Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Viscount Courtenay.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Foster.
Mr. W. Hamilton.
Sir R. H. Inglis.
Mr. Milnes.
Mr. Wilson Patten.
Lord Stanley.
Mr. G. W. Wood.
VISCOUNT SANDON, in the chair.
_Pedro de Zulueta_, Jun. Esq. called in; and examined.
10370. _Chairman._] You have seen some statements that have been made to
this Committee upon the subject of a transaction in which your house was
engaged; have you any observations to offer upon it?--I received from
the Clerk of the Committee a letter accompanying a copy of certain
evidences, which are Mr. Macaulay’s evidence of the 10th of June, the
14th of June, and the 15th of June; and Captain Hill’s evidence of the
29th of June, the 4th of July, and the 6th of July. I would beg, first
of all, to refer to the letter which I had the honour to address to the
Chairman. My reason for wishing to be examined before this Committee
was, that the statements contained in the evidence which I have
mentioned are all of them more or less incorrect, some of them totally
so. I will begin by stating what has been the nature of our, I will not
say trade, for we have not had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion
with the shipment of goods to the coast of Africa. We have been
established as merchants for upwards of 70 years in Spain, for nearly 20
years in this country, and we have had connexions to a large extent in
Spain, and in the Havannah, and in South America, and several other
places; among them we have had connexions or commercial intercourse with
the house of Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and with Blanco &
Cavallo of Havannah. With them we have carried on a regular business in
consignments of sugars and of cochineal, which they have made to us; and
in specie received by the packets from Mexico and other places. We have
several times acted for them here in this country, buying raw cotton for
instance at Liverpool, and re-selling it very largely; that has been
principally with Pedro Martinez & Co.
10371. They are general merchants?--They are general merchants, and
their transactions with us have been of that nature. As general
merchants we have bought stock here for them rather largely; and in the
course of those transactions we have received orders from Don Pedro
Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez of Cadiz, to
ship goods for the coast of Africa; never from Pedro Blanco, and never
from Blanco & Cavallo.
10372. Have you received orders from Pedro Martinez for shipments for
the coast of Africa?--Yes; in the course of business we have received
orders to ship goods upon the funds in our hands belonging to them; and
we have shipped the goods described in the letter, and sent the bills of
lading to Pedro Martinez; but beyond that we have never had any returns
from the coast of Africa, nor any control of any kind from the moment
the cargoes left the ports of this country.
10373. You have had no interest in the result of the venture?--No, nor
any notice, nor any acquaintance, nor any correspondence with any one
upon the coast; we have never had any kind of knowledge, either
subsequently or previously, of the shipments, except the mere fact of
buying the goods and shipping them.
10374. Your whole interest was a commission upon the
transaction--Entirely. The extent of those transactions has been so
limited in the course of nearly 20 years that we have been in this
country, that the amount of the invoices that we have sent out has been
something like 20,000_l._ or 22,000_l._ in the course of all that time.
That is one part of the operations we have performed. The other
operations are the acceptance of bills drawn by people on the coast;
among them Pedro Blanco when he was there, upon ourselves, on account of
Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which Blanco & Cavallo had in
our hands: for instance, the people at the Havannah, or in Spain, open a
credit with us, and we accept the bills of the parties on that credit
with us, just the same as we should do with any other correspondent in
any other part.
10375. You would have funds in your hands, arising from some commercial
transactions between you and the Havannah merchant or the Cadiz
merchant; and Pedro Blanco, upon the coast of Africa, would draw upon
the credit of those funds, being authorised by the Cadiz or the Havannah
merchant?--Yes; and if Pedro Blanco had drawn 5_s._ beyond that, we
should have protested, and in some instances we have protested. With
regard to the vessel alluded to in this Report, the Augusta, our part in
that concern has been simply that which appears from one of the letters:
that is to say, Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, had made choice of Jennings to
buy the vessel, and lent him money to buy the vessel; because Pedro
Martinez wanted him to have a vessel in the trade, for the purpose of
taking his goods to their destination. I have now described the three
kinds of operations in which we have been concerned, and our knowledge
of all of them terminated with the execution of the orders of our
correspondents. We had nothing more to do than to follow the orders of
the purchaser in shipping the goods. With regard to the purchase of the
vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a man who has been employed some time by
Martinez; he has served Martinez as a chartered captain, and Martinez
having been satisfied with his services, agreed to lend him that money
on the security of the vessel, provided it did not exceed a certain
amount; which was all the interference we had with it, just to see that
a certain amount was not exceeded, 500_l._ or whatever it was.
