Mr. _Kelly_. I do most earnestly hope that some of you have sufficient

experience of the mode in which business is conducted, with respect to

ships, to know, that this is not an unusual circumstance. Just consider

the object of the voyage: these goods were to be taken to the Gallinas,

and they were consigned to those persons whose names you have heard. You

have heard that slave trading is carried on there, as it is along the

whole coast--that is known to Martinez & Co.--they have a great deal of

trade there, and no doubt they would know it; they would know very well

that the seas swarmed with British cruizers, for the purpose of

interrupting and preventing the slave trade--what more natural? If their

correspondents should happen not to be upon the spot at the time the

goods arrived, so that they could not be delivered, or that there should

be a blockade, and the ship could not enter with the goods shipped by

Martinez & Co., the captain must sail back to England or to Cadiz, and

get authority from Martinez to alter the destination of the goods; if,

on the contrary, they were shipped in the name of Captain Jennings, if

he found a blockade, or the correspondents of Messrs. Martinez were not

there, or there was any opposition to his communications with the shore,

he would have the complete disposal of the goods; he might take them to

other parts of the coast of Africa, or any other part of the world, or

deal with them as he pleased--and the whole mystery is explained. Every

body, who knows any thing of these commercial transactions, knows that a

supercargo is sent out with goods, and the shipment is most frequently

in the name of the supercargo; and it is for that reason, that in case

when the goods arrive at the place to which they are consigned, if there

is any difficulty, or any thing which requires the control or

disposition of the owner, the supercargo is the party to act, and he can

only do that when the shipment is in his name. Here there is a

supercargo, or somebody they had confidence in, Captain Jennings, and

accordingly the shipment is made in the name of Jennings, in order, in a

case of difficulty, that he may exercise a control over the goods. And

so far from there being any thing illegal in it, so far from there being

any thing unusual in the transaction--because Captain Jennings was made

the master, the apparent owner of the vessel, and the person in whose

name the goods were shipped--it is the constant custom. If Messrs.

Martinez wished to send these goods to the coast of Africa, and if, by

reason of any blockade, it would be necessary to give them another

destination, they wished to have the benefit of an English captain,

Captain Jennings--and by taking the course they did, of making out the

charter-party from Captain Jennings to Martinez & Co., and at the same

time shipping the goods in his own name, retaining a share of the

superintendence as the real owner throughout the voyage, they

accomplished that. To tell me, because that is done, which is a matter

of constant custom, the good sense of which strikes one at the first

sight--for my learned friend to rise and say, this is a concealment, and

you are to condemn this young man to transportation--is perfectly

monstrous. But I will tell you what the prosecutor ought to have

done--and what I should have expected from the experience of my learned

friend, who has called Sir George Stephen the public prosecutor--if he

meant to say, that a charter-party in this form was an illegal and

unmercantile act, he ought to have called persons engaged in the trade,

parties engaged in shipments of the same description, or any other

foreign trade, to prove that this was an illegal, and consequently an

unusual transaction. He has left that in blank. I make the same

observation as to the nature of the trade: how is it--when you are

called upon here to denounce this young man as a felon, because it is

supposed that slave trading was carried on at this place, the Gallinas,

and that any body engaged in trade to that part of the world must have

known that slave trading was carried on there--how is it, that out of

the scores, to say the least, of highly respectable, intelligent, and

experienced merchants, carrying on trade in this city, not one is called

before you--not a merchant, not a shipper, not an individual is called

to speak to any part of this transaction? You are to take Mr. Serjeant

Bompas’s statement for every thing--whatever Sir George Stephen

instructs him to say in this case, unless you have experience in it

yourself, you are to take every thing as proof. I say it became the

public prosecutor to call merchants, acquainted with the coast of

Africa, to give a fair mercantile character to the transaction; they

have not done so; and I protest against the doctrine, that any man is to

be treated as guilty, and denounced as tainted with crime, not upon any

proof that the character of the transaction is contrary to mercantile

usage, but upon the statement of counsel, unsupported by evidence, and

more particularly where that evidence is so completely within the power

of the prosecutor.

Gentlemen, let me make another observation upon this point--I fear that

the length to which this case has been drawn may weary you, and my

address more so than any other part of the case; but, for mercy’s sake,

consider--

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

Mr. _Kelly_. I thank you, Gentlemen. What would be my feelings, if any

thing adverse was to happen to this young man, from my omitting to say

what occurred to me as important? It is said by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, but

not proved, that this was done under concealment: they have not called

man or boy from Liverpool to prove that any part of the transaction was

unusual. I appeal to any man, who knows any thing of the nature of

shipments, whether it is possible that this cargo could have been

shipped without clerks and shipping agents being employed, and without

the cargo and ship undergoing the inspection of the Custom-house

officers. All that has been done, and my learned friend and Sir George

Stephen know that that has been done; and I believe, in his opening

speech, he alluded to evidence from Liverpool; but not one witness has

been called. You will see the effect of that in another part of the

transaction to which I have not arrived; but when Mr. Serjeant Bompas

tells you, that the employment of Mr. Jennings, as captain and owner,

and shipping the goods in his own name, was done for the purpose of

concealment, I say it is idle; and it is an insult to the understanding

of any man to say there was any concealment. Messrs. Zulueta employ

Captain Jennings--he employs other people--you heard that that was the

mode in which the business was conducted--the Russian consul and Mr.

