Mr. _Kelly_. We shall have no dispute on those facts. That vessel,
purchased under circumstances which will probably appear more clearly
in evidence. It is stated by my friend that Zulueta and Company
purchased the ship; no doubt the house of Zulueta and Company interfered
as agents for the house of Martinez and Company. That vessel was
dispatched from England, and left England in the month of November,
1840. Whatever the prisoner at the bar has done in respect of the
dispatching of that vessel, was done and completed then. The crime, if
he committed any, was completed before the month of November, 1840. That
is the charge upon which he is now on trial. I quite agree that, if
since November, 1840--if instantly he had held any conversation--if he
had written any letter--if he had held any conversation that might be
used against him as evidence of the purpose for which he used and
dispatched that vessel, which he had dispatched in the month of
November, 1840--
Mr. Justice _Maule_. With respect to that portion of the opening of my
Brother Bompas, the question is pretty much the same as with respect to
that mentioned before.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Will your Lordship just hear how I present it?
Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is open to the same mode of dealing with the
matter depending on the question--whether it is so clear that it will be
admissible, when it comes to be offered in evidence, as that it ought to
be stated. If Brother Bompas proposes to argue that, he may go on now.
Mr. _Kelly_. I am in your Lordships’ hands; it is immaterial to me when
I am heard. I was only going to add, which will go much to the argument,
that on a common civil case, something written, said, or done by another
person in a distant country, some months after the time when he is said
to have committed the offence charged, is no evidence against him. If it
were, Mr. Zulueta might have (as I believe he was), he might, with the
rest of his firm, have been engaged in shipping goods on a lawful
merchandise according to the British laws, in consonance with natural
equity and right, and the character of the transaction might be
completely changed. I can very easily imagine a case in which a British
merchant--nay, a British trader of any kind--may ship a quantity of
muskets to the coast of Africa, or the coast of Spain: nothing can be
more simple than the proposition--a trader may ship a quantity of
muskets to Africa, to Spain, or to France; he receives the goods, and
ships the goods; and now he has done all, and the ship sails; and he may
have died after the shipment; another person possesses himself of those
muskets, and he employs them in war against the Queen of Britain--Is
that to be used in a criminal charge of felony against him? But that is
just the case here. These gentlemen of this house of Zulueta and Company
are concerned in shipping a quantity of goods--I might have taken the
objection whether as principal or agent, but I will not raise that--here
is the ship, and here are the goods; they ship them for the coast of
Africa: the shippers remain in England; they have nothing more to do
with the transaction; the vessel putting in to Cadiz, whether by
previous design or stress of weather I will not say; another person,
over whom the shippers have no more control than they have over the
inhabitants of the kingdom of Spain, give certain orders, which I will
suppose contemplate an illegal object--Are those to be used as evidence
against the shippers here on a charge of felony? My Lord, I have done; I
shall wait until I hear how my learned friend can justify the giving
that in evidence against Mr. Zulueta.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My Lord, if I had any reasonable doubt that I
could give this in evidence before your Lordships, I conceive I ought
not to interfere with the view your Lordship has thrown out with respect
to the letter I before tendered; but I apprehend there can be no doubt.
I may be mistaken in the view I have taken: I may be wrong.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. Unless you feel it quite material to the case to
state the nature of the evidence you propose to offer, I should think
that in a matter of this kind it might be advisable to abstain from the
statement of it. The circumstances which a learned counsel proposes to
offer in evidence ought to be such as leave no doubt in his mind that he
shall be able to bring them home to the prisoner, or that which is not
ultimately made evidence against the prisoner may make an impression
which is not justified. If you have any doubt that you shall be able to
make this evidence, Mr. Kelly is justified in his objection, and so long
as there is a doubt whether it is admissible, the Court think it is not
fit it should be stated. If in your opinion that is doubtful, you have a
right to be heard; but if you consider this as likely to be a long case,
it will be desirable to abridge it so far as you can, to bring it within
such a compass that it may receive the attention of the jury, and that
time should not be unnecessarily occupied in these discussions.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Gentlemen, I am always most ready to adopt the
suggestion which the Court are kind enough to hold out. I feel that a
counsel, standing for the prosecution, stands in a somewhat different
situation from another person, and their Lordships, sitting to do
justice, and fairly taking care that if there be a doubt, that doubt
shall be taken for the benefit of those charged with a crime. I feel
that as to the admissibility in evidence, if there is a doubt, it ought
not to be stated to the jury. It is not for me, as counsel for the
prosecution, to say that their admissibility is perfectly certain. It
would be very hard if the view taken by counsel in a criminal
prosecution were not to be regulated by the judgment of the Court. It is
enough that I should state, that, in my opinion, it will be necessary
that these letters should be admitted in evidence, and that you should
direct your attention particularly to them. It will place an additional
obligation on the learned judges at a future stage, if I am not allowed
to call your attention to them, to see that they are so brought before
you as that you should understand them. There is no weight intended to
be given to the evidence beyond that to which it is entitled, but it
will be my duty to bring them fairly to your understandings, when I
tender them, that you may see the bearing of them. The reason of my
offering them in evidence will be given when I do offer them in
evidence. This is not a decision that they are not admissible in
evidence, but that it is better I should not open to you what may leave
an impression which ought not to be made, unless I show that this is
evidence. By the course taken, if this is not evidence, there will be no
impression made. There is no doubt that very great importance to the
prosecution will rest on the decision of this question; it will have a
very great effect in the decision of the question, whether from this
time or not there may be perfect and absolute impunity to any person who
chooses to conduct a trade of this kind, provided only he is not so
unwise as to advertise himself before-hand as a man who has connexion
with the ultimate procedure of the vessel. Gentlemen, at present this
matter is perfectly in debate. I shall offer this to you in evidence,
and then it will be shown how it applies. This vessel, as I was stating
when I mentioned certain things found on board, was captured by Captain
Hill, was carried to Sierra Leone, and from thence brought home to
England, and there was an end of the voyage.
Gentlemen, one material question that you will have to consider when the
case is before you is--What was the object of the destination of the
vessel? For what purpose was the vessel sent to the Gallinas? Was she
sent for the purposes of fair trade, or was she sent to the Gallinas
with goods to be used for the purposes of the slave trade? No doubt the
vessel would not be perfectly equipped on going from Portsmouth; but the
state of the vessel then you will have to consider, and I believe I
shall be able to show that at that place the leagers were taken to
pieces and put on board in such a manner as that they could be easily
put together when she got out, and that there were existing in the
vessel a very considerable number of shackles usually used for the
purpose of confining slaves. You are aware that the slaves, the male
slaves, are almost always put into this situation between the decks, and
confined also by shackles. I shall be able to show that the leagers were
taken to pieces and stowed on board the vessel, and that there were a
very large number of shackles on board the vessel. Now, what was the
object in going to the Gallinas? If any directions which were given in
respect of that object are not brought out, you must find it out as well
as you can in the circumstances of the vessel. She was going to the
Gallinas. Mr. Zulueta was acting on behalf of a person whom he admits he
believed to be dealing in slaves. The whole view of the case must be
left in some degree to you, after all the evidence laid before you,
supposing the evidence to which I have called your attention to be
ultimately received.