10376. Then you were to furnish Captain Jennings with money for the
purchase within a limited amount, say 500_l._, credit being given to him
upon you by Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz?--That is just the point.
10377. Captain _Fitzroy_.] The Augusta being purchased by money advanced
by your house for Martinez & Company of Cadiz; and she then became the
property of Pedro Martinez?--No, she became the property of Jennings;
the money was lent to Jennings, and he bound himself by giving security
on the vessel to answer for the amount. It is a mercantile operation
which is not unusual.
10378. Mr. _Forster_.] You advanced the money to Captain Jennings for
the purchase of the vessel, Jennings transferring the vessel to you as a
security for the amount so advanced?--That is just the description of
operation, which is a very general one in business.
10379. _Chairman._] What is the object of such an operation?--I know
very little or almost next to nothing of the operations in those parts
of the world; but the object of such an operation I apprehend to be
this: a vessel chartered with a stranger must be governed by the
different clauses of the charter-party; the charterer must be limited to
time and to places; and by Martinez having the vessel owned by a man
with whom he could have a better understanding than with others, he
might always send more advantageously articles from the Havannah to the
Gallinas, and from here to the Gallinas. When I say articles, I mean
legal articles.
10379*. What advantage would there be in Mr. Jennings taking the
articles rather as the owner than as captain under Martinez; was not he
commander of the vessel as well as owner of the vessel?--Yes.
10380. He is made the owner, instead of being captain?--He is the owner
as well as the captain of the vessel; he stands indebted to Martinez,
and gives a bottomry bond for the vessel.
10380*. Does Mr. Jennings upon this transaction make all the freight to
his own profit?--Certainly, whatever he does is to his own profit.
10381. He is not, then, an agent for Martinez?--No, he is a person to
whom Martinez lends the money to buy the vessel; whatever profit he
derives is his own. Martinez has this advantage, which to a mercantile
man is very perceptible, that he has got a charter with a man who stands
in that relation towards him which gives him a sort of control over the
vessel. If I as a stranger charter a vessel for Martinez, and he has
spent one, two, or five days more in landing goods than the
charter-party allows, I should make a claim for it; I should say, “You
must keep to the charter.” Now, when Jennings is indebted to him for the
favour of a loan for the vessel, he is not upon a similar footing.
10382. So that he gets the vessel more under his own control?--Yes; in
saying this I am putting an hypothetical case, but I do not know the
mind of Martinez himself.
10383. Mr. _Forster_.] You acted in this transaction merely as agent in
the usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in any part of
the world?--Exactly; if Martinez had told me, “You have got 500_l._ in
your hands, pay that to Captain Jennings,” I should have known nothing
more of the transaction; I should have paid the money. But Martinez did
not wish to go beyond a certain amount; and he says, “You exercise
control, do not allow the man to pay more than 500_l._ for the vessel.”
10384. But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of the
goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions were
entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?--Most assuredly; except
with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any
thing with him in any way.
10385. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Though the process of hypothecating a vessel
may be usual between British merchants, is it usual to cover a
transaction of Spanish slave trade with the British flag, by means of
such an arrangement as that described to have taken place in the case of
the Augusta?--In order to answer that question, it seems to me that it
is fair that I should ask where is the transaction of covering, and
where is the slave trade transaction? I know positively of my own
knowledge, that there is no such thing at all connected with the
Augusta. If I had an opportunity, I could make my affidavit of that.
10386. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Do you mean that you know that the Augusta
was not engaged in any slaving transactions during the voyage upon which
she left Liverpool?--Most assuredly not; in fact my testimony is hardly
required of that, because every thing proves that. When she was
detained, it was never said that she was upon a slaving operation at
all. Before she left this port, after she was bought, she was completely
rendered useless for that purpose.
10387. _Chairman._] The charge is, that she was engaged in carrying
goods to a person engaged in the slave trade; not that she was engaged
in the slave trade herself?--I most certainly say that I do not know
whether the person is so engaged or not.
10388. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Is it usual to cover a transaction of Spanish
trade with the English flag?--I am not aware that a Spanish merchant is
prohibited chartering an English vessel.
10389. But is it lawful to employ the British flag to cover a vessel
that is not owned by a British subject?--I say that that vessel is owned
by a British subject.
10390. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] By whom?--By Captain Jennings.
10391. Was not the money with which she was purchased, the money of
Pedro Martinez?--It seems to me that English captains and English
subjects are not prohibited from borrowing money from Spaniards; she was
bought with money lent by Pedro Martinez to Captain Jennings for the
purpose.
10392. Do you mean that the money was a loan to Captain Jennings, at
the time he paid it for the vessel?--It was a loan to Captain Jennings.