Emanuel are not Zulueta & Co.--it appears that the transaction could not

have been conducted but by the house of Zulueta--and yet my learned

friend contents himself by saying, that this was secretly done, though

he has not called one witness to prove it.

Gentlemen, I was upon the point, that the employment of Captain

Jennings, and the making it appear that Captain Jennings was the owner,

was a circumstance of concealment. If it was, I have told you the

reasons humbly occurring to my own mind for thinking it was not; but

suppose it was concealed--concealment, which would facilitate the

carrying on the slave trade. Now, Gentlemen, I pray your attention to

this question--Was the putting this ship under British colours, and

under the command of a British captain, calculated at all to enable it

to carry on the slave trade? That is the question. If it was, I clearly

admit--though God forbid a man should be convicted upon it!--that it is

a circumstance that may require some consideration in your minds; but if

I demonstrate to you, that for all the objects of the slave trade, the

employment of a British captain, and the employment of British colours,

was fatal to it, and rendered discovery, and forfeiture, and

punishment, almost inevitable, what becomes of the statement that all

this was done clandestinely to facilitate the slave trade? Recollect the

account of the trade given by Captain Denman. If it be a foreign vessel,

a Portuguese or Spanish, which engages in the slave trade, there are

very great impediments and very great difficulties in interrupting it,

in searching and in bringing the transaction to light, or the

perpetrators to justice, investigating the matter judicially, and

finally causing the vessel and goods to be condemned. Our newspapers are

filled with discussions about the right of search. Whereas, Captain

Denman could, without a moment’s pause, without any obstruction, enter

upon any English vessel, and seize the English captain, and search the

vessel from top to bottom--while, in an American vessel, and many other

vessels, he might be met by obstruction, and it might be the cause of a

war. It is true, under some treaties, it may be done; but it is not so

as to Russia, because this vessel ultimately, according to my learned

friend, defeated justice, and was given up to the Russian government.

Where a vessel, therefore, is under foreign colours, there are many

difficulties in searching, and if suspicious circumstances appear, in

bringing the vessel, if I may so speak, to justice. What does Captain

Denman say? “If it is an American vessel, I could not search at all

unless by main force, at the peril of a war; if a Russian, it is the

same thing; if a Spanish or French vessel, then, under the treaty, a

search may take place.” But, remember the mode of searching: if he saw

an English vessel, the English captain would feel that of necessity he

must, unless he meant to be condemned, tender his vessel, and all in it,

to the investigation of a British naval officer; and if the vessel has

any thing suspicious about it, you may prosecute it in the British

Vice-Admiralty Court, in any of the colonies throughout the world; and,

if condemned, as it may be, by British law, by British officers of

justice; whereas, if it be a Spanish or Russian vessel, or a Portuguese,

or of any other country, there are all sorts of difficulties and

formalities before a search can take place; and if any thing suspicious

is found, even Captain Hill, with all his furious zeal, would pause

before he seized a foreign vessel. Again, supposing there are suspicious

appearances, and the officer determines to try the question, it is tried

not in the British Vice Admiralty Court--not in any British court at

all--but before a Mixed Commission, composed of British, Spanish, and,

perhaps, the subjects of other nations, surrounded with all these

difficulties, and, I grieve to say, all that corruption which taints the

administration of justice in almost every other country but this.

Now, Mr. Serjeant Bompas says--Sacrifice this young man, and condemn him

as a felon. Why? Because, the more easily to carry on the slave trade,

he fitted out a vessel--not as a Spaniard, with a Spanish crew and

Spanish colours, but with English colours, an English captain, and an

English crew, which Captain Denman, Captain Hill, or any other captain

might search and condemn. Now, I am the humble and inefficient advocate

of this young man, and the matter may occur to my mind erroneously; I

may take an erroneous view, from the zeal I feel in the case, in

presenting it before you, in the terms in which his innocence will

ultimately appear; but, unless I grievously deceive myself, that

argument admits of no answer, as Captain Denman said there are

difficulties in the one case and none in the other--a trial by a British

Court in the one case, and a Mixed Commission in the other; that there

are great impediments where it is a foreign vessel, and none in the

other. And has the prosecutor a right to call upon you to come to a

conclusion that this young man is guilty of felony, because he fitted

out a vessel with English colours, and an English captain, the more

easily to carry on the slave trade? You will have to answer that

question, if you think the slave trade could be more easily carried on

by an English captain and an English crew. You have heard of the mutiny

before they reached Cadiz; if you think an English crew were used, and

English colours hoisted, the more safely to carry on the trade, it must

be for some reason that does not occur to my mind, and I trust in God it

will not occur to yours.

Now, Gentlemen, we come to the next point. They say--Though true it is,

that this vessel was not employed in the slave trade, there is the most

direct evidence that the man who fitted out the vessel meant to employ

it in the slave trade, and really employed it with that object. If you

cannot show the orders given by him to the captain so to employ it, the

next thing would be to show it was so employed. If this ship had sailed

from England to the Gallinas and discharged its cargo, and had taken in

a number of slaves; or if it had bartered its cargo against a number of

slaves; if that had been done, unless you can show it was done by Mr.