Gentlemen, it will be my duty to call your attention to the evidence
which Mr. Zulueta volunteered before the Committee of the House of
Commons, and I can only say you will have to keep it in mind as
applicable to the other evidence if it is admitted. If it is not
admitted, you will take it as it is applicable to the case. I have
mentioned one or two sentences, and my learned friend has interfered to
represent that I was giving the effect of that evidence unfairly before
you. I shall call your attention to the material parts, and leave you to
apply it to the rest of the evidence. He was examined on the 22nd of
July, 1842. It would appear, from the questions proposed to him, that
some persons had made statements before the Committee of the House of
Commons, which, being intended to reflect upon him, had been inclosed
to him for his consideration, and that he felt himself obliged to appear
to meet those statements. That is the way in which the evidence was
given. He was not summoned before them--they could hardly summon him to
give an account of that which was intended by previous evidence to
reflect upon him; but, under those circumstances, he went before the
Committee of the House of Commons. The Chairman says, “You have seen
some statements that have been made to this Committee upon the subject
of a transaction in which your house was engaged; have you any
observations to offer upon it?--I received from the Clerk of the
Committee a letter accompanying a copy of certain evidences, which are
Mr. Macaulay’s evidence of the 10th of June, the 14th of June, and the
15th of June; and Captain Hill’s evidence of the 29th of June, the 4th
of July, and the 6th of July. I would beg first of all to refer to the
letter which I had the honour to address to the Chairman. My reason for
wishing to be examined before this Committee was, that the statements
contained in the evidence which I have mentioned are all of them more or
less incorrect, some of them totally so. I will begin by stating what
has been the nature of our, I will not say trade, for we have not had a
trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the shipment of goods to the
coast of Africa. We have been established as merchants for upwards of 70
years in Spain, for nearly 20 years in this country, and we have had
connexions to a large extent in Spain, and in the Havannah, and in South
America, and several other places; among them we have had connexions or
commercial intercourse with the house of Pedro Martinez & Co. of the
Havannah, and with Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah. With them we have
carried on a regular business in consignments of sugars and of
cochineal, which they have made to us; and in specie received by the
packets from Mexico and other places. We have several times acted for
them here in this country, buying raw cotton for instance at Liverpool,
and re-selling it very largely; that has been principally with Pedro
Martinez & Co.” “They are general merchants?--They are general
merchants, and their transactions with us have been of that nature. As
general merchants we have bought stock here for them rather largely; and
in the course of those transactions we have received orders from Don
Pedro Martinez & Co., of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez, of
Cadiz, to ship goods for the coast of Africa; never from Pedro Blanco,
and never from Blanco & Cavallo.” “Have you received orders from Pedro
Martinez for shipments for the coast of Africa?--Yes, in the course of
business we have received orders to ship goods upon the funds in our
hands belonging to them, and we have shipped the goods described in the
letter, and sent the bills of lading to Pedro Martinez; but, beyond that
we have never had any returns from the coast of Africa, nor any control
of any kind from the moment the cargoes left the ports of this country.”
“You have had no interest in the result of the adventure?--No, nor any
notice, nor any acquaintance, nor any correspondence with any one upon
the coast; we have never had any kind of knowledge, either subsequently
or previously, of the shipments, except the mere fact of buying the
goods and shipping them.”
It is quite correct that they had had communication, as will
appear subsequently by evidence in respect of this vessel; they
actually received the amount of the insurance on the damaged goods
landed at Cadiz. “Your whole interest was a commission upon the
transaction?--Entirely. The extent of those transactions has been so
limited in the course of nearly 20 years that we have been in this
country, that the amount of the invoices that we have sent out has been
something like 20,000_l._ or 22,000_l._ in the course of all that time.
That is one part of the operations we have performed. The other
operations are the acceptance of bills drawn by people on the coast;
among them Pedro Blanco when he was there, upon ourselves, on account of
Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which Blanco & Cavallo had in
our hands; for instance, the people at the Havannah, or in Spain, open a
credit with us, and we accept the bills of the parties on that credit
with us just the same as we should do with any other correspondent in
any other part.” You will hear probably in evidence who this Pedro
Blanco was. I shall prove that he was a person extensively engaged in
the trade in slaves.
Then the evidence proceeds:--“You would have funds in your hands,
arising from some commercial transactions between you and the Havannah
merchant or the Cadiz merchant; and Pedro Blanco, upon the coast of
Africa would draw upon the credit of those funds, being authorised by
the Cadiz or the Havannah merchant?--Yes; and if Pedro Blanco had drawn
five shillings beyond that, we should have protested, and in some
instances we have protested. With regard to the vessel alluded to in
this Report, the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that
which appears from one of the letters: that is to say, Pedro Martinez,
of Cadiz, had made choice of Jennings to buy the vessel, and lent him
money to buy the vessel; because Pedro Martinez wanted him to have a
vessel in the trade for the purpose of taking his goods to their
destination.”
Gentlemen, it is always satisfactory in a case of this kind to know, if
a person be charged with any offence, as Mr. Zulueta was, that a copy of
the evidence is sent to him; and when a person under such circumstances
makes a statement, it is satisfactory to know that if that statement be
true, it can be perfectly and easily proved by him, that there is no
doubt about it. No doubt evidence must be given sufficient to charge the
prisoner with the offence before he can be called upon for his defence;
but if he makes a statement, it is satisfactory to know that, if there
is a defence, it is absolutely in his power. Mr. Zulueta is one of a
firm; there is no difficulty therefore in proving all their
transactions. If he has letters limiting him to 500_l._, there are means
of proving that beyond all question.
He goes on: “I have now described the three kinds of operations in which
we have been concerned, and our knowledge of all of them terminated with
the execution of the orders of our correspondents. We had nothing more
to do than to follow the orders of the purchaser in shipping the goods.
With regard to the purchase of the vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a man
who has been employed some time by Martinez; he has served Martinez as a
chartered captain, and Martinez having been satisfied with his services,
agreed to lend him that money on the security of the vessel, provided
it did not exceed a certain amount; which was all the interference we
had with it, just to see that a certain amount was not exceeded, 500_l._
or whatever it was.” “Then you were to furnish Captain Jennings with
money for the purchase within a limited amount, say 500_l._, credit
being given to him upon you by Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz?--That is just
the point.” There is no doubt, gentlemen, as it would appear, that the
letter I have read to you had been published, and was known to Mr.
Zulueta, in which he writes and tells Jennings that they will not
proceed in the purchase further than 500_l._ Certainly it was not known
at that time that we should have the means of showing them that there
was in fact no such limit to the purchase adopted, and that that letter
could not be used for the purpose, for Mr. Zulueta does actually give
650_l._ for the purchase of that vessel.