10393. Do you mean that the ship was then Captain Jennings’s
property?--It was.
10394. Was it in his power to sell that ship at any port he
pleased?--There was a mortgage upon the vessel.
10395. Mr. W. _Patten_.] You have stated that yours is an agency
trade?--It is so; and in the multitude of business, any one can
understand that 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years, can only be a mere trifle
in the business of any merchant, without laying claim to a large
business; and in following that business, we have executed shipping
orders.
10396. To what part of the coast of Africa has that business been
chiefly conducted?--I believe, almost exclusively to the Gallinas.
10397. Have the goods that Mr. Martinez has ordered to be sent to the
Gallinas, been all sent to the same individual?--No, to different
individuals; sometimes to Pedro Blanco, who was for a certain time an
agent of Pedro Martinez on the coast, and sometimes we have sent a bill
of lading drawn in this way to order; we have sent it to Pedro Martinez
as a voucher against his account.
10398. Do you know the nature of the trade of Pedro Martinez at the
Gallinas?--I know from general report that Don Pedro Martinez himself is
supposed to deal in slaves, and I believe it is so.
10399. Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer in slaves?--I do not
know, but I believe so; I do not know why it should not be known at the
Havannah, if it is known in other parts.
10400. _Chairman._] Is a ship which is hypothecated, liable to be
foreclosed at any moment, at the discretion of the mortgagee?--It
depends altogether upon the terms of the mortgage; if the mortgagee
says, “You must give me the money when I ask for it,” of course he must
sell the vessel if he has not got any thing else; he would always have
to deduct whatever freight had been earned. When the security may be
called upon to be effective, depends upon the nature of the transaction
between the parties.
10401. Mr. _Forster_.] Your house had nothing to do with any letters
that might be put on board the Augusta after she sailed from this
country?--Nothing whatever.
10402. The Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa, on the charge of
slave trading?--I believe that was the case.
10403. Did you not appeal against that condemnation?--Yes, there is an
appeal by the owner.
10404. Before the Privy Council?--Yes.
10405. That appeal is not yet decided?--I believe not.
10406. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] You stated that your transactions with
Africa for Martinez have amounted to about 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years.
What has been the amount of your whole transactions with Blanco &
Martinez of the Havannah during that period?--Perhaps 100,000_l._ or a
larger sum. For instance, we have received more than 40 or 50 cargoes of
sugar from the Havannah, consigned to us, and cigars; and we have
received bills of lading of specie shipped at Mexico to be sold here,
and bar gold, and things of that sort.
10407. Mr. _Wood_.] Have you reason to suppose that the whole of that
large commerce is subservient to the carrying on of the slave trade by
the house of Blanco & Martinez at the Havannah?--I do not know; I know
that they have large transactions in general business. I know that a
short time ago I got 40,000_l._ or 50,000_l._ of Spanish bonds in the
market for Martinez. I know that he is a large speculator in Spanish
bonds and in securities of state.
10408. Is that speculating in Spanish bonds on account of the house at
Cadiz, or the house at Havannah?--Speaking technically, I should say it
was on account of the Cadiz house.
10409. The question related to the commerce of the Havannah
house?--Pedro Martinez is a Havannah merchant. But with regard to
Havannah merchants, we have received large consignments of sugar,
cochineal, and sometimes Mexican goods, brought to Havannah and shipped
to us here.
10410. In what course of business have the proceeds of those
consignments been disposed of; have they gone in sending supplies to the
coast of Africa?--Out of that large amount of money 22,000_l._ is the
amount of all the goods that we have sent to the coast of Africa in 20
years.
10411. Of all descriptions?--Of all sorts and kinds; I have gone through
the invoice-book and found them out.
10412. Have the proceeds generally been disposed of by drafts from the
parties themselves to your house?--By the parties at Havannah, when the
exchange turns to their advantage.
10413. Have you reason to suppose that a large portion of the trade that
they carry on at the Havannah is the slave trade?--I had no reason to
know any thing of the kind; I have known more of their transactions with
the slave trade since these things have been mooted than I ever knew
before; I have had more knowledge of these things lately than I ever had
in my life before; and when I say “I,” I beg to state that I ought to
state “we,” for all my partners are in the same situation.
10414. Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah to ship
manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for the
African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of the
same kind as those that were in the “Augusta;” cotton goods and other
things of that sort.
10415. Has that been recently?--In the course of our operations.
10416. How many years ago?--In the course of these 15 or 20 years that
we have been engaged in business with them; all that I could see in a
moment by my books.
10417. Have you sent any goods of that description to the Havannah
recently?--Not very recently; I think not for some years.