Zulueta’s orders, he is not responsible: you may challenge the captain,

and you might say, whether Mr. Zulueta intended it or not, it was so

used: but there is no such evidence. Captain Hill, with his zeal to

discharge his duty and to prevent slave trading, took time by the

forelock, and seized the vessel in the hands of the captain before it

reached the shore, and you have therefore no means of drawing inferences

of what was intended by what was done. But they endeavour to make up for

that in this way: they say, we will show that the vessel was originally

built for the slave trade; and we will show that, while it was in the

hands of Mr. Zulueta, or while Captain Jennings had it under his hands,

it had fittings added, or articles furnished, calculated to assist in

the slave trade. And I must say, upon this part of the case, it grieves

me to refer to the mode in which it has been conducted in terms of

reprobation; _but I should ill discharge my duty if I did not say, that

the mode in which the evidence was laid before you was unworthy the high

reputation and the honourable character of my learned friend_. I pray

you to remember what it is has been proved upon this occasion. He calls

a witness from Portsmouth, or two or three; and, as Mr. Clarkson, and my

other learned friend, obtained from them on cross-examination they had

been lately subpœnaed, the prisoner could not be prepared by any

possibility for their testimony; and what do they prove? They prove,

that on board this vessel, while Captain Jennings was in command of it,

they had seen, I do not know how many, water-casks for slave trading;

that they had seen shackles and bolts, and all the muniments necessary

to carry on the slave trade. Now, I ask you, is that fair? Is that just?

The prisoner is charged, not with having thrown away those things, and

destroyed them, and fitted up a vessel, which, for aught he knew, might

be used in the slave trade, or might be for perfectly lawful purposes;

but he is charged with having dispatched it from Liverpool for the

purposes of the slave trade; and, in order to prove that, the prosecutor

thinks it right to give in evidence what was done at Portsmouth with

these shackles and water-casks which were on board the vessel, and there

he leaves the case. I cannot trust myself to speak of that mode of

giving evidence. Gentlemen, the way in which they ought to have

convinced you there was any thing on board this vessel calculated to

carry on the trade, was to show the condition of the vessel at the time

she left the port of Liverpool. There all the control of the house of

Zulueta & Co. finished; the charter-party was made out, the goods were

put on board, and the ship, on the 8th of November, 1840, sailed from

Liverpool; then, if this young man is a felon, the felony was completed.

What was the condition of the ship then? Had it then the water-casks for

the nourishment of the slaves? Had it shackles and other instruments of

torture, or for the conveyance of the slaves from one part of the world

to the other? Gentlemen, that was the time; that was the place to show

it: and it could not be by inadvertence it was omitted. Why, Captain

Hill, their witness, who would not drop a single syllable, who could not

bring himself to say any thing favourable to this young man (not from

any improper motive, he will not understand me to say), that even

Captain Hill was obliged to say--“When I seized the vessel, where the

slave trade was to be carried on, it was not fitted up for the slave

trade;” and one of you gentlemen of the Jury--and from the bottom of my

heart I thanked you--put the question in another form through my Lord,

and the answer was--“No; at the time the vessel was seized it was not

fitted up for the slave trade.” So that you have this fact, that when it

left Liverpool it was not fitted up for the slave trade, and had not the

means on board to be so fitted up, and when on the coast of Africa it

was not so fitted up; but, from their own witnesses knowing that, they

call other witnesses to raise a suspicion in your minds that it was

secretly prepared for the slave trade, because there were water-casks

and shackles on board. And remember the evidence of the cabin-boy: they

had the choice of the whole crew, and no one can say that the crew would

be favourable to Mr. Zulueta, the owner, or his house; they were

discharged as mutineers: they had their choice of the whole crew, and no

expense, and no exertions have been spared, and yet they dare not call

one of the crew to say what Captain Jennings stated, or what his object

was; they called the cabin-boy, who says, “I know nothing of the loading

of the vessel.”

There is a person to be tried for a felony in fitting out a vessel

perfectly lawfully, but for the slave trade, and they seek to show that

it was fitted up for the slave trade: they do not show it at the only

time it was material to show it, but they seek to ruin and destroy this

unfortunate young man, by giving evidence of its state at Portsmouth,

when we have from this boy the damning fact for the integrity of their

case, that though the water-vessels were changed in their form, which

was to make you think that they were sent in a disguised form, they were

put on shore at Liverpool, and not put back again. If there had been an

inch or a scrap of old iron, or a nail, the ship was in the possession

of Captain Hill, and those who acted under him, as long as he thought

fit to keep it. It was put into the Vice-Admiralty Court; it was open to

the witnesses for the prosecution: I have no doubt they searched it from

end to end, and from top to bottom, and every crevice and cranny, and in

no place was a scrap of rusty iron found applicable to the slave trade;

and yet you are to be told by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, that he will prove it

was adapted for the slave trade, when his own instructions had already

told him that they gave a false appearance to the case, and the true

appearance of the case was entirely left out of consideration. However,

Gentlemen, I thank God, whatever may be the consequence, and however

terrible to my own feelings as counsel for the prisoner, I had no

hand--God forbid!--in such a prosecution.

Gentlemen, it is not only in the mode and to the extent I have pointed

out to you, that the evidence has been sought to be perverted--and if

there had been a case, and facts to be proved from the condition of the

vessel, it is only from the evidence they have submitted to you that it

can appear--Captain Hill seized the vessel and cargo; he had the full

control of it; every species of information, every scrap of paper on

board is in their power, and every thing that could be given in evidence

before you has been brought before you.

Gentlemen, I must observe that I am not counsel for Captain Jennings.