He is then asked--“The Augusta being purchased by money advanced by your
house for Martinez and Company, of Cadiz; and she then became the
property of Pedro Martinez?--No, she became the property of Jennings;
the money was lent to Jennings, and he bound himself by giving security
on the vessel to answer for the amount. It is a mercantile operation,
which is not unusual.” If it had been a mere loan and mortgage of the
vessel, there can be no doubt of the fact; but it is for you to say
whether that is the nature of the transaction. “You advanced the money
to Captain Jennings for the purchase of the vessel, Jennings
transferring the vessel to you as a security for the amount so
advanced?--That is just the description of operation, which is a very
general one in business.” Then he goes on to describe the transaction:
“What is the object of such an operation?--I know very little, or almost
next to nothing, of the operations in those parts of the world; but the
object of such an operation I apprehend to be this: a vessel chartered
with a stranger must be governed by the different clauses of the
charter-party; the charterer must be limited to time and to places; and
by Martinez having the vessel owned by a man with whom he could have a
better understanding than with others, he might always send more
advantageously articles from the Havannah to the Gallinas, and from here
to the Gallinas. When I say articles, I mean legal articles.” “What
advantage would there be in Mr. Jennings taking the articles rather as
the owner than as captain under Martinez; was not he commander of the
vessel as well as owner of the vessel?--Yes.” “He is made the owner,
instead of being captain?--He is the owner as well as the captain of the
vessel; he stands indebted to Martinez, and gives a bottomry bond for
the vessel.” Gentlemen, the documents I have offered to you, which are
the charter-party and the other papers relating to the vessel, do not
amount to a bottomry bond; if there was one, there can be no difficulty
in the prisoner proving it to you.
Then he is asked: “Does Mr. Jennings upon this transaction make all the
freight to his own profit?--Certainly; whatever he does is to his own
profit.” That certainly was not the fact; for he was obliged to give up
the vessel whenever called upon. “He is not, then, an agent for
Martinez?--No, he is a person to whom Martinez lends the money to buy
the vessel; whatever profit he derives is his own. Martinez has this
advantage, which to a mercantile man is very perceptible, that he has
got a charter with a man who stands in that relation towards him which
gives him a sort of control over the vessel. If I, as a stranger,
charter a vessel for Martinez, and he has spent one, two, or five days
more in landing goods than the charter-party allows, I should make a
claim for it; I should say, ‘You must keep to the charter.’ Now, when
Jennings is indebted to him for the favour of a loan for the vessel, he
is not upon a similar footing.” “So that he gets the vessel more under
his own control?--Yes; in saying this I am putting an hypothetical case,
but I do not know the mind of Martinez himself.”
Then he is asked: “You acted in this transaction merely as agent in the
usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in any part of the
world?--Exactly; if Martinez had told me, ‘You have got 500_l._ in your
hands, pay that to Captain Jennings,’ I should have known nothing more
of the transaction; I should have paid the money. But Martinez did not
wish to go beyond a certain amount; and he says, ‘You exercise control,
do not allow the man to pay more than 500_l._ for the vessel.’”
Gentlemen, the letter treats it as a purchase for Zulueta. There may or
may not be those directions; if there were, it is in his power to prove
them; and it should be recollected that there was not time to get fresh
instructions after the declaration that he could not exceed 500_l._
before he paid 650_l._ for it: it is only in a few days. If a man says,
when charged with theft, “I bought the goods of such a person,” that is
no evidence at all, unless, he proves that he bought them, which he may
easily do if it is the fact. So here, if the prisoner says, though this
letter, which purports to be the letter of instructions for the actual
purchase, limits it to 500_l._, I received directions from Martinez to
purchase at 650_l._, that is proved with perfect facility, for it must
be by letter, and there are other persons in the firm who can prove it
for him. “But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of the
goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions were
entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?--Most assuredly; except
with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any
thing with him in any way.” That of course will be proved.
Then it goes on: “Though the process of hypothecating a vessel may be
usual between British merchants, is it usual to cover a transaction of
Spanish slave trade with the British flag, by means of such an
arrangement as that described to have taken place in the case of the
Augusta?--In order to answer that question, it seems to me that it is
fair that I should ask where is the transaction of covering, and where
is the slave trade transaction? I know positively of my own knowledge
that there is no such thing at all connected with the Augusta. If I had
an opportunity, I could make my affidavit of that.” He is asked again:
“Do you mean that you know that the Augusta was not engaged in any
slaving transactions during the voyage upon which she left
Liverpool?--Most assuredly not; in fact my testimony is hardly required
of that, because every thing proves that. When she was detained, it was
never said that she was upon a slaving operation at all. Before she left
this port, after she was bought, she was completely rendered useless for
that purpose.” Now leagers and things of that kind must be taken to
pieces, for she would not be allowed to have those on board; but the
staves forming them were left on board in a state in which they might
very soon have been made ready for use. When the question comes, whether
she was engaged in a slave trading transaction, you are to examine the
grounds of the prisoner’s denial with reference to the other parts of
the testimony, and how far that can be relied upon.
This question is then put: “The charge is, that she was engaged in
carrying goods to a person engaged in the slave trade; not that she was
engaged in the slave trade herself?--I most certainly say, that I do not
know whether the person is so engaged or not.” “Is it usual to cover a
transaction of Spanish trade with the English flag?--I am not aware that
a Spanish merchant is prohibited chartering an English vessel.” No doubt
a Spanish merchant is not; but if an Englishman knows that that vessel
is being chartered for a slave trading transaction, and he is one of the
persons chartering her for that purpose, I have no hesitation in stating
that he is guilty under this Act of Parliament, for he is chartering a
vessel to accomplish that illegal object; and if merchants in this
country would not accept bills drawn by slave traders, if they would not
send goods from this country to be employed for the purpose--in fact,
the trade could not be carried on at all. Then he is asked: “But is it
lawful to employ the British flag to cover a vessel that is not owned by
a British subject?--I say that that vessel is owned by a British
subject.” “By whom?--By Captain Jennings.” It is for you to say whether
that is a covert, or a _bonâ fide_ ownership. “Was not the money with
which she was purchased, the money of Pedro Martinez--It seems to me
that English captains and English subjects are not prohibited from
borrowing money from Spaniards; she was bought with money lent by Pedro
Martinez to Captain Jennings for the purpose.” Of course there can be no
difficulty in showing that that was lent by persons connected with that
firm, if it is true; if it is not true, of course it will not be shown.
