house, Liverpool being, as was well known, the great emporium of manufactures in the north of England. The Liverpool house executed that order, put them on beard a ship, as Messrs. Martinez bad directed, in whatever form seemed most convenient, and from that time Messrs. Zulueta had no more to do with the subsequent disposition of them than any one whom he then addressed. It turned out, at least so said Captain Hill and Captain Denman, that Gallinas had no produce to return for the goods—that there was no trade there but the slave-trade. But Messrs. Zulueta and Co., who had no trade with the Gallinas, who never, until this transaction, had heard of the 0054 46 names of any one of the persons to whom the cargo was consigned, sent the goods to Gallinas, as they would have done to the Gambia, Madagascar, or the East or West Indies, according as their correspondents ordered: they troubled themselves no more about it; but because it was suggested that some persons at Gallinas, connected with the slave-trade, might make an iniquitous use of those goods in that trade, the gentleman at the bar, not his father, whose ancient character for honour and respectability would have preserved him, was to be attacked and charged with felony. He would take the evidence as it was given, and let them consider it apart from his statement; let them also disregard that of the learned counsel for the prosecution. Here was a mercantile house, established for many years in England and Spain, having a correspondence with Martinez and Co., of Cadiz. The defendant, it was said, on the 20th of August, 1840, wrote a letter respecting the purchase of this vessel. It was quite clear that the house of Zulueta and Co. had employed Jennings to treat for that purchase, and that a letter was written in order to obtain the vessel for 500 l., if possible; but the evidence as regarded the prisoner was a blank. It did not appear at all that he had interfered directly or indirectly in the matter. However, the vessel was ultimately purchased; it was despatched to Liverpool, and there goods were loaded on board, and a charter-party was then made out, in the usual form. It was printed, and the blanks were filled up by the person whose ordinary duty it was to do so, but the name was signed by the defendant, whose father might have been unhappily out of the counting-house at the time, the house of Zulueta acting merely as the agents of Martinez. The evidence before the Committee showed, what was never denied, that the house of Zulueta, of which the defendant was a member, and therefore civilly responsible for all the house might do, effected the purchase of the vessel; that it was desirable that Jennings should be captain (he would state the reason in a few moments); that the house also caused goods to be shipped at Liverpool, despatched the vessel, and from that time heard no more about it. If the case rested there it was this—that Messrs. Zulueta, as the agents of Martinez and Co., had purchased a vessel; that Jennings was made the purchaser, but the charter-party was made out to Martinez and Co., as mortgagees, so as to put the subsequent property in them, leaving Jennings the nominal proprietor; that Messrs. Zulueta, as agents for their foreign correspondents, then shipped a quantity of British goods, and that those goods passed regularly through the Custom-house, and were consigned to the coast of Africa. It was perfectly clear in that case that no guilt or imputation could be thrown on any body. But what was the ground upon which the parties for the prosecution called upon the jury to infer, not only that Messrs. Zulueta, and particularly the defendant, had purchased, loaded, and despatched this vessel, but that he did so, knowing it was for various purposes, to accomplish (such was the language of the indictment) certain objects connected with the 0055 47 slave-trade? Why they first did this—and here he craved the particular attention of the jury, for it virtually affected the safety of every manufacturer, merchant, nay, every tradesman in this country, who happened to deal in any goods, however lawfully, and who might ship them to the coast of Africa, why they said this, “You, Pedro de Zulueta, a member of this firm, knew that those goods and this ship were to be used for the slave-trade; you despatched the ship loaded with goods for the purposes of that trade. Have you made any statement admitting it? No; you offered to deny it on oath. Have we proved that you gave any secret instructions for the purpose? We gave you notice to produce them; but when we came into Court we dare not call for them. Did you receive any such instructions from Martinez and Co.? We gave you notice to produce them; and Counsel comes forward, and says, ‘Here is every book and every account, every scrap of paper which can be found, relating to this transaction, supported by the oath of every person in the counting house.’ But no,” continued the prosecutor, “it suits us better to charge you with felony, to call for documents that might support the charge, but when we get them we will not produce them to the jury. What we will do is this, in order that we may have a reply, with Sir G. Stephen sitting near, with his grossly perverted views of the facts, to instruct us, we will not produce those documents, but you may produce them for the defendant if you please.” Why did they do so? Why, if he produced all the correspondence between the house of Zulueta and Co. and that of Martinez and Co., his learned friend would reply, and Sir G. Stephen say, “Oh! how do we know but that there were some secret instructions, which the defendant has in his pocket at this moment!” That was the way in which a prosecution for felony was to be conducted. Bat such was the nature of the evidence that he besought them to look, not to what his learned friend had said, but to the facts. The facts were these:—The defendant had offered 500 l. for the vessel; the vessel was purchased; he signed the charter-party, and admitted freely and voluntarily that his house, ancient and honourable, without spot or stain, did, as the agents of Martinez and Co., ship goods and despatch the vessel to the coast of Africa; and then, when the prosecutors charged him with a guilty knowledge that that was done was for purposes of the slave-trade, they said—“We cannot prove that this young man ever wrote or thought in his life about the slave-trade—we cannot prove that he ever said one word to Jennings, to do any thing with the ship or goods connected with the slave-trade—nor can we prove that his foreign correspondents ever wrote a syllable on that subject. What we can prove is this—that he never was at Gallinas; but that Captain Denman, Captain Hill, and Colonel Nicolls, say that the slave-trade is carried on there to a considerable extent, and that Rolo, Alvarez, and Jimminez, are notorious slave-traders; and then we trust that the jury will say, ‘There are goods sent to the 0056 48 coast of Africa (not unlikely, for millions of produce are sent there every year), to a place where three honourable captains say nothing but the slave-trade is carried on, and then it will lie with the defendant to show that he never intended them for that trade.’” Had the defendant known as much as those honourable captains of Gallinas, and that there was no lawful trade there at all, a question might arise in their minds, whether he might not have thought that the goods might be sold for money, and that the money might in some way be used for the purposes of the slave-trade; but they had not proved, and the contrary appeared, that the defendant or his father were ever on the coast of Africa, or knew any thing of Gallinas. “But,” said his learned friend, particularly Mr. Serjeant Talfourd in putting a question to Captain Denman, “could persons who have traded to Gallinas for twenty years have been ignorant that nothing but the slave-trade was carried on there?” That, however, was inapplicable to Messrs. Zulueta. What was the fact? Not the defendant only, but the house of Zulueta and Co. had never traded to the value of ls. with the Gallinas—they never had any communication with the place, or any body in it, which could have conveyed to their minds the least information that it was a place were the slave-trade was carried on. But he would tell them upon what his learned friend's question was framed. All that Messrs. Zulueta and Co. had done was, that, when they received directions from their foreign correspondents to ship goods to Gallinas, they had put such goods on board, and from that time heard no more about them. Having nothing to do with Gallinas, the jury might have taken a map, and unless it was a large one, might even have been unable to find where Gallinas was. Had Zulueta and Co. been in the habit of writing or receiving letters to or from Gallinas, the nature of the business then might have been collected, but it was no such thing. What the defendant said before ne Committee turned out to be true; had it not been so, there was abundant opportunity for Sir G. Stephen, whose zeal spared no expense or effort, to have disproved it. It was true, then, that in the course of the last twenty years the dealings of the house of Zulueta with that of Martinez were not less than from 300,000 l. to 400,000 l., and that of that sum not more than 22,000 l. was for business connected with Gallinas. One great article of trade with Africa was muskets. Now, suppose any person in Spain had written to any of the jury to ship 1,000 muskets to Gallinas, could they dream that by executing such an order they were committing felony? Captains Hill and Denman might know very well that shipping goods to Gallinas was suspicious, because they said the slave-trade was the only one carried on there; but could a person who had no communication with the place, who had never been there, know that? But what was the next fact? Captain Hill, who was doing his best to send that young man to Botany Bay, reluctantly let out that there were places on the coast of Africa to which large quantities of British produce were sent 0057 49 and lawfully disposed of; nay, that at those places there were persons who dealt largely in British produce and in the slave-trade too. Then he would ask this—If a manufacturer of guns or gunpowder, or even a commission agent, in this country, received an order for some guns or powder to be sent to a certain place in Africa, was he in the first place to consult a map to know where it was situated, and then go to such a person as Captain Denman or Captain Hill, and ask what sort of trade was carried on there? Was he next to inquire whether the persons to whom the articles were consigned ever traded in slaves? And suppose he did so, and found that such was the case, was he therefore to say that he would not execute the order? If so, it would annihilate one-third of the commerce of great Britain. And here he would say that this charge of felony must not be matter of suspicion; but they must, to show the guilt of the persons charged, have direct evidence that he knew—not that he might have inquired—but that he really knew the illegal purpose for which the articles were intended. The statute did not say that any one who shipped goods to a slave-trader, or to a place principally or extensively carrying on such trade, was a felon. No such offence was known to our law. If a man shipped goods for the purpose of such trading, then he was a felon; but where was the evidence to prove it against the defendant? It was true Captains Denman and Hill knew Gallinas was a slave-trading place; but did they know it before they went there? Did his learned friend know it before this case occurred? If so, he was a better geographer than he (Mr. Kelly) was. (A laugh.) His learned friend said a party ought not to shut his eyes to what he was doing. He agreed with that, when a party was doing an act that might produce mischief; but he denied that any man who had no improper intention in such an act, was bound to inquire what was to be done with any goods he might ship for a foreign correspondent to any place upon the earth. They talked about Messrs. Martinez being known slave-traders, and of the admissions in the defendant's evidence that he knew them to be so; he would show them presently that the defendant said nothing of the kind. He spoke at first of the knowledge he had in 1842, but a little further on it appeared that he had learned it since this transaction took place; but suppose he had known that they were engaged extensively in the slave-trade, he knew also that they traded largely and lawfully in sugar and tobacco. Was a party, then, who shipped goods to such a foreign house—goods which he could not know would be used unlawfully—to be regarded as a felon? He denied it. If it were so, not only must the house of Zulueta, but every other that traded with houses at the Havannah, sacrifice two-thirds of their trade. The object of the Committee before whom the defendant and many other persons were examined—a Committee consisting of Colonial Secretaries of the the late and existing governments, and of some of the most distinguished and sound practical men of the present age—was to consider E 0058 50 whether it was expedient to extend the criminal law, and to prevent trading with countries dealing largely in slaves; and they might pretty well judge of the opinion of that Committee by the fact, that, although they made their report in 1842, no law had passed, affecting transactions of such nature. It appeared that there were many houses in London trading extensively with Africa, and a great deal of British produce was lawfully disposed of there. It might be presumed, then, that goods shipped to places on the coast of Africa were intended for a lawful purpose. If that argument were not fair in the mouth of the defendant, it was not more so in the mouth of any other person trading with any part of Africa. But before he left this part of the case, let him say that Captain Denman's evidence did not show that the slave, trade was exclusively carried on at Gallinas. He said, and rightly perhaps, that no produce was exported; but were there no means of taking produce there and selling it for money? There was a considerable population in the towns and villages, and might they not, with doubloons, or whatever else they had, buy British produce? It was said they could get money by the slave-trade. He knew not that fact; but were was that to stop, if, before they entered into any pecuniary transaction, they were to trace the money, and see that it had not been produced by some illegal transaction? It must put an end to all commerce. It might be that Polo or Blanco might have sold 1,000 slaves for dollars; with these dollars he might have paid a debt to some person, who might have Paid another, who might then have purchased goods sent by Messrs. Zulueta. Would the defendant, because such a transaction might possibly have taken place, have been guilty of promoting the slave-trade? Nothing of the kind. Aa far, therefore, as related to the character and trading of the people at Gallinas, his answer was, that, however well known to Captain Hill or Captain Denman, it was utterly unknown to the defendant. But a great deal had been said aa to the mode in which this had been carried into effect; and it had been urged that, because the vessel had been bought really by Martinez, and with his money, while Jennings, though only captain, had been made apparent owner, there was suspicion or concealment about the matter, that a false colouring had been given to the transaction; and from this the jury had been asked to infer a guilty intention with reference to the slave-trade. Now, was there any thing in the whole transaction to justify such an inference? He (Mr. Kelly) hoped some of the jury were acquainted with the Spanish maritime laws; because, if so, they would know that under these laws no Spanish vessel could be commanded by an English captain. Hence it was that Martinez had been obliged to give the vessel an English name, in order that Jennings might be employed. And was there any singularity in his being so employed? It was in evidence that Jennings had been more than once before in Martinez's service, that he was an experienced captain, and a man of considerable courage and some ability; and nothing, therefore, was 0059 51 more natural than that, when Martinez found that Jennings was in England, he should employ him to take the cargo of goods from Liverpool But then it had been said, that the fact of the bill of lading being made out to Jennings was suspicious. In answer to that objection he begged to mention, that, if the goods had been shipped in the name of Martinez, if the bill of lading had been made out in the name of that firm, and if, on his arrival at Gallinas, Jennings had found that the consignees were not on the spot, or that the river was in a state of blockade by the British cruisers, which it is well known swarmed in those seas to prevent the slavetrade, he would have had to return to Cadiz to enable Martinez and Co. to alter the destination of the goods; hence it was that the bill of lading was made out to Jennings, so that, in case of any such impediment to trade meeting him as he (Mr. Kelly) had pointed out, Jennings, being the person in whose name the shipments were made, would have had complete control over the goods, and could have taken them to the Havannah, or have dealt with them as he thought best for the benefit of his owners. It was for this very purpose that goods were frequently sent out under charge of a supercargo; but it seemed that Martinez, having fall confidence in Jennings, appointed him captain, and also apparent owner; and, so far from there being any thing irregular or inexcusable in that arrangement, it was the constant custom, as was well known to every merchant, not only in London, but all over the world. If this circumstance were really intended to have been relied upon as a ground for condemning the prisoner, he (Mr. Kelly) should have expected that Sir G. Stephen, acting as a public prosecutor, would have called before the jury mercantile men of some description to prove that the transaction was unmercantile, irregular, and consequently suspicious. (At this period of the learned counsel's speech, Lord Brougham came on to the bench, and, after a few moment's conversation with Mr. Justice Wightman, withdrew.) He (Mr. Kelly) feared he was fatiguing the jury, but he entreated them to bear with him, and to consider, for mercy s sake, what his feelings would be if he left unsaid any thing which might benefit his client.