Captain Jennings, for aught I know, though he is an Englishman, and

there is no charge against him, may have been in collusion with Martinez

& Co. I am not responsible for his acts. I thought there had been some

refusal to give up the papers, but Captain Hill negatived that

altogether; he did not say there was any opposition; the vessel did not

sail away from him, on the contrary, it sailed up to him. I do not know

how that was. He asked for papers and they were given up to him--he made

some request which was refused, but as to the running away, or

concealment, nothing of the kind was practised; but you have here a

felon, in the situation of a partner in the house of Zulueta & Co.,

trading to the amount of millions, trading with the house of Martinez &

Co. to an immense amount in sugar and tobacco, and all sorts of goods

passing between Britain and its Colonies, and a little trading upon

commission in the last fifteen years, in which the commission put into

the pocket of Zulueta & Co., would not pay a day’s salary to their

clerks in their office, and you have a charge of felony for what this

young man has done as it appears in the evidence to which I have called

your attention. To talk of its being a concealment to use an English

captain and an English vessel, when it would have insured a

prosecution--when it would have insured discovery--when it would have

insured punishment--is absurd. They say, here was something in the

nature of the vessel, and to enable you to arrive at the same conclusion

they prove her condition at Portsmouth, which was altered before the

voyage was embarked upon, and they do not prove the condition of the

vessel at the only time important for you to inquire into.

Gentlemen, Captain Hill said it would be very easy when the vessel

arrived at Gallinas to get the fittings up there; that it would be easy

for the factor there, when he expected the vessel, to get them ready. No

doubt it would be very easy for a man to get a gun, and load it with

powder and ball, and so shoot the Queen. But, good God! are we in cases

of felony not to look for evidence, not to look for facts, but to

suppose a felony, because it is physically possible that somebody may do

something to put this ship into a condition that may be unlawful? So I

might say of Captain Hill, that when he went with one of Her Majesty’s

ships upon the coast, he was disposed to assist in the slave trade

instead of destroying it; he might have harboured the slaves in his

vessel, or turned it into a slave establishment, or any thing else. But

we are dealing with something more than the life of this young man. You

are not to look at what a man 4000 miles off did, but what this man did.

What he has done he is responsible for, and he is ready to answer

here--he is ready to answer at a higher tribunal; but, in the name of

that Judge before whom we must all stand, I implore you, do not visit

him with suppositions of what other men might have done, instead of what

he is proved to have done in this transaction.

Gentlemen, the evidence in the cause would have gone no further than I

have stated but from the circumstance--a most extraordinary one, and

unprecedented as far as my experience goes in criminal cases--of a great

body of evidence being produced, that being neither more nor less than

the voluntary, unsought, and unasked testimony of the criminal himself

in his evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons; and

it is that to which I have finally to call your attention. I have stated

to you, that the house of Zulueta & Co. had enjoyed the highest

reputation from the time of their establishment, nearly seventy years

ago, until the year 1842. That Committee was appointed, and is declared

to have been assembled for the purpose of inquiring into the mode in

which the slave trade at various places on the coast of Africa was

effected by British commerce and by the employment of British capital.

It was suggested, and perhaps truly suggested, that from various British

houses, dealing largely in British manufactures, and exporting them as

principals, or as agents to the order of Spanish houses, or Portuguese

houses, or American houses, particularly in the states of South

America--that by reason of those exports, commerce was introduced, and

great sums of money procured, which money, being employed in the slave

trade, thereby British capital and commerce tended to support the slave

trade. The object of the Committee was to determine to what extent this

particular allegation was true, and if true, whether it could be

remedied by any alteration in the law. It is not necessary to notice the

result of their deliberations; but it is important to observe, that upon

the Committee were two most zealous men, Lord Stanley and Lord John

Russell, neither of whom could have seen enough in the conduct of this

young man to justify his prosecution. And this Committee seem to have

thought whatever evil might arise in fostering or in facilitating the

slave trade, directly or indirectly, by British capital and commerce,

that they would too fatally interfere with the commerce and civilization

of the Africans themselves, from which, and not the force of arms, the

destruction of slavery must ensue, if further restrictions were placed

upon general commerce of the country; and no further restrictions have

been placed. But in the course of the investigation before this

Committee, and at a very late period of their sittings, because it is

after this part of this _immense volume_[16] had been given the house of

Zulueta & Co. learnt that some evidence had been given _ex parte_ and in

their absence, which they thought threw some reflection upon the honour

and integrity of their house. They felt their honour involved, and they

felt themselves entirely innocent of the charge--they felt that the

house of Zulueta & Co., both here and abroad, so far from assisting in

the slave trade, had cautiously desisted from it, and made great

sacrifices, even when both nations were engaged in it; and one of their

firm came forward to give such explanation as he thought necessary to

clear the house, if possible, from the imputation cast upon it--not

because he knew more of it than any other member of the firm, that will

appear from the evidence; but, because he spoke English more fluently

than his father, he came forward and gave the evidence which is before

you. And, Gentlemen, but for that evidence the whole case would have

been, that the house of Zulueta & Co. shipped these goods and dispatched

this vessel, and in the course of their proceedings this letter and

charter-party were signed by the prisoner at the bar. But they say, what

is wanting, that evidence will complete, and out of his own mouth they

can clearly show he has betrayed himself into a most awful

predicament--that when he went before this Committee voluntarily, he has

admitted himself to be a felon. But, thank God, that is for you to judge

of. It is for you, a Jury of British men, not dealing with a

fellow-countryman, but where you would be more tender than with any of

your own countrymen--it is you, and I thank God for it, who are to

decide whether this young man has admitted himself to be a felon: if he

has, he must be punished for it; but he has given a fair statement from

beginning to end, and if there was any thing false, the prosecutor could

prove it false by the clearest evidence; and I can, with that confidence

with which I should appeal to Heaven for truth and justice, appeal to

you for a verdict of acquittal of the prisoner.