Then he is asked: “Do you mean that the money was a loan to Captain
Jennings, at the time he paid it for the vessel?--It was a loan to
Captain Jennings.” “Do you mean that the ship was then Captain
Jennings’s property?--It was.” “Was it in his power to sell that ship at
any port he pleased?--There was a mortgage upon the vessel.” “You have
stated that yours is an agency trade?--It is so, and in the multitude of
business, any one can understand that 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years, can
only be a mere trifle in the business of any merchant, without laying
claim to a large business; and in following that business, we have
executed shipping orders.” “To what part of the coast of Africa has that
business been chiefly conducted?--I believe almost exclusively to the
Gallinas.” I believe you will find the Gallinas is simply a slave
trading place, and nothing else. “Have the goods that Mr. Martinez has
ordered to be sent to the Gallinas, been all sent to the same
individual?--No, to different individuals; sometimes to Pedro Blanco,
who was for a certain time an agent of Pedro Martinez on the coast, and
sometimes we have sent a bill of lading drawn in this way to order; we
have sent it to Pedro Martinez as a voucher against his account.” “Do
you know the nature of the trade of Pedro Martinez at the Gallinas?--I
know from general report that Don Pedro Martinez himself is supposed to
deal in slaves, and I believe it is so.” All his goods have been sent to
the Gallinas. “Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer in slaves?--I do
not know; but I believe so. I do not know why it should not be known at
the Havannah, if it is known in other parts.” “Is a ship which is
hypothecated liable to be foreclosed at any moment at the discretion of
the mortgagee?--It depends altogether upon the terms of the mortgage. If
the mortgagee says, ‘You must give me the money when I ask for it,’ of
course he must sell the vessel if he has not got any thing else.” Read
on in the same way this document, “but he is not bound to give the money
in any shape or form.” “He would always have to deduct whatever freight
had been earned. When the security may be called upon to be effective,
depends upon the nature of the transaction between the parties.” “Your
house had nothing to do with any letters that might be put on board the
Augusta after she sailed from this country?--Nothing whatever.” “The
Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa on the charge of slave
trading?--I believe that was the case.” “Did you not appeal against that
condemnation?--Yes, there is an appeal by the owner.” “Before the Privy
Council?--Yes.” “That appeal is not yet decided?--I believe not.” “You
stated that your transactions with Africa for Martinez have amounted to
about 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years. What has been the amount of your
whole transactions with Blanco and Martinez of the Havannah during that
period?--Perhaps 100,000_l._ or a larger sum. For instance, we have
received more than 40 or 50 cargoes of sugar from the Havannah consigned
to us, and cigars; and we have received bills of lading of specie,
shipped at Mexico, to be sold here, and bar gold, and things of that
sort.” “Have you reason to suppose that the whole of that large commerce
is subservient to the carrying on of the slave trade by the house of
Blanco & Martinez at the Havannah?--I do not know; I know that they have
large transactions in general business. I know that a short time ago I
got 40,000_l._ or 50,000_l._ of Spanish bonds in the market for
Martinez. I know that he is a large speculator in Spanish bonds and in
securities of state.” “Is that speculating in Spanish bonds on account
of the house at Cadiz, or the house at Havannah?--Speaking technically,
I should say it was on account of the Cadiz house.” “The question
related to the commerce of the Havannah house?--Pedro Martinez is a
Havannah merchant. But with regard to Havannah merchants, we have
received large consignments of sugar, cochineal, and sometimes Mexican
goods, brought to Havannah, and shipped to us here.” “In what course of
business have the proceeds of those consignments been disposed of; have
they gone in sending supplies to the coast of Africa?--Out of that large
amount of money 22,000_l._ is the amount of all the goods that we have
sent to the coast of Africa in 20 years.” “Of all descriptions?--Of all
sorts and kinds; I have gone through the invoice-book and found them
out.” “Have the proceeds generally been disposed of by drafts from the
parties themselves to your house?--By the parties at Havannah, when the
exchange turns to their advantage.” “Have you reason to suppose that a
large portion of the trade that they carry on at the Havannah is the
slave trade?--I had no reason to know any thing of the kind; I have
known more of their transactions with the slave trade since these things
have been mooted than I ever knew before; I have had more knowledge of
these things lately than I ever had in my life before; and when I say
‘I,’ I beg to state that I ought to state ‘we,’ for all my partners are
in the same situation.” “Have you been employed by the house at the
Havannah to ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah,
suitable for the African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the
Havannah of the same kind as those that were in the Augusta; cotton
goods and other things of that sort.” “Has that been recently?--In the
course of our operations.” “How many years ago?--In the course of these
15 or 20 years that we have been engaged in business with them; all that
I could see in a moment by my books.” “Have you sent any goods of that
description to the Havannah recently?--Not very recently; I think not
for some years.” “Have you sent any goods of that description since you
first began to send goods out direct to the coast of Africa?--They have
been mixed; I cannot draw a distinction between the two destinations;
some have gone to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.” “Have those
supplies of English manufactured goods, which heretofore went to the
Havannah, to be used there for promoting the slave trade, been more
recently sent direct from this country to the coast of Africa?--No, I do
not think that is the case; I should think the contrary is more likely
to be the case; but I think we have shipped in some months, or in some
years, partly to the Havannah, and partly to the Gallinas.”
Then comes a statement as to the mode of carrying on the trade, which
will be read to you, but I do not think it necessary to read it now.
“Have you shipped English manufactured goods direct to the coast of
Africa, on behalf of both those houses?--Such goods as were in the
Augusta, I have shipped for one party only. With regard to the house of
Blanco & Carvalho, and the house of Pedro Martinez & Co., with both of
them I have carried on a general large business. But to Blanco &
Carvalho I never shipped a single piece of goods of any kind, except
some sugar mills to the Havannah; and with regard to the house of Pedro
Martinez, we have shipped such goods as those by the Augusta.” “From
your general knowledge of the trade of the house of Pedro Martinez &
Co., is it your opinion that the goods which you so shipped to the coast
of Africa were destined to be employed in the slave trade?--I do not
know, they may be for any thing that I know.”
Now, gentlemen, I would humbly submit, that if they have that reason to
know, that they do believe that the goods are so employed, and if they
send the goods, it is not for them to shut their eyes and say, “I do not
know.” It is like the case where a person receives stolen goods and no
questions are asked, and he gives money in exchange for them. Such a
person is as much guilty of receiving stolen goods, as if the person who
brought them told him the fact. As to hundreds of persons whom you try
for receiving stolen goods, they do not know, they cannot know
positively that they are taken out of such a house; but they are
delivered to them in such a way, or are concealed in such a way, that
there is no doubt they were dishonestly come by, and that is as good
evidence as if they had known where they were stolen. So it is not
enough for a person to say, “I do not know; they may not for aught I
know.” If he believes, and you are satisfied that he must have been
aware of the fact, then the case is clear; it is no defence to say, “I
shut my eyes, and do not know; they may be for aught I know.”
Then it is asked: “Has it come within your knowledge that the house of
Martinez & Co. are exporters from Africa of the native produce of
Africa?--No, because I never tried to get any knowledge of their
transactions there of any sort.” “Have you ever received consignments
from them, or on their behalf of palm oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the
coast of Africa?--Never; we never have received any thing from the coast
of Africa whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will
perhaps appear strange to the Committee, that I should not know more of
the coast of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had shipped
to the amount of 100,000_l._ to the coast of Africa, or carried on any
considerable trade there, we should certainly have known more about the
coast of Africa; but in transactions of a very large amount, an invoice
occasionally of about 2,000_l._ or 3,000_l._ of goods was a thing that
we sent as a matter of course, and did not trouble our heads about,
especially as the remuneration we got was a mere trifle, not of itself
worth pursuing, if it had not been for the general business we had.”