10418. Have you sent any goods of that description since you first began
to send goods out direct to the coast of Africa?--They have been mixed;
I cannot draw a distinction between the two destinations; some have gone
to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.
10419. Have those supplies of English manufactured goods, which
heretofore went to the Havannah, to be used there for promoting the
slave trade, been more recently sent direct from this country to the
coast of Africa?--No, I do not think that is the case; I should think
the contrary is more likely to be the case, but I think we have shipped
in some months, or in some years, partly to the Havannah, and partly to
the Gallinas.
10420. If the coast of Africa be their ultimate destination, will not
they go out at a cheaper cost to the owner if they go direct from this
country, than if they go circuitously first to Havannah, and then to the
coast of Africa?--I think that is very doubtful indeed, because the
freights to Havannah are so miserably low that I believe they can be
taken for almost nothing; in Liverpool, English vessels loading for
Havannah, load for any thing you will choose to give them.
10421. Has the trade of Pedro Martinez increased or diminished the last
few years in that particular kind of goods?--I think it is neither more
nor less: I think it is just about the same. I believe for the last
three or four years it has been less altogether to both places, but it
has diminished equally; I cannot say when it is increased in the one
part or diminished in the other.
10422. How long have you conducted the trade upon the coast of
Africa?--As I said before, I do not think we have conducted any trade on
the coast of Africa, either legal or illegal.
10423. How long have you acted as agents for Martinez, on the coast of
Africa?--As long as we have had any connexions with Martinez; it is part
and parcel of other operations; that is to say, in the multitude of
other operations that have intervened we have shipped goods as I have
said.
10424. Did that part of your operations for him spring up after your
first connexion with Martinez had commenced?--No, it is part of a mass
of business all mixed up together.
10425. Mr. _Forster_.] In the extensive transactions of your house,
these shipments, whether to Havannah or the coast of Africa, form a very
trifling proportion?--I can only leave the Committee to judge for
themselves as to that, after what I have stated.
10426. Mr. _Wood_.] What is the firm of the house at Havannah?--Pedro
Martinez & Co.; the Cadiz house is Pedro Martinez only, without the
company. Blanco & Carvalho was the firm some time ago: it is now Blanco
& Co.
10427. Are the answers which you have given in relation to one of these
houses equally applicable to both of them?--There is some difference
between them: but in regard to the general business of both of them,
what applies to the one applies to the other. I have the same general
business with both, and the smallest part of the business has been the
shipment of goods, whether to Havannah or to the coast of Africa. The
shipments apply to Martinez only.
10428. Have you shipped English manufactured goods direct to the coast
of Africa, on behalf of both those houses?--Such goods as were in the
Augusta I have shipped for one party only. With regard to the house of
Blanco & Carvalho, and the house of Pedro Martinez & Co., with both of
them I have carried on a general large business. But to Blanco &
Carvalho I never shipped a single piece of goods of any kind, except
some sugar mills to the Havannah; and with regard to the house of Pedro
Martinez, we have shipped such goods as those by the Augusta.
10429. From your general knowledge of the trade of the house of Pedro
Martinez & Co., is it your opinion that the goods which you so shipped
to the coast of Africa were destined to be employed in the slave
trade?--I do not know; they may be, for any thing that I know.
10430. Has it come within your knowledge that the house of Martinez &
Co. are exporters from Africa of the native produce of Africa?--No,
because I never tried to get any knowledge of their transactions there
of any sort.
10431. Have you ever received consignments from them, or on their
behalf, of palm-oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the coast of
Africa?--Never; we never have received any thing from the coast of
Africa whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will perhaps
appear strange to the Committee that I should not know more of the coast
of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had shipped to the
amount of 100,000_l._ to the coast of Africa, or carried on any
considerable trade there, we should certainly have known more about the
coast of Africa; but in transactions of a very large amount, an invoice
occasionally of about 2,000_l._ or 3,000_l._ of goods was a thing that
we sent as a matter of course, and did not trouble our heads about,
especially as the remuneration we got was a mere trifle, not of itself
worth pursuing, if it had not been for the general business we had.
10432. _Chairman._] Is there any other part of the evidence which has
been given that you wish to observe upon?--It is asked here, in Question
5086, “Who was he?” the answer is, “The name is mentioned in the
Parliamentary Papers as being connected with the purchase of a slave
vessel, Mr. Kidd; and it is mentioned in connexion with that of Mr.
Zulueta of London.” Now, as to Mr. Kidd, the very first thing I ever
knew or ever heard of his name was to see it here. I never heard of his
name at all. I never had a letter from him or through him, or knew any
thing of the man whatever. That is with regard to myself. With regard to
my partners, I can say the same; I have been making inquiries about it.