[16] Pointing to a large folio volume in his hand, “Parliamentary Report

on the West Coast of Africa,” from which Mr. Kelly read the quotations

contained in the subsequent parts of his speech.

Gentlemen, he appears before the Committee upon the 22nd of July, 1842,

and the Chairman says to him, “You have seen some statements that have

been made to this Committee upon the subject of a transaction in which

your house was engaged; have you any observations to offer upon it?--I

received from the Clerk of the Committee a letter.” He accounts for

having heard of it, and then says, “I would beg, first of all, to refer

to the letter which I had the honour to address to the Chairman.” That

letter ought to have been brought before you--it is not--we have it not,

and have no control over it. The prosecutor could have produced it,

because, with the permission of the House, by which he has produced this

evidence, he might have produced that letter, or had a copy of it. He

says, “My reason for wishing to be examined before this Committee was,

that the statements contained in the evidence which I have mentioned are

all of them more or less incorrect, some of them totally so. I will

begin by stating what has been the nature of our, I will not say trade,

for we have not had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the

shipment of goods to the coast of Africa.” I pray your attention to

this--it is not, as my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Talfourd seems to

assume in a question put to Captain Denman, it is not that this house

has ever traded, in the proper sense of the word, to the coast of

Africa; they never send goods there on their own account, and they never

received goods from there; they never had any transaction or

correspondence with any person at the Gallinas, or any where else upon

the coast of Africa; all their transactions were confined to the

execution of foreign orders from the Havannah, and other parts of the

world; all that they did being to dispatch the vessels and ship the

goods; and from the moment of shipping the goods in England, from that

moment their interference entirely ceased. He says, “I will begin by

stating what has been the nature of our, I will not say trade, for we

have not had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the shipment

of goods to the coast of Africa. We have been established as merchants

for upwards of 70 years in Spain, for nearly 20 years in this country,

and we have had connexions to a large extent in Spain, and in the

Havannah, and in South America, and in several other places; among them

we have had connexions, or commercial intercourse, with the house of

Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and with Blanco and Cavallo of

Havannah. With them we have carried on a regular business in

consignments of sugars and of cochineal, which they have made to us.” I

pray you to put this case--Suppose the house of Zulueta & Co. received a

consignment of cochineal and sugars from the house of Martinez, the

value of the consignment being 5,000_l._, they convert it into money,

and they have that 5,000_l._ at the disposal of Martinez & Co.; suppose

any one of the gentlemen, who are doing me the honour of attending to

me, had money of Martinez by him, say 10,000_l._, the house of Martinez,

instead of drawing it out, order it to be invested in English goods;

suppose they write and say, we have received your account sales of

sugars and cochineal, we find we are credited for 10,000_l._, and we

request you to ship the undermentioned goods by the Augusta, Captain

Jennings, for the Gallinas, or any other place on the coast of Africa,

and they set one against the other--would you hesitate in doing it?

would you dream you were committing a felony? It is not that this is an

only transaction (I do not know whether that would affect the

case)--there is a trading for twenty years--it is a little more than ten

years that they have had transactions of that kind, and have shipped

goods to, they did not know who--they have never heard of the goods

being seized, or the vessels seized, or what became of the money,

whether invested in the slave trading, or any other traffic--all they

know is, that they have received the consignments of cochineal or

sugars, that they have sold them, and hold 5,000_l._ or 10,000_l._ in

their hands--they are ordered this day to pay part of the money by

accepting bills, and the next day they are ordered to send the remainder

of the money they owe, in brandy, tobacco, or iron, to be shipped to the

Gallinas, or any where else, and they act upon it--whether the goods are

sold for slaves, whether they are used, whether they are sold for money,

and the money spent in the purchase of other merchandise or in the

support of the families of those who have received them, to them is

indifferent--they have shipped the goods, they have debited the account,

and there the matter ends, that is perfectly clear. He says, “With them

we have carried on a regular business in consignments of sugars and of

cochineal, which they have made to us; and in specie received by the

packets from Mexico and other places. We have several times acted for

them here in this country, buying raw cotton for instance at Liverpool,

and re-selling it very largely; that has been principally with Pedro

Martinez & Co.” “They are general merchants?--They are general

merchants, and their transactions with us have been of that nature. As

general merchants, we have bought stock here for them rather largely;

and, in the course of those transactions, we have received orders from

Don Pedro Martinez & Co., of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez,

of Cadiz, to ship goods to the coast of Africa.” It must be doubtless so

that they received the order one day to remit money, and the next to

remit goods to the coast of Africa. If they were slave traders, you have

no right to assume that they knew it; it is not proved that they knew

it; and if Martinez & Co. were notorious slave dealers, if they are also

much larger traders in cochineal and sugars, what right had they to

suppose, if, instead of the money they owe, they are to ship

merchandise, what right have they to suppose that they will deal

unlawfully with this commodity? It is a case to which the law never

pointed, and it would go to the destruction of commerce if any man was

bound to pause or make any inquiry at all before he shipped. He is then

asked, “Have you received orders from Pedro Martinez for shipments for

the coast of Africa?--Yes; in the course of business we have received

orders to ship goods upon the funds in our hands belonging to them; and

we have shipped the goods described in the letter, and sent the bills of

lading to Pedro Martinez; but beyond that we have never had any returns

from the coast of Africa.”