Then the question is put: “Is there any other part of the evidence which
has been given that you wish to observe upon?” and he answers, “It is
asked here in question 5086, ‘Who was he?’ the answer is, ‘The name is
mentioned in the Parliamentary Papers as being connected with the
purchase of a slave vessel, Mr. Kidd; and it is mentioned in connexion
with that of Mr. Zulueta, of London.’ Now, as to Mr. Kidd, the very
first thing I ever knew or ever heard of his name was to see it here. I
never heard of his name at all. I never had a letter from him or through
him, or knew any thing of the man whatever. That is with regard to
myself. With regard to my partners, I can say the same; I have been
making inquiries about it. My father knew there was such a man upon the
coast, but I did not know even that, though I have managed all this
business. Our house never had a letter from the man, or knew any thing
about him.” Then it is asked, “You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in
any way?--No, nor any knowledge of him. Then in the next answer it is
said, ‘Zulueta, the gentleman in London, to whom the vessel was sent,
and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner, is a name well known
on the coast in connexion with the slave trade?’ Now what is known on
the coast I really cannot pretend to say, but I believe that not many
persons can say that which I can say, that neither myself, nor my
father, nor my grandfather, nor any body in our firm, has ever had any
kind of interest of any sort, or derived any emolument or connexion from
the slave trade. My father had at one time an interest in a bankrupt’s
estate at the Havannah, upon which he was a creditor. There were some
slaves on the estate, and they formed part of the property assignable to
the creditors, and my father got the slaves assigned to him; because the
other gentlemen and the creditors were not of the same opinion, he got
them assigned to him, and made them free; and that is all the connexion
we have ever had with any slaves in the world. I do not know how far
that may be considered irrelevant to the point, but I state it because
we are here mentioned three or four times as connected with slave
dealers, as a name well known in connexion with the slave trade. That
sort of statement is rather a difficult thing to deal with.” “If it is
meant to insinuate by these observations that you ever had any other
connexion with the slave trade, than being the shipping agent of goods
which were sent to a man who was a dealer in slaves, you entirely deny
it?--I assure the Committee, that although I have a general notion as to
what interest Blanco and Martinez have in slaves, yet, if I was put upon
my oath to make any particular statement, I really could not, because I
do not know it. Of course I believe it; but my personal knowledge
amounts only to that which the knowledge of what we read in a newspaper
amounts to.”
Now, gentlemen, we know too the trade of these parties in the Gallinas.
If the prisoner believed that these goods were sent out for the purpose
of carrying on the slave trade, and he did send them out, and you are
satisfied that the name of Jennings was used as a mere cover, and the
whole affair shows his knowledge, then I apprehend he is guilty within
this indictment; and it is no defence to say, “If I were put upon my
oath, I could not swear that the parties were slave dealers, because I
do not know it.” If these goods were sent out in order to accomplish the
trading or dealing in slaves, if that was the object of it, the statute
says it is criminal, and the party is liable to punishment, for that is
all that is ever done in England: the parties who engage in the actual
transactions must necessarily reside in Africa. What was meant to be
prevented, was the sending any thing out from this coast that could be
so used. It is not sufficient to say, “I believe these might be used for
the purpose of slave trading:” that would not affect him.
Then he is asked, “There was nothing upon the face of the transactions
which you had with those parties, which spoke of a connexion with
traffic in slaves?--Nothing whatever.” Why, would any human being
believe that there would be any thing said of the kind? That would of
course be kept secret. The vessel would not reach her destination, if it
was avowed that she was going out for the purpose of slave trading. “It
is well known, that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of
business in Cadiz to insure operations in slave trading. My house at
that time were underwriters, and it was notorious that a policy of that
kind would never enter the doors of our house; and nobody would come to
offer such a thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both here and
in Spain, that we set our faces distinctly against having any interest
of any kind in the slave trade.”
Then it is put as a question: “It is further stated, ‘It appears that it
is a regular thing sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if
they come to England to him, he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out
again to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ Have you any
observation to make upon that?--It is all untrue, the whole of it; I
never received a vessel from those gentlemen; there has been nothing of
the kind.”
The question is: “Have you any thing further to state upon the
subject?--There are several things I have marked; for instance, such as
this, ‘You are not bound to suppose that a man will make a bad use of
that which he purchases.’ If I wished to put my statement upon that
footing, I should have done with it in a moment, for I knew nothing of
the use they were put to. I bought goods, but as to what use was made of
them I knew nothing whatever. But that is not the position which I wish
to assume. It is said here, that we sent goods or vessels to Pedro
Blanco. To that I say, that we never sent either goods or vessels to
Pedro Blanco.” Now that is certainly very extraordinary, for a very
little while before, when the question was put to him, “Have the goods
that Mr. Martinez has ordered to be sent to the Gallinas been all sent
to the same individual?” he answered “No, to different individuals,
sometimes to Pedro Blanco, who was for a certain time an agent of Pedro
Martinez.” Then here he says, “We never sent goods or vessels to Pedro
Blanco.” “In answer to Question 5474, it is said by Mr. Macaulay, ‘I
stated, that it appears that it is a regular thing sending vessels to
him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England to him he sends
them to Cadiz, and they get out again to the Havannah and come again
into the trade. My answer was intended to describe only the course of
that particular transaction, and not to apply to any other case.’ I
never received a single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor
any body for us.” “Then that statement is entirely untrue?--Totally,
from beginning to end; we never did so; and nobody for us, and nobody to
our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in the most distinct
manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay is asked, ‘Have you any
thing further to say with regard to the connexion of Zulueta with the
slave trade?’ The answer is, ‘I would refer to his connexion with the
Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case it appeared that the
vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from London.’ That is the same
vessel as the Augusta, which I have already explained; it formerly bore
the name of Gollupchik.” Then the Chairman says, “Have you been
concerned in the purchase of vessels frequently for Pedro Martinez or
Pedro Blanco?--We have sometimes bought such vessels here as we could
resell at the Havannah, such as the Arrogante, which we have bought.”
“Upon orders?--Partly on orders, and sometimes on our own account on
speculation.” “For what particular trade were they calculated when they
reached the Havannah?--I think for the same trade which they were
calculated for when they were sold here.” “For the conveyance of
merchandise?” The answer is, “As well as anything else. They were sold
here publicly.” There is no doubt that vessels which are fitted for
carrying goods may also be adapted for carrying slaves. Then Mr.
_Forster_ asks the question, “If it was legal for them to be sold here,
you considered that it was legal for you to buy them?--I never had any
doubt of the legality of buying here, or of selling them again
afterwards.” “Mr. _Wood_. But the questions appertaining to the carrying
on of the slave trade do not confine themselves within strictly legal
grounds, but they have other more important considerations attaching to
them?--As to that point there may be a difference of opinion; I would be
very sorry indeed, for the sake of catching the approval of other
persons, to make a disclaimer of any particular set of opinions
whatever; but I believe the only point with which the Committee have to
do, is the legal point. As to the moral point, it seems to me, that I am
to judge of that; upon that point, I think I have stated quite enough,
having stated distinctly that I never had any connexion, nor derived any
profit from the slave trade whatever.”
There are then several questions: in answer to which he states, “That he
never had any thing to do with slave transactions.” Those I leave to my
learned friend to read. Then question 10451 is, “Had you ever employed
Jennings before?--Jennings had had charge of vessels before, chartered
by Martinez, and hence the connexion between Martinez and Jennings.
There are some captains in all trades that make a great deal of
difficulty about every thing, and others that do not; of course
merchants like to deal with those that do not, more than those that do.”