My father knew there was such a man upon the coast, but I did not know
even that, though I have managed all this business. Our house never had
a letter from the man, or knew any thing about him.
10433. You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in any way?--No, nor any
knowledge of him. Then in the next answer it is said “Zulueta the
gentleman in London to whom the vessel was sent, and who sold her again
to her former Spanish owner, is a name well known on the coast in
connexion with the slave trade.” Now what is known on the coast I really
cannot pretend to say; but I believe that not many persons can say that
which I can say, that neither myself, nor my father, nor my grandfather,
nor any body in our firm, has ever had any kind of interest of any sort,
or derived any emolument or connexion from the slave trade. My father
had at one time an interest in a bankrupt’s estate at the Havannah, upon
which he was a creditor. There were some slaves on the estate, and they
formed part of the property assignable to the creditors, and my father
got the slaves assigned to him; because the other gentlemen and the
creditors were not of the same opinion, he got them assigned to him, and
made them free; and that is all the connexion we have ever had with any
slaves in the world. I do not know how far that may be considered
irrelevant to the point, but I state it because we are here mentioned
three or four times as connected with slave dealers, as a name well
known in connexion with the slave trade. That sort of statement is
rather a difficult thing to deal with.
10434. If it is meant to insinuate by these observations that you ever
had any other connexion with the slave trade, than being the shipping
agent of goods which were sent to a man who was a dealer in slaves, you
entirely deny it?--I assure the Committee, that although I have a
general notion as to what interest Blanco and Martinez have in slaves,
yet, if I was put upon my oath to make any particular statement, I
really could not, because I do not know it. Of course I believe it; but
my personal knowledge amounts only to that which the knowledge of what
we read in a newspaper amounts to.
10435. There was nothing upon the face of the transactions which you had
with those parties which spoke of a connexion with traffic in
slaves?--Nothing whatever. It is well known, that, fifty years ago, it
was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz to insure operations in
slave trading. My house at that time were underwriters, and it was
notorious that a policy of that kind would never enter the doors of our
house; and nobody would come to offer such a thing to us upon any terms.
It is notorious, both here and in Spain, that we set our faces
distinctly against having any interest of any kind in the slave trade.
10436. It is further stated, “It appears that it is a regular thing
sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England
to him he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again to the Havannah
and come again into the trade.” Have you any observation to make upon
that?--It is all untrue, the whole of it; I never received a vessel from
those gentlemen; there has been nothing of the kind.
10437. Have you any thing further to state upon the subject?--There are
several things I have marked; for instance, such as this, “You are not
bound to suppose that a man will make a bad use of that which he
purchases.” If I wished to put my statement upon that footing, I should
have done with it in a moment, for I knew nothing of the use they were
put to. I bought goods, but as to what use was made of them I knew
nothing whatever. But that is not the position which I wish to assume.
It is said here that we sent goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco. To that I
say, that we never sent either goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco. In
answer to Question 5474 it is said by Mr. Macaulay, “I stated ‘that it
appears that it is a regular thing sending vessels to him, that is to
Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England to him he sends them to Cadiz, and
they get out again to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ My
answer was intended to describe only the course of that particular
transaction and not to apply to any other case.” I never received a
single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor any body for us.
10438. Mr. _Forster_.] Then that statement is entirely untrue?--Totally,
from beginning to end; we never did so, and nobody for us; and nobody to
our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in the most distinct
manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay is asked, “Have you any
thing further to say with regard to the connexion of Zulueta with the
slave trade?” The answer is, “I would refer to his connexion with the
Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case it appeared that the
vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from London.” That is the same
vessel as the Augusta, which I have already explained; it formerly bore
the name of Gollupchik.
10439. _Chairman._] Have you been concerned in the purchase of vessels
frequently for Pedro Martinez or Pedro Blanco?--We have sometimes bought
such vessels here as we could resell at the Havannah, such as the
Arrogante, which we have bought.
10440. Upon orders?--Partly on orders, and sometimes on our own account
on speculation.
10441. Mr. _Wood_.] For what particular trade were they calculated when
they reached the Havannah?--I think for the same trade which they were
calculated for when they were sold here.
10442. For the conveyance of merchandise?--As well as any thing else.
They were sold here publicly.
10443. Mr. _Forster_.] If it was legal for them to be sold here, you
considered that it was legal for you to buy them?--I never had any doubt
of the legality of buying here, or of selling them again afterwards.