One of the jury.—We shall be quite glad to hear all you have to say.

Mr. Kelly expressed his thanks for the intimation, and proceeded.—He repeated his denial of the allegation that there had been secresy and concealment practised at Liverpool, It was quite impossible that the cargo could have been shipped at that port without the knowledge of the shipping agents and their clerks, and even the scrutiny and observation of the Custom-house officers; and yet not one of these persons had been brought forward as a witness by Sir G. Stephen. He (Mr. Kelly) maintained, therefore, that it was idle, and an insult to any man's understanding, to say that there had been any thing like concealment in the transaction. Supposing, however, for the sake of argument, that there had been concealment, still he contended that it would not be of importance in this case, unless it was calculated to facilitate the E 2 0060 52 carrying on of the slave-trade. Would the putting the vessel under British colours, and under the command of a British captain, be calculated to enable it the better to carry on the slave-trade? If it would not—if, on the contrary, the employment of English colours and an English captain was likely to be most fatal to this traffic; if it made detection certain, and forfeiture and punishment inevitable, what became of the case for the prosecution? If a vessel sailed under the Spanish, Portuguese, or American flag, it had been proved that there were great impediments and difficulties in interrupting and searching her, and in bringing the perpetrators to justice, in the seizure of the vessel and the condemnation of her cargo. Captain Denman had proved that he was not permitted to search a vessel under the American flag at all, and with respect to the Russian flag the case was probably the same; but an English captain must at once, and with open arms, tender his vessel for the search and investigation of any British naval officer, and, if infringing the law, might at once be prosecuted in the Admiralty Courts in any of the colonies: whereas if she belonged to another nation, her condemnation would be attended with all the difficulties that attended the administration of justice in almost every country of the world. Yet his learned friend, acting under Sir George Stephen's instructions, asked for the conviction of the prisoner for fitting out a vessel which Captain Denman, Captain Hill, and Colonel Nicolls, all agreed in saying might have been seized and condemned without any shade of difficulty. But there was no evidence to show that the vessel in question had been at all employed in the slave-trade; on the contrary, Captain Hill, who, in his zeal and anxiety to discharge his duty to his country, had not a word to say in favour of the prisoner, took time by the forelock, and seized her before she had time to reach the African shore, and therefore there were no means of drawing an inference as to what was intended. Failing here, the prosecutor said, “We will show that the vessel had originally been built for the slave-trade, and that, while in the hands of Zulueta or of Jennings, at Portsmouth, she had on board fittings-up and other articles which were calculated and adapted to make her a slave-ship.” It grieved him (Mr. Kelly), on referring to this part of the case, to speak in terms of reprobation of the mode in which it had been conducted—a mode which was unworthy of the high reputation and honourable character of his learned friend. Two or three witnesses only had been called from Portsmouth—those had only been recently subpœnaed—they were wholly unknown to the prisoner, and, therefore, he was wholly unprepared for their testimony. To what, however, did their evidence amount? Why, that they saw on board the vessel, after the purchase by Mr. Zulueta, some large water-casks, shackles, bolts, and a few other articles and muniments necessary for carrying on the slave-trade. Was this fair or just to the prisoner, who was charged, not with having thrown away those things and destroyed them, and fitted up a vessel which, for aught 0061 53 he knew, was used in the slave-trade formerly; but with loading and despatching from Liverpool a vessel intended for the slavetrade? The prosecutor thought it right to give in evidence what was done at Portsmouth, and there left the case. He (Mr. Kelly) could not trust himself to speak of that mode of giving evidence. If his learned friend wished to prove any thing on the subject of these articles, he should have shown the condition of the ship on leaving Liverpool. Then was the time, there the place, when and where the felony, if any, was committed. Not a witness from Liverpool was called, and even Captain Hill had been obliged to say, in answer to a question put by a juror—for which he (Mr. Kelly) thanked him from the bottom of his heart—that at the time he seized the vessel she was not fitted up for the slavetrade. The prosecutor might have called the crew, but he had been content with calling the cabin boy, who had seen nothing, and knew nothing of the loading of the ship. They relied only on the witnesses from Portsmouth to give a false impression to the ease. He would not notice an observation made by Captain Hill, that it would be easy, when the vessel arrived at Gallinas, to obtain the necessary fittings, It would be easy for a man who had bought a gun, and procured powder and ball, to shoot the Queen. But was the prisoner to be convicted of felony because it would be possible to obtain the means for carrying on the slave-trade when the vessel reached her destination? For what he had done the prisoner was ready to answer, but he (Mr. Kelly) entreated the jury not to condemn him on vague possibilities and mere suspicion. The evidence in the cause would have ended here, but for the extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance of the great body of testimony adduced, unsought and unasked, by the supposed criminal himself before the Committee of the House of Commons. To that mass of evidence it would, finally, be his (Mr. Kelly's) duty to call the attention of the jury. The Committee had been appointed to inquire into the mode in which the slave-trade at various places on the coast of Africa had been affected by British commerce, and the employment of British capital. In the course of these investigations before the Committee, the house of Zulueta heard that some evidence had been given ex parté which they thought threw some reflection on their honour and integrity, and, feeling that their honour was involved, and that every, member of the house had always zealously abstained from the slave-trade and made every sacrifice rather than engage in it, the defendant voluntarily came forward to give to the Committee all the information in his power not because he knew more than his father, but because he was more conversant with the English language. From the evidence he gave, it was for the jury to determine whether he had admitted himself to be a felon or not. The defendant, in the outset of his statement, said, that much of the evidence that had been given before was more or less incorrect, and that he would state what had been the nature, “not,” said he, “of our trade, for we had no trade; but 0062 54 of our connexion, in shipping goods to the coast of Africa.” He begged particularly to call their attention to that, for it showed that the house of Zulueta had never traded to the coast of Africa. The defendant then stated that his house occasionally received consignments of sugar and cochineal from Messrs Martinez. Now, suppose any such consignment had realized 5,000 l., Messrs. Martinez would then have had the option of drawing for that amount, or of taking it out in goods, the produce of Great Britain. Let them elect to do the latter, and request a shipment of British goods to the Bight of Biafra or to the Gallinas. Was there any one of the jury who would have hesitated to do it, or dreamt that by doing so he was guilty? And yet that was all this gentleman, Mr. Zulueta, had done. But they had had other transactions of the same kind. For many years they had occasionally shipped goods to the coast of Africa, and yet they had never heard of the vessel being seized, or of what was done with the money, or the produce, or any thing else. They received consignments, sold them, and bought such goods, and consigned them to such places as they were directed, and never inquired further what became of those goods. To them the result was indifferent, the order was executed, they debited their correspondents with the amount, and then the transaction closed. The defendant in his statement particularly remarked that his house never had any control of any kind, from the moment the cargo left this country. That was the whole of the case, and disposed of the prosecution, unless they thought that that young gentleman was telling a falsehood. The parties for the prosecution had given them notice to produce the accounts that passed between Messrs. Zulueta and Messrs. Martinez; they might have called for them, and might have shown whether that statement of the defendant was false or not. But they had attempted nothing of the kind. They said that he (M. Kelly) must prove the contrary. But he would never agree, on his part, to establish so fatal a precedent in any court of justice, as to recognize the necessity of any man proving himself innocent, before it had been attempted to prove that he was guilty. The prisoner stated in his evidence, that, “if Pedro Blanco had drawn 5s. beyond the money in their hands arising from commercial transactions, they should have protested, and in some instances had done so.” That proved that Zulueta and Co., had nothing to do with the people or the property abroad. They had received consignments, and were accountable for the money to that extent; they would accept bills or consign goods to the amount, but beyond that they would protest. The defendant proceeded to say, in his evidence, “the only part we had with the Augusta was simply that which appears from one of the letters, that is, Messrs. Martinez, of Cadiz, had made choice of Jennings to buy the vessel, and lent him the money for the purpose; bemuse Messrs. Martinez wanted him to have the vessel in the trade, for the purpose of taking the goods to their destination.” The defendant then referred to a letter from Messrs. Martinez; 0063 55 and here let him say, that, in a prosecution for felony, or any other crime, if the prosecutors gave in evidence a statement made by the defendant, and that statement referred to a document, they ought to refer to that document also.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas understood that the letter now referred to was one of those which he referred to as in the appendix, and which he offered in evidence—every one—

Mr. Kelly continued.—They would see whether that was so. The defendant proceeded.—“With regard to the part that he had to do with this vessel, that appeared by the letter,” and that letter he said, his learned friend ought to have put in as evidence. The defendant's statement proceeded—“Jennings was a man who had been some time employed by Messrs. Martinez; they were satisfied with his services, and agreed to lend him the money on the security of the vessel.” This then was the solution of the employment of Jennings. The next question was put by Mr. Forster, who, as they all knew, was very extensively concerned in the African trade, and was as perfectly conversant with this subject as any one in the country; and he (Mr. Kelly) could not help observing that, if there were any thing dishonourable in the African trade to a British merchant, be would have been the first to have held it up to reprehension; but instead of that, what did he say? “You advanced money to Jennings for the purchase of the vessel, Jennings transferring the vessel to you as security for it? Answer—That is just the description of the operation, which is a very general one in business.” If that were not so, why did not his learned friend call some one to prove that it was not? But the character of the Committee before whom that evidence was given was a guarantee of its truth. In answer to another question, the prisoner said, “I know very little or almost next to nothing of the operations in those parts of the world.” Was that true, or untrue? Why were the jury to suppose that by intuition or magic the prisoner was to know all that Captains Hill and Denman, and Colonel Nicolls, had acquired by twenty years observation? His learned friend sought to give in evidence certain papers which were found in 1841 on board this vessel, and which it was now perfectly manifest were put on board at Cadiz, long after she had sailed from Liverpool. He (Mr. Kelly) objected to that evidence, and he should have thought that his learned friend, in arguing upon the admissibility of these letters, would not have referred to their contents, the effect of which might have been to have fixed the attention of the jury upon some matter foreign to the matter of the trial. But he could now state that the defendant never saw those letters, and never heard of them, before they came under his notice in the course of these proceedings; and, whether he was guilty or not, all the acts charged against him had been done months before those letters were put on board.

The Foreman of the Jury wished to know whether the case would be finished that evening.

Mr. Justice Maule, having asked his reason for wishing to know,

0064 56

The Foreman observed that the case was one of too much importance for the jury to attempt to give their verdict in the jurybox.