This is the whole case; it is a full defence to this prosecution, and

disposes of the offence it is supposed this young man was committing.

And further, he says, “Nor any control of any kind from the moment the

cargoes left the ports of this country.” Now here again, if this is

false, it might be proved. They have given us notice to produce the

accounts, and all letters that have passed between Martinez and Zulueta

& Co.; they might have shown that this was false, that they had dealt in

some other way, and that they had some interest in the final event of

the shipment: they have not proved any thing of the kind. I say they

have proved the contrary, and _I will never in my person establish so

fatal a precedent as to recognise the notion that any man upon his trial

for a felony is to prove himself innocent before evidence is given to

prove him guilty_.

He is then asked, “You have had no interest in the result of the

venture?--No, nor any notice, nor any acquaintance, nor any

correspondence with any one upon the coast; we have never had any kind

of knowledge, either subsequently or previously, of the shipments,

except the mere fact of buying the goods and shipping them.” “Your whole

interest was a commission upon the transaction?--Entirely. The extent of

those transactions has been so limited in the course of nearly twenty

years that we have been in this country, that the amount of the invoices

that we have sent out has been something like 20,000_l._ or 22,000_l._

in the course of all that time. That is one part of the operations we

have performed. The other operations are the acceptance of bills drawn

by people on the coast; among them Pedro Blanco when he was there, upon

ourselves, on account of Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which

Blanco & Cavallo had in our hands: for instance, the people at the

Havannah, or in Spain, open a credit with us, and we accept the bills of

the parties on that credit with us, just the same as we should do with

any other correspondent in any other part.” “You would have funds in

your hands, arising from some commercial transactions between you and

the Havannah merchant, or the Cadiz merchant; and Pedro Blanco, upon the

coast of Africa, would draw upon the credit of those funds, being

authorised by the Cadiz or the Havannah merchant?--Yes; and if Pedro

Blanco had drawn 5_s._ beyond that, we should have protested, and in

some instances we have protested.” This shews they had nothing to do

with the owner of the property abroad. They had received consignments,

and had accounted for the sums of money, and they either accept bills or

consign goods; if bills are drawn beyond the amount due, they protest

them, and if they are asked to consign goods beyond that amount, they

refuse to do so. “With regard to the vessel alluded to in this Report,

the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that which appears

from one of the letters: that is to say”--

Now here again, Gentlemen, I must refer you to the mode in which this

prosecution has been carried on.

In this evidence before the Committee, the prisoner now at the bar

refers to one of the letters received by the house from Martinez & Co.:

I must say where the counsel for the prosecution availed themselves of

this evidence before the Committee, as evidence against the prisoner

upon the charge of felony, I think they were bound to make evidence of

every document he referred to in it, as explanatory of the evidence he

gave.

I speak this subject to the correction of their Lordships; and I know

that their Lordships will overrule and correct what I say, if I am

wrong, and therefore I say it with the more confidence, because I know

it will not be controverted; I say, that in a prosecution for a felony,

or any other crime, if the counsel for the prosecution give in evidence

a statement made by a prisoner, charged with a crime which refers to a

document, he ought--

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I understood this was the letter about the

500_l._; that and all the other letters are in the Appendix, and to be

found there: they are deposited, every one.

Mr. _Kelly_. We will try my learned friend’s accuracy by looking at what

it was. He says, “With regard to the vessel alluded to in this Report,

the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply that which appears

from one of the letters: that is to say, Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz, had

made choice of Jennings to buy the vessel, and lent him money to buy the

vessel; because Pedro Martinez wanted him to have a vessel in the trade,

for the purpose of taking his goods to their destination.” He says that

the object of Pedro Martinez was, that Captain Jennings should buy the

vessel, and that it should be conducted in the way he states. That may

appear in a letter--how could it appear but in a letter from Martinez &

Co. to Zulueta, containing their instructions? That letter my learned

friend should have called for--he has given notice to produce it, and he

ought to have called for it and made it a part of the examination, as if

the witness had produced and read the letter, and it had not been set

out in the evidence. He then says, “I have now described the three kinds

of operations in which we have been concerned, and our knowledge of all

of them terminated with the execution of the orders of our

correspondents. We had nothing more to do than to follow the orders of

the purchaser in shipping the goods. With regard to the purchase of the

vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a man--” Here is a solution of every

thing called concealment. “Jennings is a man who has been employed some

time by Martinez; he has served Martinez as a chartered captain, and

Martinez, having been satisfied with his services, agreed to lend him

that money on the security of the vessel, provided it did not exceed a

certain amount.” Now the next question is put by Mr. Forster, the member

for Berwick. Mr. Forster all the world knows, and I hope you know, is

very extensively concerned in the African trade; he is a man as

perfectly conversant with this subject as any man in Britain; and I

cannot help making the same observation as to him which I did as to Lord

Stanley and Lord John Russell, I cannot help thinking, if there had been

any thing dishonourable in the character of the trade and to the

character of a British merchant, instead of bringing out the true colour

of the transaction, as you will see he did, he would have done every

thing to hold it up to reprobation. He learns from the witness the

nature of the transaction as to the purchase of the vessel, that Captain

Jennings had been engaged in similar transactions; he catches at it in a

moment, and puts it in a few words--“You advanced the money to Captain

Jennings for the purchase of the vessel, Jennings transferring the

vessel to you as a security for the money so advanced?--That is just the

description of operation, which is a very general one in business.” If

the counsel for the prosecution says it is not the ordinary course of

business, why does he not call Mr. Forster, or any other gentleman in

the trade, to show that it is not correct, and that it is not a usual

transaction? He has attempted no such thing; the evidence is a blank;