10444. Mr. _Wood_.] But the questions appertaining to the carrying on of
the slave trade do not confine themselves within strictly legal grounds,
but they have other more important considerations attaching to them?--As
to that point, there may be a difference of opinion; I would be very
sorry indeed, for the sake of catching the approval of other persons, to
make a disclaimer of any particular set of opinions whatever; but I
believe the only point with which the Committee have to do, is the legal
point. As to the moral point, it seems to me, that I am to judge of
that; upon that point, I think I have stated quite enough, having stated
distinctly that I never had any connexion, nor derived any profit from
the slave trade whatever.
10445. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] You have stated in your letter, that your
principle is, that of “not wishing to derive profit or advantage from
the sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable or unavoidable,” and you
have acted upon that principle?--That is the principle upon which we
have acted.
10446. And you do not find that acting upon that principle has
interfered with the fair success of your commerce?--I do not think it
would; if it would, we should not care much about that, because we are
in a position which is well known to many persons here, as well as to
persons abroad. In 5495, Mr. Macaulay is asked, “What evidence have we
that Zulueta knew that in dealing with Pedro Blanco, the goods he sold
would be used for the barter of slaves.” I have said, that I had nothing
to do with him; I never sold any goods to Pedro Blanco. The answer here
is, “Any body engaged in the Spanish trade would be aware that Pedro
Blanco was the largest slave trader in the world.” It may be so, that he
is the largest in the world; but I can only say that the largest is very
little, if that is the case, for I have spoken of 22,000_l._ as being
the amount of the bills we have paid for him, which I have here
(_producing the same_), to the order of several houses established in
Sierra Leone, for goods, I suppose bought for him, amounting to about
22,100_l._ I only mention this with reference to the notoriety of his
being such a large slave dealer, that it was impossible to shut your
eyes to it. Then with respect to what is said in answer 5502, I only
wish to remark upon this, that what I have answered already I believe
applies to this. It is said, “I think that a man who viewed the slave
trade in a proper light, would have considered it improper to be so
engaged.” I have observed already upon that, that the propriety or
impropriety of our conduct is a different thing from the question
whether we have been legally or illegally engaged, although the question
with which I am now concerned is a general disclaimer of any
participation in the slave trade.
10447. You agree with Mr. Macaulay’s opinion, “That a man who viewed the
slave trade in a proper light, would have considered it improper to be
so engaged”?--I do not know whether my opinions would agree with Mr.
Macaulay’s upon this subject, but I think that a man who in any way
tried to elude the laws of his country, would be acting against his
conscience in the highest degree; that is my impression of it, and that
is what I mean to say; and with regard to the slave trade, I mean to
carry out that which I have stated in my letter, that I look upon it as
an evil, and I would wish to add nothing to that evil in any way, but to
diminish what I could of it. As to the moral criminality of all the
parties, I suppose that depends upon other considerations. Then in the
Evidence of Captain Hill, in answer to question 7161, it is stated here,
“the Custom-house officers in Liverpool may be totally ignorant of the
trade carried on at the Gallinas, and also totally ignorant of the trade
carried on by Pedro Martinez & Co. at the Havannah.” All our shipments
have been made through the Custom-house, giving the destinations of the
vessels and every thing, and what we did was illegal; we should consider
ourselves not justly treated altogether, in being allowed to do that
which we say we are going to do, and then after it is done being told it
is illegal, although before it is done we have the very sanction of the
parties to do it, because we have no concern in it beyond the shipment,
and the shipment is publicly made. In answer to Question 7165, it is
said, “I have never met a vessel belonging to Messrs. Zulueta & Co. on
the coast of Africa.” Of course, we never had one, and therefore he
never could meet with one. Then in answer to Question 7958*, Mr. Hill
states that he found a letter, dated London, 20th of August 1840,
stating, “We cannot exceed 500_l._ for the vessel in question, such as
described in your letter; if you cannot therefore succeed at those
limits, we must give up the purchase.” But he says, “there is a note to
the letter, which says, ‘According to our Liverpool mode, note, you will
go on shore to the Salthouse Dock.’” Now I have been looking at our
letter-book, and I am quite willing to suppose that the person who has
stated this might not wish, of course, to state any thing that was
incorrect; but this is altogether unintelligible to me. The Salthouse
Dock is well known to every person acquainted with Liverpool; it is one
of the docks in which vessels go and unload, and that is all. Our house
might say that our custom was to send our vessels there; we generally
do; but I do not understand this at all.
10448. _Chairman._ You do not understand what bearing it has upon the
question?--I think the words must be badly copied; there is no such
thing in our letter-book as it appears here; it is quite unintelligible
to me.
10449. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Is the other part of the letter correct,
which is stated as bearing date the 26th of September 1840?--Yes.