Mr. Kelly could assure them that he should not detain them much longer. The Chairman had said to Mr. Zulueta, “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?” To which Mr. Zulueta replied, “I most certainly say that I do not know whether the person is so engaged or not.” If the contrary were the case, it could have been proved on the other side. Mr. Patten, addressing the prisoner, said, “You have stated that yours is an agency trade?” The answer to which was, “It is so; and in the multitude of business, any one can understand that £20,000 in fifteen or twenty 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.” Then he was asked, “To what part of the coast of Africa has that business been chiefly conducted?” The reply to which was, “I believe, almost exclusively to the Gallinas.” The next was the only part of the evidence on which his learned friend conducting the prosecution relied. “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.” His learned friend had said that the prisoner must have heard that Martinez was a dealer in slaves; but it had been proved that he was also a large dealer in other transactions that were perfectly lawful. The question, however, was what the prisoner knew at the time he participated more or less in the transaction under consideration. The occurrence took place in the year 1840, and the examination not till July, 1842. He did not say that, at the time he sent off the Augusta, he knew that Martinez was engaged in the slave-trade; but at the period when he was examined. In the very next page he was asked, “Have you reason to suppose that a large portion of the trade that they carry on at the Havannah is the slave-trade?—I had no reason to know any thing of the kind. I have known more of their transactions with the slave-trade since these things have been mooted than I ever knew before; I have had more knowledge of these things lately than I ever had in my life before; and when I say ‘I,’ I beg to state that I ought to state ‘we,’ for all my partners are in the same situation.” The prisoner was asked in the year 1842, whether he knew that his correspondents were engaged in the slave-trade, and he answered—“Only by general report;” and in another part of the same evidence, when his attention was more particularly called to it, he said that he had no reason to know any thing of the kind; but, since this transaction had taken place, he knew a great deal more about it 0065 57 than he ever did before. During the two years which had intervened between despatching the Augusta and the examination of the prisoner before the Committee of the House of Commons, an event had taken place which had made the Gallinas a matter of as much notoriety as the battle of Waterloo. He alluded to the descent of her Majesty's navy on the coast of Gallinas, and the burning of the slave factories. If this were not a criminal but a civil case, he would put it to the jury why Mr. Zulueta, just like any other manufacturer or trader, might not conclude that these goods were intended for a lawful trade? In a criminal case, however, if they had the slightest doubt upon their minds, the prisoner was entitled to a verdict in his favour. In his evidence before the Committee, Mr. Zulueta stated, that “his house had nothing whatever to do with any letters that might have been put on board the Augusta after she sailed from this country. Nothing whatever.” He (Mr. Kelly) was justified, therefore, in objecting to those letters being read. In reply to other questions, the prisoner stated that shipments, whether to Havannah or the coast of Africa, formed a very trifling proportion of the extensive transactions of their house. It would be strange, indeed, if the house of Zulueta and Co., trading to a vast extent, would, for the sake of putting a small sum of money into their pockets by those shipments, subject themselves to the jeopardy of an indictment for felony, and transportation for fourteen years. It was incredible—impossible! The prisoner had said that they had not received consignments from the coast of Africa, and so far that confirmed the statements made by the naval officers as to there being no produce at Gallinas; but the question was, whether the information of that fact had been conveyed to Mr. Zulueta. Mr. Kidd's name is then introduced; and the chairman says to him, “You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in any way?—No, nor any knowledge of him.” In the next answer it is said, “Zulueta, the gentleman in London to whom the vessel was sent, and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner, is a name well known on the coast in connexion with the slave-trade;” reply—“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.” He (Mr. Kelly) wished that every man in British mercantile houses could say the same. “My father had at one time an interest in a bankrupt's estate at the Havannah, upon which he was a creditor. There were some slaves on the estate, and they formed part of the property assignable to the creditors, and my father got the slaves assigned to him; because the other gentlemen and the creditors were not of the same opinion, he got them assigned to him, and made them free; and that is all the connexion we have ever had with any slaves in the world.” The question was then put to him, “There was nothing upon the face of the transactions which you 0066 58 had with those parties which spoke of a connexion with traffic in slaves?—Nothing whatever. It is well known that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz to insure operations in slave-trading. My house at that time were underwriters, and it was notorious that a policy of that kind would never enter the doors of our house; and nobody would come to offer such a thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both here and in Spain, that we set our faces distinctly against having any interest of any kind in the slave-trade.” That young man came and made that statement before a Committee of the House of Commons, and thus challenged contradiction; and yet he was selected for prosecution, and was to be made a felon for the adventure of the Augusta. The statement which the prisoner had made had been before the public for fifteen months, during which the prosecutor might have tested every word of it, and yet no contradiction was offered. There was another point of his statement to which he (Mr. Kelly) must refer, because it explained a point much relied on by the other side. It was with reference to the suggestion of the circumstance of the vessel having gone to Cadiz on her way out, to acquire other facilities for carrying on the slave-trade. The prisoner, with reference to this, distinctly stated to the Committee, “It was because she was nearly wrecked on her passage; she put into Cadiz in distress. Captain Hill must have known this, because it is in the log-book of the vessel which he took.” He was next asked, “It was not intended, when she left England, that she should put into Cadiz?” Answer—“Most certainly not: all the facts of the case show that she went there because she was obliged.” It had been said, Why did not the vessel put into Cork? There was a mutinous feeling among the sailors, and the captain was afraid that, if he put into Cork, they would leave him. If it were intended that she should touch at Cadiz, there was no reason why she should not have done so. It would not have appeared more suspicious than going to Gallinas. Why did not the prosecutor produce the log?

Mr. Serjeant Bompas. —We could not put it in evidence.

Mr. Kelly. —There was nothing to show that running to Cadiz was a previous contrivance. When examined the next day, Mr. Zulueta shows, by the insurance effected, that running into Cadiz was not premeditated; and, if the vessel had deviated from her course unnecessarily, the policy would have been violated. In the course of the examination he was asked whether he had freighted other vessels for Martinez besides the Augusta? Answer—“Yes, decidedly so; there was the Star, Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent from here to the Gallinas, precisely the same as the Augusta has been sent. She delivered her cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I believe, and from thence 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 0067 59 maintain a legal trade with Gallinas: that is within my own knowledge.” There were specific facts stated; they had not been contradicted, the answer therefore was true, and was decisive of the ease. There had before been an adventure of the same kind as that now proposed, and it had been completed without any thing of an illegal character. Why therefore should he suspect that there was any thing illegal in this? The defendant in his evidence also said, that, before any goods were put on board the Augusta, it was the express desire and order of his house that every thing in her fit for the slave-trade should be taken out, and they would not have loaded any thing in her if that had not been done. But then it was said that the vessel was consigned to three notorious slave-dealers, The defendant did not know the name of any one of them. Three captains who knew those persons were called, and hence they were to infer that the defendant, who was never on the coast of Africa in his life, was aware of it. If the defendant's denial had been made now, it might be supposed that it was made to clear himself from this charge; but the statement was made voluntarily by him; and if his evidence was to be given against him, why should it not be taken altogether, and one part believed as well as the rest? There was a good deal more in that evidence to the same effect, but, wearied as they must be, and as he was himself, he would not go over the remaining part. The effect of the whole evidence was this, that the goods having been shipped, and the vessel having been consigned to the coast of Africa, under the circumstances they had heard, the part that was taken by the defendant, a small part, was, as far as it went, perfectly legal. The question then remained, whether he participated in that transaction in order to accomplish the objects of the slave-trade. That question they had to determine. The only mode by which the ease could be completed was that which had induced their lordships to determine that it should be submitted to their consideration, viz., the defendant having himself given evidence. “Gentlemen,” said the learned counsel, “take that evidence, and, as I am sure you will, consider it fairly and altogether. Consider, that if it were false in any material fact, it might have been contradicted. If it be true, as you have every reason to believe, what does it prove? That undoubtedly this gentleman traded, as any merchant who traded with Spain, America, or Brazil, more or less must do, with persons engaged in the slave-trade; but that in all these transactions, as in every other in which his house has ever been engaged, neither he, nor his father, nor grandfather, participated in the smallest degree whatever, directly or indirectly, in this nefarious traffic. He did not confine himself to a mere denial, but cited facts. He pointed to the honourable character of his father and his grandfather, to the high character of his house. He pointed to specific facts; to his father having taken slaves as part of a bankrupt's debt, and granting them their freedom; to the fact of his house having refused to become underwriters in any slave transaction; 0068 60 and he stated that he believed no member of his family was ever directly or indirectly engaged in the slave-trade, but all had earnestly and heartily endeavoured to mitigate and destroy it. Not only does that appear in the evidence of the defendant, but I shall call before you a body of witnesses to speak to his character—some of the most honourable and distinguished men in London, persons engaged in all the branches of trade and commerce, who have known him privately and in business, and they will all tell you—what was told you by more than one witness for the prosecution—that this young man, and I believe the same may be said of every member of his house, is a good son, a good brother, a good father, a good and honourable member of society, a man incapable of any violation of the law. Such are the proofs I shall put to you; and when I have called those witnesses as to his high and excellent character—rare indeed for so young a man to have attained in a city like this—I shall leave the case with confidence in your hands, knowing that, as all that is dear to him in life, and that which is much dearer to him than life, his honour, is now resting on your decision, it will not be upon vague suspicion, or even upon doubt, if you can entertain it, but upon nothing less than the direct positive proof of guilt, of which be is incapable to his heart's core, that you will convict him. Gentlemen, I sit down awaiting with confidence your verdict, which will restore this gentleman to his family, and the high position in society which he has hitherto so deservedly enjoyed.”

