_London, 17th January, 1844._
OPINIONS OF THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES
_Referred to in_ p. lxii.
“1 & 2. There is not any thing in the Act of Parliament in question
which renders illegal a commercial dealing on the coast of Africa, in
usual lawful merchandise, though such dealing may be with a person known
to gain his livelihood by dealing in slaves, and therefore of course, an
owner or supercargo making a sale in the manner described to any such
person, does not subject himself or the ship to any of the penalties of
the Act.
“3. Independently of the above Act, an English owner, or master, or
supercargo, or other person who engages in such commercial dealing as
above described, is not guilty of any offence against the law, nor
subject to any punishment.
(signed)
“_Fred. Pollock._”
“Temple, 8 June, 1842.
(_Vide Report, West Coast of Africa, Part I_, p. 344.)
* * * * *
“1. Unless the merchant knew, when he sold the goods, that they were
used for carrying on the slave trade, I am clearly of opinion that he is
not guilty of felony. The question of knowledge will be for the Jury, if
the case is tried by a Jury, or by a Judge or Judges without a Jury, and
will depend upon the evidence that is given either of direct knowledge,
or that the circumstances were such that he must have known the
destination and occupation of the vessel and her crew.
“2. It will appear from the statutes 11th and 12th, and 46th of Geo.
III, c. 54, &c., that the merchant might be tried at Sierra Leone, and
if so, I am disposed to think that the constituted authorities at Cape
Coast would be warranted in apprehending him and sending him for trial
to Sierra Leone, as the offence committed is felony.
“3. I hardly know what precautionary measures can be adopted by the
Governor in cases where it is unknown whether the vessels are intended
for the slave trade or not. The same articles that are used for
bartering for slaves are no doubt also used in bartering for palm-oil,
elephant’s teeth, and other African products, and to prohibit all
dealing in such articles of barter would be greatly prejudicial to the
innocent trade carried on with Africa. The Governor can hardly do more
than warn merchants not to deal in such articles with suspected vessels
upon peril of the consequences.
(signed)
“_W. Wightman._”
“Inner Temple, July 8th, 1840.
(_Vide Report, West Coast of Africa, Part II, Appendix, &c._, p. 25.)
* * * * *
“If a person fitted out a vessel to traffic with slave factories and
settlements, and sold goods to those factories, out and out, though they
were such as might be used for the slave trade, as well as the innocent
commerce of the coast; and though, in point of fact, they were used in
slave trading, he was of opinion that this did not amount to slave
trading: whether it was a commendable use of capital or not, was a
different question. If the goods sent out were of such a description
that it could not be doubtful that they were to be used in the slave
trade alone, such as a cargo of fetters or other implements that could
only be employed in such a trade, he had stated that he deemed this much
more doubtful, yet he was not prepared to say that it was an act of
slave trading which would render the exporter of such articles liable to
be tried for felony. But if goods were sent, whether of one kind or the
other, whether of an ambiguous description, or plainly fitted for the
slave trade alone, and the price of the goods was to depend (as the
petitioners stated to be the fact) upon the slave trade, in which such
goods were to be employed, he had stated that his opinion was that this
was an act of slave trading, being in truth a partnership with slave
traders, and the persons exporting such goods would be guilty of a
felony within the meaning of the Abolition law.”
(_Extract from_ LORD BROUGHAM’S _Speech before the House of Lords,
Oct. 5, 1841. Vide Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. LIX, fo.
1116._)
DOCUMENTS,
_&c. &c._
R. R. GIBBONS, Esq., to Messrs. ZULUETA & CO.