10450. Have you referred to your own copy of the letter?--Yes, and it is
not in our copy; but I can conceive our saying to the captain of the
vessel, go into the Salthouse Dock, because we generally send our
vessels there.
10451. Had you ever employed Jennings before?--Jennings had had charge
of vessels before, chartered by Martinez, and hence the connexion
between Martinez and Jennings. There are some captains in all trades,
that make a great deal of difficulty about every thing, and others that
do not; of course, merchants like to deal with those that do not, more
than those that do.
10452. _Chairman._] It would appear from Question 5087, that your name
is supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper, as
connected with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page 38, in
Class B. Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred to in the
answer, and see if there is any trace of your name in that
transaction?--I do not find my own name there; I only find an allusion
at the bottom to the name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in no way
connected with me, and stating a circumstance which I never knew. In
Question 7965*, it is stated, “The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her
way out from England?” The answer is, “Yes, and landed part of her cargo
at Cadiz, although it was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.” Now
Captain Hill, who has given this answer, must have known why she touched
at Cadiz, and why she discharged part of her cargo, for it must be in
the log-book of the vessel. It was because she was nearly wrecked in her
passage; she put into Cadiz in distress, and there she landed a part of
her cargo, which was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the benefit
of the underwriters. Now that has not been stated here, but I think
Captain Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of the
vessel which he took.
10453. _Chairman._] And the log-book he must have read?--I should think
so; because if he has not done that he has done nothing. All I mean to
say is that it is, an _ex parte_ statement.
10454. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] It was not intended when she left England,
that she should put into Cadiz?--Most certainly not; all the facts of
the case show that she went there because she was obliged. I have not
seen the log-book, but it must be there; because in the log-book the
captain is bound to enter those things, and whoever captured the vessel
must have seen the log-book of course. In answer to Question 7967*, it
is said, “Messrs. Zulueta must be aware that it is contrary to law to
act as agents or otherwise for the shipment of goods that are to be
employed in the slave trade; they were bound to do nothing illegal; they
are merchants residing in England, and they must conform themselves to
the laws of England, and they cannot by the laws of England plead
ignorance of those laws.” Now I and my partners are British subjects,
and therefore we are bound by the law, and we must obey the law; and I
say that to endeavour to elude the law is criminal in my estimation of
things. In the answer to Question 7970*, it is stated, “I have
endeavoured to be particular in making it appear that this vessel was
chartered to a place where there were no constituted authorities.” I
think that in the Gallinas there are constituted authorities. It is the
first time that I ever heard that it is illegal for any merchant to ship
goods for any places without ascertaining beforehand whether there are
constituted authorities there. I believe that if they like to send goods
to any place, they may do it; and as to the fact of there being
constituted authorities in the place or not, I do not see what that has
to do with the question; besides, there have been such things as
treaties made with persons at the Gallinas, so that there must be some
constituted authorities there. But I do not know why I should be called
upon to know whether there are constituted authorities at the port or
not. Then it is stated, in answer to Question 7971*, “As far as I am
able to give my own opinion, I believe that Messrs. Zulueta were
perfectly criminal, at least they had a knowledge of what they were
doing. I think I am borne out in that by the secrecy they have
endeavoured to pursue in putting in a false owner.” I have answered all
that before. I state again, that all the secrecy and mystery of the
thing lies in supposing other things different from what appear. Then it
is said, “In fact there can be no want of evidence to show that Messrs.
Zulueta had for a length of time been agents to slave dealers.” Mr.
Blanco and Mr. Martinez may have been engaged, as I have stated, in
slave operations; and I have stated that we conducted their general
business here.
10455. Mr. _Forster_.] Is not Pedro Blanco a partner in a commercial
house at the Havannah who are general merchants?--Yes, I have stated
that before.
10456. Captain _Fitzroy_.] Have you ever discounted any bill drawn by
Pedro Blanco on Pedro Martinez &. Co. for goods delivered for them on
the African coast at the Gallinas?--I have accepted bills drawn by Pedro
Blanco and others from the Gallinas upon our house, and paid them to the
order of several houses in Sierra Leone and houses in London. I have
paid them in money that I had in my hands resulting from the general
transactions of business, which I have explained. But discounting would
be this, if I had paid those acceptances before they were due, and
received some consideration for them; that I never did, but I might have
done it in the case of these bills.
10457. Were those bills negociated through your hands in payment of
goods delivered at the Gallinas?--No; they were drawn generally with the
advice attached to them, saying, I have drawn a thousand pounds upon
you for account of Blanco and Carvalho, or Blanco &, Co., at the
Havannah.