Then the Chairman says: “It would appear from Question 5087, that your
name is supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper as
connected with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page 38, in
Class B, Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred to in the
answer, and see if there is any trace of your name in that
transaction?--I do not find my own name there; I only find an allusion
at the bottom to the name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in no way
connected with me, and stating a circumstance which I never knew. In
Question 7965*, it is stated, ‘The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her
way out from England?’--The answer is, ‘Yes, and landed part of her
cargo at Cadiz, although it was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.’
Now Captain Hill, who has given this answer, must have known why she
touched at Cadiz, and why she discharged part of her cargo; for it must
be in the log-book of the vessel. It was because she was nearly wrecked
in her passage; she put into Cadiz in distress; and there she landed a
part of her cargo, which was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the
benefit of the underwriters. Now that has not been stated here; but I
think Captain Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of
the vessel which he took.” “And the log-book he must have read?--I
should think so; because if he has not done that he has done nothing.
All I mean to say is, that it is an _ex parte_ statement.” “It was not
intended when she left England that she should put into Cadiz?--Most
certainly not; all the facts of the case show that she went there
because she was obliged. I have not seen the log-book, but it must be
there; because in the log-book the captain is bound to enter those
things, and whoever captured the vessel must have seen the log-book of
course. In answer to Question 7967*, it is said, ‘Messrs. Zulueta must
be aware that it is contrary to law to act as agents, or otherwise, for
the shipment of goods that are to be employed in the slave trade; they
were bound to do nothing illegal; they are merchants residing in
England, and they must conform themselves to the laws of England, and
they cannot by the laws of England plead ignorance of those laws.’ Now I
and my partners are British subjects, and therefore we are bound by the
law, and we must obey the law; and I say that to endeavour to elude the
law is criminal in my estimation of things. In the answer to Question
7970*, it is stated, ‘I have endeavoured to be particular in making it
appear that this vessel was chartered to a place where there were no
constituted authorities.’ I think that in the Gallinas there are
constituted authorities. It is the first time that I ever heard that it
is illegal for any merchant to ship goods for any places without
ascertaining beforehand whether there are constituted authorities there.
I believe that if they like to send goods to any place they may do it;
and as to the fact of there being constituted authorities in the place
or not, I do not see what that has to do with the question; besides,
there have been such things as treaties made with persons at the
Gallinas, so that there must be some constituted authorities there. But
I do not know why I should be called upon to know whether there are
constituted authorities at the port or not. Then it is stated, in answer
to Question 7971*, ‘As far as I am able to give my own opinion, I
believe that Messrs. Zulueta were perfectly criminal; at least they had
a knowledge of what they were doing. I think I am borne out in that by
the secrecy they have endeavoured to pursue in putting in a false
owner.’” Then in answer to that observation Mr. Zulueta says, “I have
answered all that before: I state again, that all the secrecy and
mystery of the thing lies in supposing other things different from what
appear. Then it is said, ‘In fact there can be no want of evidence to
show that Messrs. Zulueta had for a length of time been agents to slave
dealers.’ Mr. Blanco and Mr. Martinez may have been engaged, as I have
stated, in slave operations; and I have stated that we conducted their
general business here.”
Mr. _Forster_ then asks: “Is not Pedro Blanco a partner in a commercial
house at the Havannah, who are general merchants?--Yes, I have stated
that before.”
“Captain _Fitzroy_.] Have you ever discounted any bill drawn by Pedro
Blanco on Pedro Martinez & Co. for goods delivered for them on the
African coast at the Gallinas?--I have accepted bills drawn by Pedro
Blanco and others from the Gallinas upon our house, and paid them to the
order of several houses in Sierra Leone and houses in London. I have
paid them in money that I had in my hands resulting from the general
transactions of business which I have explained. But discounting would
be this, if I had paid those acceptances before they were due, and
received some consideration for them; that I never did, but I might have
done it in the case of these bills.” “Were those bills negotiated
through your hands in payment of goods delivered at the Gallinas?--No;
they were drawn generally with the advice attached to them, saying, I
have drawn a thousand pounds upon you for account of Blanco and
Carvalho, or Blanco & Co., at the Havannah.
“Mr. _Wood_.] By whose orders were you desired to honour it; was it by
the order of Pedro Blanco at the Gallinas?--No; by the house at the
Havannah, or by the house at Cadiz; sometimes the one and sometimes the
other. Blanco had a house some time ago in Malaga, as a general
merchant, occupied in shipping the fruits of the country and oil to the
United States, &c. &c. In answer to Question 7961*, the following is
stated:--‘In one of these letters, dated Cadiz, 30th of November, 1840,
is a paragraph to the following effect:--In a letter, dated London, the
21st instant, which I have just received from Messrs. Zulueta & Co.,
merchants in London, I had the pleasure of receiving a bill drawn by you
on them for 250_l._, which I this day place to their credit, waiting
your advice of the same.’ There is here certainly a mistranslation of
some kind, because it says that this man receives a bill upon us, and
credits it to us, which is, of course, contradictory in the very terms
of it; because, if the bill was remitted to this man upon us, he would
have debited it to us, and not credited it.”--I believe it is perfectly
consistent when the letter is produced.--“But altogether there is some
confusion about it; I suppose arising from the mistranslation of the
documents, because the fact is this, the bill is one of the bills I have
already mentioned, drawn from the Gallinas upon ourselves, to the order
of a third party. It is a bill drawn at the Gallinas upon ourselves, on
account of the credit, and therefore it could never have been received
by the person in Cadiz.” That would be explained by a former answer, in
which he says, he had sometimes sent bills of lading on which he had
accepted a bill drawn from him on the Gallinas, and sent it to the house
at Cadiz. He would have just said, This is a bill drawn upon me from
Gallinas; I have accepted the bill, and placed it to your credit.
Question 10459 is: “Can you give the Committee any information upon
this: ‘The other letters,’ nine of them, ‘were all on slave business:
not a word of any innocent trade, but the whole directing how slaves
were to be shipped on board various vessels.’ How do you account for
this vessel carrying letters upon slave business?--I account for it in
this way. First of all, it is impossible for us to answer here what
letters will be put on board a vessel at Cadiz; but there is very seldom
any communication between Cadiz and the Gallinas; whatever letters there
were must have gone by such random occasions as arose. As to the fact
that whoever wrote those letters is engaged in the slave trade, the
letters will speak for themselves.”
“_Chairman._] Those letters were not prepared in the expectation of the
arrival of this vessel, because this vessel was not destined to that
port, and was only driven there by stress of weather?--Most certainly. I
will add one circumstance in proof of that. The vessel was supposed to
have been lost, from the circumstance of a boat having been found upon
the coast with the name of T. Jennings upon it, and it was supposed that
it was a boat belonging to the vessel; it was, in fact, a boat from the
vessel, but the vessel had not been lost; therefore the vessel was
quite unexpected in Cadiz by every soul. It went there from stress of
weather and nothing more. Then it is said in answer to Question 7972*,
‘I think the papers are quite conclusive to the mind of any man that
Zulueta was cognizant of what he was doing; but as far as it is an
illegal transaction, it is not for me to judge; but the Judge of the
Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone did think it illegal, and condemned
the vessel; and moreover, the man who is put forward as captain and
owner did not defend the vessel on her trial.’ Now, as to the statement
of his being a false owner, I have already stated that he was not. But
then, again, with regard to the other part of the business, the man did
not defend it, because he was prevented from defending it.”