Mr. James Cooke: 1 am a colonial broker. I have known the prisoner from ten to fifteen years. I consider him to be one of the most honourable men in the city of London. I am in constant connexion with all the most eminent houses in the city of London, including the Barings and Rothschilds, and, if I were called upon to select one man more honourable than the others, if that one was to be found, I should lay my finger upon the prisoner.

Sir John Pirie was the next witness called; but, it having been intimated that a great number of persons were to be examined as to the prisoner's character, and the jury having expressed a wish not to be hurried,

Mr. Justice Maule said that would undoubtedly occupy some time; and, as he should certainly take some time in summing up, it would be better to adjourn at once.

The further hearing of the case was then adjourned till Monday.

The prisoner was again permitted to put in bail, in the sum of £5,000 for his appearance on Monday.

THIRD DAY. — Monday, Oct. 30. Link to Annals.

Precisely at ten o'clock the jury, who had been in charge of the officers of the Sheriff since the adjournment of the case on Saturday, were escorted into court; and, on taking their seats in the jury-box, answered to their names. At this time the court was crowded, and some of the principal merchants of the city of London were in attendance.

Soon after ten o'clock, Mr. Justice Maule and Mr. Justice Wightman were ushered into court by Sir J. Key, Mr. Sheriff Musgrove, Mr. Under-Sheriff Anderton, and other civic authorities.

Mr. Zulueta was then called, and immediately surrendered, and resumed the place he had, on the two previous days, occupied in the dock.

The following gentlemen were then called, and examined on behalf of the prisoner, by Mr. Kelly, Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Bodkin:—

Sir J. Pirie stated, that he had known the prisoner for about twelve years, and had always considered him one of the most respectable merchants of the city of London. He had the highest estimation of his veracity and honour, and thought him a very unlikely man to give any encouragement to the nefarious slave-trade.

Mr. Anselmo de Arroyave stated, that he was a merchant residing in Tavistock-square, and had known the firm of Zulueta and Co. for about thirty-two years, in Spain. He had known the prisoner for the last twelve or fourteen years, and he was esteemed as a man of the greatest honour and integrity. The firm stood second to none in the city of London.

Mr. T. Halifax, of the firm of Glyn, Mills, Halifax, and Co., bankers, stated that he had known the house of Zulueta and Co. between eighteen and nineteen years, and had become acquainted with the prisoner from ten to fifteen years ago. He believed him to bear the highest possible character as a merchant, and, having known him in private life, he had great pleasure in bearing testimony to his amiable disposition and irreproachable character.

Mr. Samson Ricardo stated, that he was a member of the Stock Exchange, and knew the prisoner at the bar. He believed him to be an honourable, straightforward man, utterly incapable of being engaged in any transactions of a questionable nature.

Baron Lionel de Rothschild stated, that he had known the prisoner personally for about ten years, and could bear his testimony to the highly honourable and straightforward character the bore as a merchant and a man of business. He was of a most humane disposition, and perfectly incapable of being connected in any way whatever with such an offence as that laid to his charge.

Mr. Manuel Gregorio de Isasi stated, that he was a wine-merchant, and had known the prisoner from childhood. He bore the highest character for humanity, and for the proper discharge of every relation of life.

Mr. Jose Maria Barrero stated that he was the head in this country of the consulate of Spain, and had known the prisoner twenty years—nearly all his life. His character was altogether unexceptionable, both in the relations of private life and as a merchant.

0070 62

Mr. C. Tottie stated, that he was Consul-General for Sweden and Norway, and was acquainted with the prisoner, and the firm to which he belonged. Had known the prisoner fourteen or fifteen years, and considered him to bear the highest possible character for honour and integrity, and to be a truly Christian man.

Dr. Niel Arnot gave similar testimony, and added that the prisoner was held in the highest estimation by all the various Spanish Ambassadors, whom witness had been in the habit of attending professionally.

Mr. Charles Dodd, solicitor, of Billiter-square; Mr. C. A. Dodd, his son; Mr. Christobal de Murrietta, of the firm of Solarte, Aguirre, and Murrietta; Mr. Hugh Sandeman; Mr. W. Gibbs; Mr. Timothy Barrington, one of the Society of Friends; Mr. William Tindal, also one of the Society of Friends; Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd, the banker: Mr. Frederick Hath; Mr. Abraham Mocatta; Mr. Edwin Gower; Mr. George Rougemont; Mr. Joseph Sadler; and Mr. Van Zellar, were all called and examined, and concurred in giving the prisoner the highest character for humanity, veracity, and integrity.

Mr. F. Kelly: “That is my case, my Lord.”