you have only the evidence of this young man. I do not pretend to say

that because this gentleman has given a long statement, in which he has

vindicated his house from the statement made against them, that you are

bound to believe all he says; but I do appeal to you whether, if what he

says could be proved false by the prosecutors, they would not have done

so? They have proved nothing false. He is speaking of an ordinary

transaction of commerce before some of the first commercial men in

Britain: there was a check upon his evidence which would have restrained

him, if wicked enough to tell a lie, which would have prevented him

saying what was not true. I say that the character of the Committee is a

guarantee of the correctness of his statement, speaking of it as the

ordinary course of trade.

The Chairman then says, “What is the object of such an operation?--I

know very little, or almost next to nothing, of the operations in those

parts of the world.” Is that true or untrue? That is the very essence of

the case, as I submit to you: he has been only six or seven years in the

business; they have only in the last ten years had seven or eight

transactions, and in the last six or seven years they may have two or

three. He says, “I know very little, or almost next to nothing, of the

operations in those parts of the world.” Why, are you to suppose that

he, by intuition or by magic, was to know all that Captain Hill, Captain

Denman, and Colonel Nichol knew in twenty-five years of constant

observation? Mr. Serjeant Bompas asks you to believe he knew every thing

as well as any body living upon the spot. Then he speaks of the object

of the transaction, which I will not weary you in repeating.

Then he is asked, “What advantage would there be in Mr. Jennings taking

the articles rather as the owner than as captain under Martinez; was not

he commander of the vessel as well as owner of the vessel?--Yes.” “He is

made the owner, instead of being captain?--He is the owner as well as

the captain of the vessel; he stands indebted to Martinez, and gives a

bottomry bond for the vessel.” Then he goes on to illustrate what he

says.

Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “You acted in this transaction merely as agent

in the usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in any part

of the world?--Exactly; if Martinez had told me, ‘You have got 500_l._

in your hands, pay that to Captain Jennings,’ I should have known

nothing more of the transaction; I should have paid the money. But

Martinez did not wish to go beyond a certain amount; and he says, ‘You

exercise control, do not allow the man to pay more than 500_l._ for the

vessel.’” “But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of the

goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions were

entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?--Most assuredly; except

with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we could have done any

thing with him in any way.”

Gentlemen, that reminds me of this fact: my learned friend has sought to

give in evidence certain papers, which were found in the year 1841 on

board this vessel, and which it is now perfectly manifest were put on

board that vessel in Cadiz long after she had sailed from Liverpool; I

objected to that evidence. Gentlemen, I will not go over again what I

said at the time: I certainly did think, considering that these letters

were in print and before my Lords, that the only object of the

discussion was to have a legal opinion of my Lords whether these letters

were admissible in evidence. My learned friend could have argued the

point without referring to the contents of the letters, and so filling

your minds with the contents of those letters, which, as they were

rejected, ought not to have been submitted to you; for any one, knowing

how the human mind is constituted, must feel that in the mind of one or

two out of the twelve the effect might have been to draw your attention

to something foreign to the matter; and I objected and complained of Mr.

Serjeant Bompas for referring to the letters. My Lords held that they

were not evidence, but my learned friend seemed to be pressing upon you

their contents in opposition to the opinion of my Lord. I will remind

you that these letters were written by Martinez & Co., and put on board

this vessel at Cadiz months after the vessel had sailed from England.

Mr. Zulueta had never heard of these proceedings; and whether he is

guilty or innocent, all that is charged against him had been committed

months before these letters were in existence, and therefore to attempt

to use what Martinez had said or written, against the prisoner, was only

calculated to raise a prejudice injurious to the administration of

justice. You may easily imagine that Martinez may be, for aught I know,

a man who, besides dealing to the extent of a million a year in sugars

and other things, does deal to some extent in slaves, and it is possible

he may have written letters to his correspondents in Africa relating to

the slave trade; and consider the wickedness of using these letters

against Mr. Zulueta, who never saw the letters, and could not know any

thing of them or their contents, or have any control over them. It was

this sentence reminded me of that: he is asked, “But beyond the purchase

of the vessel and the shipment of the goods, the other arrangements and

the subsequent transactions were entirely between Jennings and Martinez

& Co.?--Most assuredly; except with the order of Martinez, I do not know

how we could have done any thing with him in any way.” It therefore

comes to this, whatever might have passed between Martinez and Captain

Jennings, Captain Jennings may be responsible for, or Martinez; but Mr.

Zulueta is wholly irresponsible: all that passed through his hands he is

ready to account for and abide by, and stand to the consequences of it;

but what took place between Captain Jennings and Martinez is wholly

beyond his knowledge; and it is unjust and unreasonable that I, as his

counsel, should for one moment permit it to be given in evidence if I

could prevent it.

Then Sir _Thomas Acland_ asks him, “Do you mean that you know that the

Augusta was not engaged in any slaving transactions during the voyage

upon which she left Liverpool?--Most assuredly not; in fact, my

testimony is hardly required of that, because every thing proves that.