With respect to the first part of that answer--it is stated that she put
into Cadiz from stress of weather--the evidence I shall lay before you
is, that when she received injury from the weather (and there is no
doubt there was a storm), she was within two days sail of Cork, and 18
or 19 days from Cadiz. The crew actually resisted; they did not mutiny,
but they opposed going to Cadiz; and it was only on his making the
arrangement that those persons should be discharged at Cadiz, that they
consented to go on. My version, therefore, of the affair is, that she
put into Cadiz, not from stress of weather, but from other reasons.
Ultimately she got there, and there were certain letters put on board
there when she was fortunate enough to get there, addressed to Martinez
& Co., who were engaged in this transaction, who, according to
appearance, were actually charterers of the vessel for Zulueta & Co.,
who gave directions where those goods that were on board were to go.
It appears that there was an objection to answer the question at the
moment, on whom the bills were drawn, and it was deferred to the
following day. On the next day he appeared again, when the Chairman
says, “The Committee understand that you have some further observations
to make upon the evidence which has been given with reference to your
house?” The answer is, “With reference to the destination of the
Augusta, from Liverpool to Gallinas, and the fact of its having put into
Cadiz unforeseen, and unpremeditated altogether, in consequence of
stress of weather, I omitted to mention a circumstance which will put
the thing beyond doubt, and it is this: an insurance was made at Lloyd’s
from Liverpool to the Gallinas, and it is well known that, of course, we
should have forfeited the insurance by going to any other port, except
from the peril of the sea; and the British consul at Cadiz is well aware
of the circumstance, because he is Lloyd’s agent there; and therefore he
had to interfere in the whole proceeding; without his sanction nothing
could have been done. We have called upon the underwriters upon that
account, and it has been paid, and which would not have been paid
without its being proved. I stated yesterday that the transactions of my
house with Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, with Blanco & Carvalho
of the Havannah, and with Pedro Martinez of Cadiz, had amounted in the
20 years to 100,000_l._ I was afraid of over rating the amount, but on
reference to the books of the house, I find that our transactions with
them in 20 years have amounted to 400,000_l._, out of which the
22,000_l._ that was mentioned is the whole amount of goods that have
been shipped by their orders for the coast of Africa.” No doubt,
gentlemen, that is a very serious answer when you have this fact as
coming within general knowledge: it was stated that beyond doubt they
dealt in slaves, and that the whole amount of exports from Africa, as
arising out of transactions to the amount of 400,000_l._ is stated to be
22,000_l._; and that amount of goods from Africa would, no doubt, be in
repayment for the same transactions. “Can you state how much of the
22,000_l._ has accrued within any given period; is it distributed
equally over the whole 20 years, or has it grown up in the last four or
five years?--In the last few years it has decreased, but otherwise it is
spread over the whole number of years. In such a length of time it forms
to our minds a mere speck. In the last six months our transactions with
the house of Pedro Martinez of Cadiz amount to already 30,000_l._, and
with Pedro Martinez of the Havannah, to nearly the same amount. With the
house of Pedro Blanco & Co. of the Havannah, the amount has been
15,000_l._ for what has passed in the last six months, and with the
houses generally at Cuba, throughout the island, it amounts to
100,000_l._ altogether, arising entirely from cargoes of sugar, and from
tobacco, and remittance of bills from there in carrying on banking
operations, upon which they draw again, which are negotiated in the
Havannah and sent to houses in London to cash, and remittances of drafts
on the Spanish treasury at the Havannah, and bills of lading of specie
and bullion, and such things from Mexico. I state these things only to
show the nature of our trade, and I have been particular, because as
these are large amounts I wish to show what they arise from. Another
fact escaped my attention yesterday, and it is this, that Don Pedro
Martinez is owner of several large vessels of 300 tons and 400 tons,
which are in the trade of sugar, tobacco, and such things, with us, in
England and with Cadiz.” I believe the cargo on board the Augusta was
worth about 5,000_l._; I do not know whether this may be considered as
part of this or not; you will judge whether they are to be attributed or
not to Captain Jennings. Then he says, he has bought other
vessels:--“There was the Star, Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent
from here to the Gallinas, precisely the same as the Augusta has been
sent. She delivered her cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I
believe, and from there to Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she
came back to Spain, and she was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not
Martinez, or any body connected with him; in fact, she was sold for very
little. The object of that vessel was just the same as the Augusta, to
maintain a legal trade with Gallinas; that is within my own knowledge.”
“Mr. _Aldam_.] What is the description of legal trade that was carried
on?--Sending out goods to be sold at those places, and to go to other
ports, not to carry any cargo from there to the Havannah.” “There has
been a good deal of evidence, in which it has been stated that no legal
trade is carried on with Gallinas?--I could not say what trade there is
at the Gallinas of a legal nature; but I know that those vessels would
have taken nothing, if there was nothing legal to take, from that place
to the Havannah, or to any other place; I am aware that my answers upon
this point must be deficient, because I am really very ignorant of the
trade of the West Coast of Africa.” “Do you suppose that the vessels
would be used to carry on a legal trade?--Most certainly I do; because
persons find it worth while to send goods there constantly. The
Committee will observe, that what the application of the goods is
afterwards I cannot say, but I speak of the fact of the vessels having
gone there with the intention of returning to the Havannah to bring a
cargo of some description here, to pay a freight, and then to go again
with the same kind of goods to Africa.”
“_Chairman._] You have stated before, that you have cleared out for
the Gallinas from Liverpool?--Yes.” “In carrying on operations of that
kind, should you have ever thought it necessary to exercise any disguise
as to what part of Africa you were clearing out for?--Not at all.” “You
did not imagine, that in being the instrument of sending lawful goods
to any part of Africa you were doing any thing which required
concealment?--Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof of that is, that
in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body could see our names as
consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our own names of every
thing.”