Mr. Justice Maule then summed up. The prisoner, Pedro de Zulueta (said the learned Judge), was indicted for an offence against an act of Parliament made for the prevention of the slavetrade, in having employed a vessel for the purpose of accomplishing objects declared to be illegal by that act—that was, dealing in slaves—and also in having loaded goods on board a vessel for that purpose. Now, although this case had occupied a very considerable portion of their time on Friday and Saturday—about fifteen hours—yet the evidence was not very long, and the points to which it went were not very numerous, and as that evidence had not occupied much above four hours, it would not be necessary to add much to the time they had been already engaged. The offence with which the prisoner was charged was put in those two shapes—that of employing a vessel, and of loading goods on board, for the purpose of accomplishing objects prohibited by the Act of Parliament—that was, for the purpose of dealing in slaves. The charge did not necessarily require 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 were an adventure, the object of which was that slaves should be brought from the coast of Africa, and if this vessel were despatched and employed for the purpose of accomplishing that object, although it was intended to accomplish it otherwise than by bringing home slaves in that vessel, still it would be a matter prohibited by the Act; and so if goods were loaded for the purpose of bringing back slaves in the vessel in question, or in some other way, or whether that were a matter left undecided at the commencement of the adventure, and to be determined as might be found convenient for the accomplishment of it—in any of these cases, the crime charged in this indictment would be committed, the prohibition of the Act would have been violated. The Act would have been very imperfect indeed, if it had prohibited slave-trading, and had not prohibited 0071 63 any dealing of that description except when the same vessel was to bring home slaves. They had heard from one of the witnesses—one honestly conversant with what took place at the slave-trading stations on the coast of Africa—that it frequently happened that slaves were brought home in a different vessel from that which carried out goods, which were the funds for the purchase of the slaves. That was the nature of the offence, and he did not think there would be any very great difficulty in some of the preliminary questions which must of course be considered on this occasion. One was, whether the prisoner at the bar did at all despatch or employ the Augusta, or did at all load any goods on board; because, although a person might employ a vessel and load goods on board quite innocently, and this might be by no means conclusive of his guilt, or that he had employed the vessel or loaded goods for the purposes alleged in this indictment, yet, if it had not been shown that the prisoner at the bar did employ the vessel and load the goods, the inquiry would have been stopped, because the motive never could have been brought in question, and there would have been an end, or perhaps no beginning, of the inquiry. But, with respect to that part of the case, he supposed there was no doubt, as none seemed to be made by the prisoner, who did not dispute that he employed this vessel to load goods on board. He said that he did it as the English agent of Messrs. Martinez and Co., and that he did it without knowing what the purpose was for which the vessel was employed, if it were employed for the slave-trade; and that he did put goods on board, a considerable cargo, as appeared from the dockets in evidence, to some thousands of pounds; and the vessel was despatched with the knowledge of the prisoner, through his agency, to the Gallinas, on the coast of Africa. So roach did not seem to be in dispute. Then the matters in dispute were two. The first was, whether this vessel was despatched for the purpose of the slave-trade at all, and if not, there was an end of all question; because, if there were no intention of slave-trading, neither the prisoner nor any one else was guilty of the violation of the law charged in this indictment. One question was, whether there was a slave adventure contemplated by the ship Augusta on her voyage to the Gallinas. Unless, therefore, they decided in the affirmative that a slave adventure was contemplated, there was no case made out against the prisoner. It had been contended on the part of the prisoner, not in a separate form, he thought, but rather mixed up with the other parts of the case, that it was no slave adventure at all—that the ship went to the Gallinas loaded with goods, not for the purpose of dealing in slaves, but either without any purpose at all, or for some lawful purpose. It must have gone either to deal in slaves, or else for some other purpose of dealing, or else without any purpose of dealing at all. They could not say that there were any other than those possibilities. Now, it was contended, that at any rate the ship did not go for the purpose of the slave-trade. If they were of that opinion—that no 0072 64 slave-trading was contemplated by anybody, that that was not the object of the voyage, there was an end of all further question. But supposing that they should think there was a slave-trading in contemplation—that this vessel went out to the Gallinas upon a slave adventure—still, however, they might be convinced of that, there came the important question—and an important question it was—the only question to which the evidence as to character went, whether the prisoner was cognizant of the fact. Now, he thought it clear from the evidence that the Gallinas was a place—described by three witnesses of great experience, two of them captains in the navy, and the third a colonel who was governor of a district in the neighbourhood, the employment of all whom was mainly to watch the slave-coast, of which Gallinas formed a part, and to contribute to put down the slave-trade—they had heard, he said, from those witnesses, that the Gallinas was a place of slave-trading, and of no other trade at all. It seemed that the Gallinas was a river navigable for vessels of some size for ten or twelve miles, interspersed with islands; and that there were, until they were destroyed some time ago, about six establishments, called barracoons, which seemed to be very large barns or building, in which 500 or 600 negroes were confined, when they were brought from up the country, until they could be exported in vessels carrying on the slave-trade. Those barracoons had, as appendages to them, storehouses for the various stores wanted for the negroes, and a few places of residence for the Europeans, from fifteen to thirty, who lived there. There was nobody else, nothing except two or three negro villages or towns, not places of any trade; there were no inhabitants but these uncivilized people. The country produced nothing, and exported nothing, but slaves. That was the description given of the place. It was said, and he thought with great probability, that the Gallinas was not, and is not, generally known as a slave-dealing place: in fact, it seemed to be not generally known at all; but it seemed to be a likely place where any other description of felons might resort to concert their schemes and hide their stolen goods, not likely to be known to any honest persons except to those employed as police in aid of justice, such as these captains were, and would not be spoken of even by those who knew it very well. There might be slave-dealers in London who might know it well, hut who would not talk about it—who, in fact, would hardly mention it by name in speaking to one another. It was really very probable, therefore that the place was not generally known. When any one spoke of it, it would only be as lying on the coast of Africa; and a person might be very conversant with Africa and its geography, and yet, not being connected with the slave-trade or putting it down, might not know where the Gallinas was; and very likely there might be a Gallinas in other parts of the world. But that it was itself a slave-dealing place, and nothing else, appeared very dear, he thought, on the part of the prosecution. There might be probably several persons, honest, unslave-dealing 0073 65 persons, that could be called, who knew best about it, and who would give it that character and description, and distinguish it from other parts of the coast of Africa, because there were on other parts of that coast places where slaves were sold as one article of export, and yet other things, as palm-oil, which he believed was the principal thing, and ivory and wood, were sold in immense quantities; but that was not the case with the Gallinas. Goods might be sent to other parts of the coast, and it might be intended to purchase slaves, or bring home palm-oil, or ivory, or wood, and not to have any thing to do with slaves. But it was difficult to see what a person having a cargo of goods taken to the Gallinas could intend to do with them, except to have them employed in the slave-trade. He could not intend to leave them without any trade; and, if there were a plain obvious conclusion of a person carrying goods to such a place as that, it seemed to him clear that they were carried there for the purpose of the slave-trade. If that were the simple and obvious inference, then he thought it must be held that this was a slave adventure, unless the contrary were proved. Possibly the adventure might be innocent, and not connected with the slave-trade; but, if it were, nothing was easier than to prove that Messrs. Martinez and Co. innocently engaged in this adventure, and that it was honest. If, however, it were dishonest, then it could not be expected that Messrs. Martinez or any body about them would be called; it was, indeed, not practicable. But, if innocent, it was very easy for it to have been proved. It was true that persons were to be convicted, not by imputations not proved, hut upon evidence against them—not upon suspicion, but proof; but, when such evidence was offered of trading with slave-traders as was offered here—namely, that the vessel was loaded with goods, and was despatched to a place where slave-trading was the only known object for which vessels ever went—a slave mart, and nothing hut that, as far as was shown—when they had that case, although an answerable case, yet, if the answer which could be easily given was not given, he thought it might be fairly inferred that that vessel proceeded on a slaving voyage, either for the purpose of bringing home slaves, or of landing goods for the purposes of the slave-trade. That was the first question they would have to consider—viz., whether, considering the nature of this case, and that the vessel was chartered to go from England to the Gallinas, upon the coast of Africa—that being the place, and the only place, mentioned in the charter-party for the outward voyage—for, after going to the Gallinas, the charter-party went on to say she might be employed at the West Indies, or at Madeira, at the discretion of the charterers—the