10458. Mr. _Wood_.] By whose orders were you desired to honour it; was
it by the order of Pedro Blanco at the Gallinas?--No; by the house at
the Havannah or by the house at Cadiz; sometimes the one and sometimes
the other. Blanco had a house some time ago in Malaga, as a general
merchant, occupied in shipping the fruits of the country and oil to the
United States, &c. &c. In answer to Question 7961*, the following is
stated:--“In one of these letters, dated Cadiz, 30th of November 1840,
is a paragraph to the following effect: ‘In a letter, dated London, the
21st instant, which I have just received from Messrs. Zulueta & Co.,
merchants in London, I had the pleasure of receiving a bill drawn by you
on them for 250_l._, which I this day place to their credit, waiting
your advice of the same.’” There is here certainly a mistranslation of
some kind, because it says that this man receives a bill upon us, and
credits it to us, which is of course contradictory in the very terms of
it, because if the bill was remitted to this man upon us, he would have
debited it to us, and not credited it. But altogether there is some
confusion about it; I suppose arising from the mistranslation of the
documents, because the fact is this, the bill is one of the bills I have
already mentioned, drawn from the Gallinas upon ourselves, to the order
of a third party. It is a bill drawn at the Gallinas upon ourselves, on
account of the credit, and therefore it could never have been received
by the person in Cadiz. It must have been presented to us here, and in
fact so it was; the bill is here. I wish to show that that letter is
perfectly inaccurate.
10459. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Can you give the Committee any information
upon this: “The other letters,” nine of them, “were all on slave
business: not a word of any innocent trade, but the whole directing how
slaves were to be shipped on board various vessels.” How do you account
for this vessel carrying letters upon slave business?--I account for it
in this way: first of all, it is impossible for us to answer here what
letters will be put on board a vessel at Cadiz; but there is very seldom
any communication between Cadiz and the Gallinas; whatever letters there
were must have gone by such random occasions as arose. As to the fact
that whoever wrote those letters is engaged in the slave trade, the
letters will speak for themselves.
10460. _Chairman._] Those letters were not prepared in the expectation
of the arrival of this vessel, because this vessel was not destined to
that port, and was only driven there by stress of weather?--Most
certainly. I will add one circumstance in proof of that. The vessel was
supposed to have been lost, from the circumstance of a boat having been
found upon the coast with the name of T. Jennings upon it, and it was
supposed that it was a boat belonging to the vessel; it was, in fact, a
boat from the vessel, but the vessel had not been lost; therefore the
vessel was quite unexpected in Cadiz by every soul. It went there from
stress of weather, and nothing more. Then it is said, in answer to
Question 7972*, “I think the papers are quite conclusive to the mind of
any man that Zulueta was cognizant of what he was doing; but as far as
it is an illegal transaction, it is not for me to judge; but the Judge
of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone did think it illegal, and
condemned the vessel; and moreover, the man who is put forward as
captain and owner did not defend the vessel on her trial.” Now, as to
the statement of his being a false owner, I have already stated that he
was not. But then, again, with regard to the other part of the business,
the man did not defend it, because he was prevented from defending it.
10461. How was he prevented from defending it?--He had not money to
defend himself. It appears from the protest that the vessel was
condemned without allowing Thomas Jennings to say any thing in her
defence. I will deliver in the protest, which shows that that was the
fact. (_The same was delivered in._) As to his not having money, it is
said that he might have raised money upon the cargo; but there is no one
can entertain any doubt as to the palpable contradiction of such a
statement, because to raise money upon a cargo, which was seized, over
which he had no control, is to me quite unintelligible.
10462. Mr. _Wood_.] You have spoken of some bills drawn upon your house
by Pedro Blanco, and you were understood to say that they were drawn
some of them, in favour of Sierra Leone houses. Can you inform the
Committee the names of the houses at Sierra Leone in whose favour they
were drawn?--I have no objection to do so, but I feel loath to mention
names. I could have mentioned many names; we are not the only
correspondents in London of Blanco and Martinez. With regard to those
houses at Sierra Leone, I should be sorry to introduce names, because I
know the pain I have had from mine being introduced here, but still
there is no secret in the thing.
10463. You have given the committee the names of parties drawing the
bills, and on whose account they were drawn, and you speak of their
being drawn in favour of Sierra Leone houses; have you any objection to
furnish the names of the houses in whose favour they were drawn?--I say
that I have no objection, except that I should not like to introduce
names unnecessarily; but the bills are in my hands, and any gentleman
can look at them who chooses; they are at the disposal of any body who
likes to look at them.
[_The Witness produced the bills._]
_Sabbati, 23º die Julii, 1842._