Gentlemen, no doubt this is most important, and if this had been--it is
for you to say whether it was--but if it had been a legal trade, would
it not have appeared in the ship’s papers that this had been shipped by
Messrs. Zulueta the charterers, and consigned to Mr. Martinez? In all
this statement it is said, that it is beyond all question that this was
not a transaction which ought to be concealed, for that their name would
not have appeared in the cockets, the bill of lading, and every thing
connected with it. Now, the fact is, that their name does not appear,
for it only appears as shipped by Thomas Jennings. Now, Thomas Jennings
is the captain; he makes a contract with Zulueta; he is not the person
who ships the things; but in all the ship’s papers, and every thing
connected with them, it all appears as shipped by Jennings, and their
name is not introduced from beginning to end. “Is not there a document,
officially published daily in London and at Liverpool, stating the daily
entries at the Custom-house of all goods shipped, with the description
of the goods, and the name of the port and of the shipper?--Yes, there
is.” I am not aware of any such; but there is none with Mr. Zulueta’s
name as the shipper on this vessel. “Is not this printed from time to
time in the public papers?--It is in general circulation; there is
hardly any merchant in Liverpool or in London who is not possessed of
one. The Liverpool entries are reprinted in London, Liverpool being such
an important place of business. The bill printed in London contains also
Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol.” “So that every such transaction is
perfectly notorious to every one?--Notorious to every one who chooses to
read the public papers. There is another thing which escaped me till I
came into the room this morning. As I have been in the business from my
childhood, I know every thing that is going on an it. The Arrogante,
after we sold her at the Havannah, was sent to Vera Cruz with a cargo of
Spanish paper, spirits, raisins, &c., such as is sent for the South
American trade, for the purpose of breaking the blockade of Vera Cruz,
which she did break and went in. It was asked in Question 7147, whether
the Augusta was equipped for the slave trade the second time; the answer
was, ‘She was not.’ I wish to state, that before any goods were put on
board of her, it was our express wish and order that every thing in her
that was fit for that trade should be taken down, and the vessel put in
the same condition as any other merchant vessel; and we should not have
loaded any thing in her if that had not been done.” Beyond all question:
she could not have gone out of the port of Liverpool if that had not
been done; if she had been fitted up as a slave trader, she would have
been seized before she went out of the port of Liverpool. “It is stated
in the evidence that the Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave
dealers; now we had never in our lives heard of the name of any one of
the parties to whom she was consigned.” That is a most extraordinary
thing. You will see how that is, if the letters are put in. Here are
persons shipping to the Gallinas for two years; there are five persons
there who are slave dealers, and nothing else; the prisoner has
consigned goods there for twenty years, and yet he has never known the
names of three of them as slave dealers. There is a difficulty in that
answer, because he does not remember their names before he sent goods to
them. He is asked, “You mean that the first time you heard their names
was when the order to ship those goods was given to you?--Yes, and the
circumstance of three consignees is a regular thing with distant
consignments, such as South America and Africa. There is such an
uncertainty attending the residence of parties in those places, that we
invariably put a second and a third consignee in addition, in case the
first should not be in the way.” Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “Some bills
were referred to in your former evidence drawn by Mr. Pedro Blanco upon
your house; have you any objection to put those bills before the
Committee?--Not any. And I ought to state now, as I have been looking at
the bills more closely, that they are not all drawn to the orders of
Sierra Leone houses, but to the orders of other Spaniards, and those
people endorsed them to the Sierra Leone houses. This does not alter the
case materially, but for the sake of accuracy I mention it.” “You will
put them in for the inspection of the Committee?--Certainly.--(_The same
were delivered in._)” Then it is said, “You only hesitated in giving the
names yesterday from motives of delicacy, not from any motive of
concealment?--Yes, I do not wish to withhold any thing; but I am
indisposed to introduce any name. I have no wish to conceal any thing
whatever. I have been consulting with my partners upon this subject, and
I have a request to make to the Committee. Our position is one which is
certainly an unpleasant one. I think that what I have stated will have
proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that we have not in any way
intended to elude the law.” Then there is a suggestion that it is not
necessary I should state to you, that if there is any difficulty a new
Act of Parliament should pass.
Gentlemen, I have read to you, I believe, every word of the statement of
Mr. Zulueta which is material to the question. I wished to read it,
because I wish that there should not be the slightest possible ground
for stating that I conceal any thing which he had stated in his own
favour. You are perfectly aware, that where you put in the statement of
any person against him, you take it all; you examine into the truth of
that which is said in his own favour, and the truth of that which makes
against him; you examine the correctness or incorrectness of the whole
from this. It will be for you to say, how far you are satisfied that he
had the means of knowing, and did know, that Pedro Martinez was a slave
trader, dealing in slaves at the Gallinas. If you gather from this that
he knew it, then the next question you will have to decide will be,--Was
this vessel going to the Gallinas for the purpose of supplying the
dealers with goods, the materials for carrying on their business, and
the materials for the use of the slaves while in that situation? for
there is no doubt that that will be an offence within this Act of
Parliament. You are to say, whether he did know it or not. The goods
sent were partly iron pots used for boiling their rice while in
barracoons. Then there are other goods fit for barter with reference to
the exchange of slaves, that being, as far as any evidence can be laid
before you, the only trade carried on at that place: you will say,
whether they were intended to be used for that trade. The question is,
Do you know of any other trade in the Gallinas but the slave trade? The
prisoner did not know of any other trade; he did not pretend to know of
any other. Gentlemen, undoubtedly you cannot look into the mind of any
one; you must judge from the facts; and therefore one material question
you will have to decide is, Was this trade carried on in the way in
which a person would carry on a trade who knew it to be of such a
nature--was it carried on _bonâ fide_, or with a most careful
concealment of the name of Zulueta throughout the whole of this
transaction? If you find there was concealment, you must undoubtedly, as
far as you are able, ascertain whether there was a guilty knowledge. If
a prisoner had been charged with receiving goods knowing them to be
stolen, and it appeared that he had concealed them in the way in which
an honest man would not, that is evidence; so if you are satisfied there
was a course of concealment, and that the name of Jennings, the man who
knew of the affair, was used to cover these goods, they being shipped in
the name of Jennings; if you consider that in the fair ordinary course
of trade that would be evidence of fraud, then you will consider whether
that is not proof that they were sent for the purpose of slave trading.
That is the question to which you must turn your attention. I will lay
the evidence before you: I have opened a part of the evidence, it will
be a question whether any more will be laid before you; if no more is
laid before you, you must take the evidence which will be before you,
and consider whether the goods being sent to these persons engaged in
the slave trade, with the concealment, is not evidence of the intention
of sending them. If the other evidence is laid before you, you will take
the whole, under the direction of the learned Judge, into your
consideration.
Gentlemen, there is one observation I ought to make before I close. My
learned friend has thrown out the question, Who is the prosecutor in
this case? It is quite immaterial, in point of law, who is the
prosecutor; the question is, What is the evidence against the defendant?
But you will not for a moment understand that the prosecutor wishes to
conceal himself or his name. The name of the prosecutor is the attorney
in the case, Sir George Stephen; he is the son of a gentleman whose name
has been known as long as any attempt has existed in this country, as
one deeply interested in the attempt to overthrow the slave trade, and
cause its suppression; and he is the nephew of a man to whom undoubtedly
I should say is due very great praise, it would be hardly too much to
say the greatest praise, in removing the stain which rested upon this
country--I mean Mr. Wilberforce. Sir George Stephen has no fear or
apprehension upon the subject; he has felt it to be necessary and proper
in his judgment, and the judgment of those with whom he is connected and
with whom he has acted, that some person should stand forward to bear
all the responsibility which rested upon any individual in bringing a
case of this kind before you for your consideration. He has no objection
to bear that responsibility; he has performed his duty in this respect.
But that is quite immaterial to the question in this case, which is
simply this,--Is the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty of that
with which he is charged in this indictment? And I mention the name of
Sir George Stephen, because he does not wish to shrink from the
responsibility which rests upon him. You will attend only to the
evidence, and upon the evidence you will give your verdict of guilty or
not guilty. I am sure, if the prisoner is innocent, you will give that
verdict with great satisfaction; but if he is guilty, you will not
shrink from that important duty which rests upon you in giving a
verdict--a verdict of the utmost importance to those human beings for
whose protection you are now sitting. If he is innocent, no feeling of
that description will influence you in giving a feather’s weight to the
prosecution; on the other hand, if you feel that he is guilty, you will
not shrink from saying so by your verdict.