first question, he said, they had now to consider was, whether, in their judgment, upon this occasion, the vessel did not sail for the purpose of being herself employed, or having goods on board to be employed, in trading for slaves. If they were not satisfied of that—if there were any doubt—they need not trouble themselves any further, but the F 0074 66 prisoner ought to be acquitted. He would not read over the evidence which established the facts he had mentioned—namely, of the purchase and the charter-party; they had heard that read, and they also had heard what the prisoner said in his evidence, that he did despatch the vessel, and that his house were the agents in sending the vessel abroad, and of putting the goods on board; and they also had heard what these captains had said at great length. He need not, therefore, read that evidence over. (The Foreman, No, my Lord.) If, then, they were satisfied that it was a slave-trading transaction, the second and important question was, whether the prisoner was cognizant of that matter. It was certainly a very grave and serious charge, and one of a highly penal nature. It was, however, down to a recent period, a lawful trade, and many persons in this country, and men of very good character, did certainly engage in it. A great many persons justified it, and he supposed they would say, it was merely a prohibited thing—a regulation of trade, made and enforced by very severe penalties by this country; but that dealing in slaves in itself was a lawful, right, good, and proper thing, that ought not to be prohibited. Many persons might, even now, consider it only as a thing prohibited by positive regulation. However persons might deny it, there was a practical distinction. There was no one who, in point of feeling and opinion, did not perceive the difference there was between a thing which was prohibited by positive law, and that kind of thing which, if there were no law against it, the natural sense and conscience of mankind would revolt against. This trading in slaves was, in the opinion of a great many people, and, as he thought, rightly so, in itself an abomination—a thing that ought to be regarded with the greatest horror, whether prohibited or not. But those who thought it was right, but prohibited, would probably not think it so very bad, if committed now, although it had been prohibited by law. Of course, these points had some bearing upon the question of how far the consideration of character would have weight with respect to such offence. It was necessary, undoubtedly, on the part of the prosecution, that there should be a case made out of knowledge on the part of the prisoner of the purpose for which this transaction was entered into. With respect to that, the evidence was taken partly from what the prisoner said before the House of Commons; and what was in evidence in that court, was, that the house of Zulueta and Co. (of which the prisoner appeared to be an active member—with the whole proceedings in this matter he appeared certainly, from his own statement, and from the fact of his giving an instrument connected with the transaction, to have been quite conversant)—were the doers in this country apparently of whatever was done with respect to this vessel in this country; that the vessel had been called the Golupchick; that she bad been captured fitted up as a slaving vessel, with apparatus for that traffic; that she was then brought to this country and proceeded against, and ultimately sold—whether sold 0075 67 under a condemnation, and whether that was effectual or not, was not material, and did not positively appear. It was said the Russian Government claimed her, and she was given up to that Government; but it appears that she was sold at Portsmouth, and that Mr. Emanuel, of Portsmouth, or some friend for whom he acted, bought her for 600 l., and the expenses about 30 l. more; that she was then bought with money furnished by Messrs. Zulueta and Co.—it did not exactly appear by whom, but according to the evidence one would say by Jennings, who was employed as captain in the voyage in question, for 650 l., a letter having been previously written by the prisoner's house, stating to Jennings they could not give more than 500 l.; that ultimately 650 l. was paid for her. Upon the occasion that the money was paid, the witness who was examined said he sold her to two persons, Jennings and Bernardos—Bernardos being with Jennings—they were together, and paid the money. Probably one must not take that quite to the letter, this being a ship sold, not by means of a written instrument, as being the subject of a British registry, but sold as any other chattel might be sold, as a horse or bale of goods, merely by agreement between persons verbally, that the one should have the goods and the other the money; and the goods and money being handed over, the seller carrying away the money, if he saw two or three or a dozen persons present when the money was paid, leaving them to determine who was to have the goods. Mr, Emanuel, the witness called, seemed to have thought that Bernardos and the other bought the vessel; but it seemed by the charter-party that the other party (Jennings) was the only purchaser. Then, according, he thought, to a representation made by the counsel for the prisoner, the real purchasers were Martinez and Co., who wanted Jennings for some purpose, as a sort of colourable owner; as an Englishman could not, according to the laws of Spain, command a Spanish vessel. Jennings was to be made apparent owner, and that was the reason suggested for it, as desired by Messrs. Martinez. There was at the end of the charter-party a recital, “That whereas the owner Jennings was indebted to the charterers in certain sums of money, as appeared by an acknowledgment elsewhere, the earnings of the vessel should be a lien for the money.” Now that referred to another document, which other document, if they had it, would throw some light upon the transaction; which document was called for by the prosecution, but was not forthcoming. The circumstance of Jennings, the commander, being made owner for this purpose, in apparent consistency with the law of Spain, might, perhaps, account for what might on the part of the prisoner be thought inexplicable, on the supposition that any slave-trading was intended; because they said, if it were intended, why not have a ship with a Spanish owner, or owned in some other foreign way? Because then, although, perhaps, within the terms of the treaties there might have been a power of search on the part of British cruisers, yet no power was given by any treaty which F 2 0076 68 was not naturally enough watched by the party giving that power, and which might not be exceeded by those who executed it, who were not lawyers but only sea captains; and it might be much more convenient, in the event of a search, to have that sort of difficulty thrown in the way than a total absence of all difficulty, which undoubtedly existed where a ship purported to be British-owned. But then, if Jennings were an adventurer, and if he were, as was suggested, a clever intelligent person, very competent to the kind of thing to be done upon this occasion—a competent master of the vessel—supposing that slave-trading was intended, evidently requiring qualities such as he was sorry to see employed so ill—the qualities of courage, sagacity, firmness, presence of mind, and, in short, qualities not easily found, and unscrupulous readiness to employ them to commit a serious felony for the benefit of the owners employing him—a quality not to be found in every body—a man of that description, he said, would be a paramount object, the aim of a slaver being, whoever the owners might be, to elude all search, to contrive to manage the thing so that no cruiser of any country should stop her; and if such an adventure succeeded, it must be by eluding or altogether escaping search. They saw, therefore, why, consistently with the purpose of this voyage, supposing it to be a slave-trading voyage, the vessel might have been English-owned. The vessel was purchased, the sale was negotiated, in the first instance, by Messrs. Zulueta. They said they aid it for Messrs. Martinez, the charterers. The vessel was bought by either Jennings or Bernardos, Bernardos having been the captain when the vessel was called the Golupchick. Whether Martinez, or Jennings only, bought the ship, the transaction appeared to have been managed by Messrs. Zulueta, and nobody else. Then came the transaction of chartering the vessel: the vessel was chartered subject to that proviso at the end, and that charter was negotiated entirely by Messrs. Zulueta. He would suppose there were such persons as Messrs. Martinez and Co., and it might be fairly taken that there were. The evidence of there being such persons was, that the prisoner said so in his evidence before the House of Commons. The negative, if it were not true, was a thing easily proved, and yet had not been proved. And here he felt that the observation made by the learned counsel for the prisoner upon the statement of the prisoner before the Committee, was well-founded as far as it applied to that particular part of the evidence, that if it were not true, the contrary might be proved; though that was not true to the extent the learned counsel went, because there might be many statements in that evidence before the House of Commons, which the prosecutor would not have been allowed to prove untrue; he meant all those not connected with this particular transaction; there were many things in that evidence which, he apprehended, if false, it was not competent to the prosecutor to prove false in this transaction; yet, he said, that not being the case with regard to this circumstance of the existence of Messrs. Martinez, ha thought it might be assumed from the evidence 0077 69 that there were such persons, and that they appeared to have agents, Messrs. Zulueta, in this country; and taking that to be so, whatever was done by Messrs. Martinez in this country was as much done by Messrs. Zulueta and Co., as if they had done it for themselves. They negotiated the charter-party, despatched the vessel, and put on board the goods. These goods appeared from the cockets to have been entered in the name of Jennings; but he did not know that that was a circumstance of any suspicion; it was not proved to be out of the way, and he did not see any good reason for suspecting its integrity. However, that was for them to consider. It seemed to him, therefore, that Zulueta stood in a very different situation from that which was put a considerable number of times by the learned counsel for the prisoner, viz., in the situation of a person who was simply a manufacturer and dealer in goods, and who had a quantity of those goods ordered. Such a person might say, supposing it to be an order for gunpowder, “Where shall I send it?” and the answer might be, “Oh, send it on board the Augusta, now at Liverpool.” It would be a strong thing to infer from that circumstance. that the person sending the gunpowder had any thing to do with slave-trading; but that did not seem to be this transaction. Supposing there was a slave-trading, all the slave-trading that was done in this country was done by Messrs. Zulueta and Co.; they appeared to have no other agent; and not merely did they have some goods sent on board the ship, but they chose the number of goods, and sent on board the goods they themselves bought, and made out the charter-party for the vessel to proceed to Gallinas, on the coast of Africa. That was, he thought, pretty nearly all the evidence there was in the case. There was, first, the evidence of the captains on the subject whether it was a slaving voyage, and then there was the conduct of Messrs. Zulueta and Co. in buying the vessel, loading it, and despatching it to the Gallinas. Messrs. Zulueta were no doubt merchants of very great and extensive connexions and concerns, and the prisoner particularly was a person of great knowledge and education; and, generally speaking, one would say, that as merchants (though this was matter for them to consider, he did not know it could be put higher than this) they were persons of great skill and experience; they had the sole management and direction of the vessel for the voyage to this particular place; that place not being without suspicion, the vessel also being one that had been used for the purposes of the slave-trade—not but that a vessel might be used innocently afterwards—still that circumstance had directed their attention a little to that matter, and they particularly directed, it appeared, that every thing connected with the slave-trade should be taken away before she was despatched; and he should certainly say, that that would be done whether the vessel was going on a slave expedition or not, because, before sending out a vessel, it was stated that the officers of the Government always examined it, particularly before any vessel went to Africa. Probably that was so; it was so 0078 70 stated on the part of the prisoner, and therefore it was quite a matter of course. But, if a vessel was intended for the promotion of the slaw-trade, she would not go out with any slave apparatus, shackles, or leagores, on board; if they were on board, the vessel would never get over the bar of the Mersey; as to getting to Africa, that was quite out of the question. He thought, therefore, that the circumstance of the shackles, and those great tubs called leagores, being found on board at Portsmouth, was not any thing at all to help on the case for the prosecution, because undoubtedly the vessel had been a slaver, fitted up for the purpose, and had all those things naturally on board; and as naturally, whether intended for the slave-trade or not, they would have been taken away, and they (the jury) would find that that was so. The circumstance, therefore, of their being on board when the schoolmaster and cooper saw them at Portsmouth, was a circumstance that did not appear to him to be any thing against her; but, on the other hand, the circumstance of their being taken oat and landed did not appear to him any thing for her, because those two things would take place, whether the voyage was innocent or guilty. He had not before adverted to these things being on board, and he only mentioned it now because, although it seemed to him to have no weight in fact, yet, as it might have a colourable weight on the part of the prosecution, and might have been brought in for that purpose, it appeared to him that they were not to lay any stress upon it. He had already observed, that though people in general might not be well aware of this trade, still persons not extremely simple, but skilful and experienced individuals, might be taken to know what had been the object with which the voyage had been undertaken, particularly when they themselves had been the agents, buying, chartering, loading, and despatching the ship for that very voyage. It might he that the object had been concealed from them, or that they might not know that certainly this voyage to the Gallinas was a slave expedition; it might be that simple persons, who had no special acquaintance with trade, might not even know where Gallinas was, or that it was on the coast of Africa, and that a shipment to such a place would not speak to the mind of an ordinary man that it was a den where slave traffic, and nothing else, was carried on. But this vessel had been sent out and despatched by skilful persons, who had negotiated the whole transaction. Again, people generally must be taken to know what they were about, unless they could show some concealment—some hindrance to their knowing that this was exclusively a slave-trade place, as it really seemed to be. But supposing a case was made out which required an answer—supposing that there was a slave, trade, and that a vessel was employed and loaded for that business, that certainly would be a case raising a certain degree of presumption against a person who conducted the affair, and one would be very glad if a good answer in point of fact had been given in the present case. It had been said on the part of the prisoner, first, that this was not a slaving 0079 71 voyage. Now, if it were a slaving voyage, there being a case to answer, the answer might exist, though it might be impossible to give it; but supposing it were not a slaving expedition, the answer might be given with the greatest ease, and no reason had been suggested why that answer had not been given If the firm of Martinez and Co., having a house at Cadiz and another at the Havannah, had not themselves sent out this vessel for the purpose of the slave-trade, if they were quite innocent of the matter, then one or all of them, or some of their clerks, might with the greatest case have been called. The jury would observe, that there was no want of funds for the purposes of the defence, and any one of those individuals would have put an end to the matter almost in a word. They could have said, “these goods were never intended for”—and could have filled up the blank in a satisfactory manner, and have shown the purpose for which they were shipped, and thus the whole question could have easily been answered. Now, that answer had not been given. Supposing the jury should be of opinion, however, that this had not been a slave-trading expedition, then there would be an end of the case; but supposing they should be of a contrary opinion, then they would come to the anxious and important question—namely, whether the prisoner was cognizant of it. It had been alleged that the prisoner was not the exclusive manager of the concerns of his house; it was not likely that he should have been so. Still, so far as appeared, he had full cognizance of this particular matter; but, considering the great and exclusive part taken by the firm (of which the prisoner was one member) in the transaction in question of despatching the vessel—supposing, on that consideration, the jury should think the case was one which required an answer to be given to it, then it would be for them to say whether they might not have had an answer, if any answer existed. The prisoner was not exclusively cognizant of the transactions of his house; there were, it appeared, two other partners; there were, besides, the clerks and various persons employed by the firm, all or any of whom might have been called. But the defence was, that the character of the house was so high, and the gain arising from the transaction for the house of Martinez and Co. so extremely small, that it could not be doubted the firm and the prisoner were wholly without blame. With regard to the latter point, he (Mr. Justice Maule) did not suppose the jury would think that for the paltry gain arising from the particular transaction, the prisoner would have been party to any thing improper; but it must be borne in mind, that Martinez and Co. were valuable correspondents in reference to good and unobjectionable business, and it was possible that such a firm, having a large and valuable business, might have some small portion which the agent would willingly get rid of if he could, but that he weald not be allowed to pick and choose, and therefore he must take all in order to keep his correspondents. But the smallness of gain was one of the grounds on which the defence was put. The other ground was the high chacter 0080 72 and reputation of the firm. Now, inasmuch as it appeared there were two other partners besides the prisoner, and as probably there were some others acquainted with the business of the house, there arose this consideration—it was quite true, that, supposing there was a case of slave-trading, but that the prisoner was innocent of it, he could not call Martinez and Co. as witnesses, because they would not be innocent parties, and besides they were out of this country, and it could not be expected that they would be willing to come to that court and say, “We are slave-traders, but we disguised and concealed that fact from Zulueta and Co.;” but supposing the jury thought the case required an answer, there could have been no difficulty in calling the prisoner's two partners and other parties conversant with the business of Zulueta and Co., to prove that they knew nothing whatever of dealing in slaves, that they had not the least suspicion that Martinez and Co. were engaged in that traffic, and that Martinez and Co. had never communicated any thing of the kind to them. All this the partners could have proved, and it was extremely, desirable it should have been done, if the defence existed in point of fact. In short, there were two modes of answering the charge. The one was this—the prisoner called a great number of persons to show how very unlikely it was the firm, from its high character, should engage in such transactions; the other was, to call two, three, or four persons to show, that even if Martinez and Co. were guilty, the prisoner did not know it. The former of these two modes had been adopted, and the jury had now the whole case before them. He did not think it necessary to go further into the evidence, having stated sufficiently its sum and effect. If the jury, therefore, were satisfied that the voyage in question was a slave-trading expedition, it would then become their duty to consider whether the prisoner was cognizant of it, and shipped the goods for the purpose of accomplishing the object of slave-trading; and in considering that point, they would give such weight (subject to the observations he had made with respect to the defence which might have been made) as was due to the very high character the prisoner had received—a character which would be very strong and almost conclusive evidence, supposing the case did not admit of an answer in point of fact; but, if a man had the means, when charged with an act, of showing he did not do it, but instead of that merely said, “I will show it is extremely unlikely I should do it,” it was for the jury to say how far they attached weight to that mode of defence. The case was, however, entirely in their hands. They must be satisfied that slave-trading was contemplated, and that the prisoner was cognizant of it, before they could pronounce a verdict of guilty.

One of the Jury inquired whether they could find a verdict on any one count of the indictment?

Mr. Justice Maule replied, he did not see that it was necessary the jury should trouble themselves with any particular count. The great question for them was the knowledge and intention of the 0081 73 prisoner; there could be no doubt he both despatched the vessel, and loaded the goods.

The Jury then retired, and the prisoner withdrew to a seat at the back of the dock, and maintained during the absence of the Jury the same calmness and composure which characterized his demeanour throughout the entire proceedings.

After an interval of upwards of an hour and a half, the Jury returned into court, and, through their foreman, delivered a verdict of Not Guilty. The announcement was received with partial cheers.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas, addressing the Court, said, that there was another indictment for a minor offence against the prisoner, but as it involved the same facts, and as he believed the same result would follow as that just announced, it would not be proceeded with. In making this statement, he could not avoid alluding to an observation which had been made in reference to himself by his learned friend, Mr. Kelly, in the course of his address on behalf of the prisoner. It had been said that he had withheld letters and documents that were essential to the prisoner. On behalf of the prosecution and of himself, he (Mr. Serjeant Bompas) begged to state that none of the letters or documents would in the slightest degree have been useful, or he would have produced them.

Mr. F. Kelly begged to state (and he did so with the utmost possible sincerity) that he had never intended to say any thing personally reflecting upon his learned friend, than whom no gentleman at the bar was more undeserving of any personal observation.

The Jury were then again sworn to try the second indictment, and the prisoner was again given in charge.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas stated that no evidence would be offered on the part of the prosecution.

The Jury immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas: This has been a case of great importance, and heavy expenses have been incurred. Will your Lordships allow the expenses?

Mr. Justice Maule: Yes, I think it was a very proper matter to be investigated.

0082 74

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

The Committee regard this important trial, together with the preliminary narrative, as laying a just foundation for the following deductions:—

1. That, in point of fact, British capital is employed in the African slave-trade; and that British merchants, whether guilty or innocent, are the agents in this country of foreign slave-traders, and, as such agents, transact all the commercial business required for their purposes.

2. That evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of the agent a foreign slave-trader, is all but inaccessible. First, because that which is done out of the country, although it may be amply sufficient to prove the illegal purpose of that which is done within it, is yet no evidence in law against the agent. And secondly, because (the presumption in law being always in favour of an accused party) if a legal and an illegal purpose will equally explain or account for the acts done by the agent, he is entitled to the benefit of the most favourable construction. Hence it seems necessary that, in reference to slave-trading transactions, the legislature should declare expessly what shall be taken as evidence of guilty knowledge, and that they should in this case relax considerably the present strict rules observed by the courts.

3. That, although the partial burst of applause elicited in the Court by Zulueta's acquittal may be resolved for the most part into an esprit de corps, extensively animating the mercantile community, it also gives rise to a painful doubt, whether indirect slave-trading is regarded by commercial men with a just abhorence, and whether the principle of it may not be considered even as legitimate.

4. That the finding of the Grand Jury, and the awarding of costs to the prosecutor by the Judges, on the ground that the case was a fit one for inquiry, lead strongly to an opinion that the Parliamentary investigation of so serious a subject was conducted with discreditable haste and unskilfulness, resembling too nearly a willingness that the merits of the transaction should not be brought to light.

5. That the mysterious and unexplained inaction of the law officers of the Crown, even after the Grand Jury had found a true bill against Zulueta, bears a painful appearance of an unwillingness 0083 75 on the part of the Government to incur the odium of prosecuting men of mercantile eminence, even to the sacrifice of the great objects and principles of their public duty.

6. That it is altogether inexpedient and unsafe to place the representatives of commercial interests on any committee, whose duty it is to inquire into slave trading offences.

7. That the clearing out of the Augusta from Portsmouth without proper papers is highly discreditable to the authorities of that port; and that is ought to be made a matter of special inquiry, with a view to ascertain by what intrigue, or by whose official carelessness, it was effected.

8. That the attention of Parliament ought to be directed to the deception practised on the legislature by Mr. Pedro de Zulueta, in representing to the Committee that the loss on the cargo of the Augusta had been claimed by his firm, and paid by the underwriters. A falsehood so deliberate, and framed for the purpose of misleading the Committee in relation to the true nature of the transaction under inquiry, must be deemed culpable, and even insulting, in the highest degree: and, in order to vindicate its own honour, and the integrity of its proceedings, the House of Commons can scarcely do less than make the allegation a matter of searching inquiry. If proved, the charge should become the ground of a prosecution also.

9. That the great difficulties experienced in the course of this trial, and the extended ramifications of the slave-trading interest developed by it, add great weight to the opinion, that the only effectual means of abolishing the slave-trade is the abolition of slavery.