When she was detained, it was never said that she was upon a slaving

operation at all. Before she left this port, after she was bought, she

was completely rendered useless for that purpose.” Here again have they

attempted to prove that the contrary was the fact, and that this answer

was false? Remember that this is not said by this young man as if then

upon his trial and defending himself against the charge of felony, and

when he would have a strong temptation, if capable of falsehood, to say

what was false to protect himself against the heavy punishment. All this

is said freely. If any one of you were to hear to-morrow morning that

another had said of you, you had been offered a bribe to give a

particular verdict, you would go before the first tribunal and deny the

statement, and request that it might be made public; that is all this

young man has said, he is denying the accusation and submitting that

what his accusers have said is untrue. If he was saying what was untrue,

they could have shown it. He says, “After she was bought she was

completely rendered useless for that purpose;” and it is proved that she

was--for the leagers, the water-vessels, it was proved to you were

rendered useless; and though my learned friend would not admit it, I

proved that they were put ashore at Liverpool, and therefore this is

every word of it true, and my learned friend has failed in proving it

false.

The Chairman then says, “The charge is, that she was engaged in carrying

goods to a person engaged in the slave trade; not that she was engaged

in the slave trade herself?” Then he says, and here is a very important

answer--“I most certainly say, that I do not know whether the person is

so engaged or not.” That is, the consignee of the vessel. The Chairman

observes, “The charge is, that this vessel was sent to somebody engaged

in the slave trade?” And what does he say?--“I do not know whether he is

or not; I do not know any thing about him.” Whether they could have

proved the contrary as to Ximenes or Rolo, or all of them, I do not

know. Then he goes on to say, “It seems to me that English captains and

English subjects are not prohibited from borrowing money from

Spaniards.” There is no doubt of that; it is quite lawful. “She was

bought with money lent by Pedro Martinez to Captain Jennings for the

purpose.”

Then Mr. _Wilson Patten_ asked him, “You have stated that yours is an

agency trade?--It is so; and in the multitude of business, any one can

understand that 20,000_l._ in 15 or 20 years, can only be a mere trifle

in the business of any merchant, without laying claim to a large

business; and in following that business, we have executed shipping

orders.”

This is another repetition of the observation made before, that it was a

shipping order in the transactions of their house, and that he had only

executed the orders given by a foreign correspondent. Then he is asked,

“To what part of the coast of Africa has that business been chiefly

conducted?--I believe, almost exclusively to the Gallinas.”

Then he goes on, and this is the part of the evidence upon which Mr.

Serjeant Bompas relies--this is really the only part of this body of

evidence given by this young man upon which the learned Serjeant relies

in support of the prosecution--“Do you know the nature of the trade of

Pedro Martinez at the Gallinas?--I know from general report, that Don

Pedro Martinez himself is supposed to deal in slaves, and I believe it

is so.” “Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer in slaves?--I do not

know, but I believe so. I do not know why it should not be known at the

Havannah, if it is known in other parts.” From that my learned friend

says he does know it. You must take the whole of the evidence together.

He says his house “never had any thing to do with any slave transaction,

nor does he know that any vessel that ever went from their house was

engaged in slave transactions, but he had heard that Pedro Martinez was

engaged in the slave trade;” but you have it from other parts of the

case, that he was a large dealer in other transactions quite lawful.

Now this is a statement, not of what this young man knew at the time he

participated more or less in the transaction now under your

consideration--these transactions took place in 1840--this examination

takes place in July 1842. He does not say, that at the time they sent

the Augusta they knew that Pedro Martinez was engaged in the slave

trade; he says, “I know it,” speaking in the present tense, meaning “I

now know it.”

Now, Gentlemen, I beg your attention to a question I besought my learned

friend to read, I besought in vain--I thank God I have now the means of

reading it--

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

Mr. _Kelly_. “Have you reason to suppose that a large portion of the

trade that they carry on at the Havannah is the slave trade?”--His

answer is, “I had no reason to know any thing of the kind; I have known

more of their transactions with the slave trade since these things have

been mooted than I ever knew before; I have had more knowledge of these

things lately than I ever had in my life before; and when I say, ‘I,’ I

beg to state that I ought to state, ‘we,’ for all my partners are in the

same situation.”

Now, what does this come to? This gentleman tells you, that out of many

hundred thousand pounds, a few trifling orders are sent to the coast of

Africa; he is asked in 1842 if he knows of their correspondent being

engaged in the slave trade, and he says he does only from common report;

and in another part of the evidence, when his attention is more

particularly called to it, he says, “I had no reason to know any thing

of the kind; but since these transactions have been mooted I have known

more of their connexion with the slave trade.” What is the meaning of

this? I do implore you to remember that we are here upon a grave crime,

the effect of a conviction upon which would expose this young man to

utter and irremediable ruin, and bring disgrace upon his family; he is

called upon after a loose examination upon the subject to explain what

he has in a long examination loosely admitted, that a man was a slave

trader, and also that these goods were to be so used. Looking at it

fairly, what is it?--I had no reason to know it four years ago; but

since these matters have been discussed I have inquired more about it,

and have found, from the evidence of Captain Denman, that an event took

place there which made the Gallinas, and in the character of the trading

there, a matter of as much notoriety as the battle of Waterloo, or any

other great event.--It appears that this officer of Her Majesty’s navy

descended upon the coast and burnt every slave establishment upon the

spot, and the consequence is, that reclamations have been made and

actions have been brought; it was the subject of investigation before

this Committee, and is the subject of proceedings in Courts of Justice,

and the attention of every body has been called to it, and of course

that brings to the mind of this young gentleman a great deal of

knowledge of the character of the place, and those who have lived in it,

more than he ever possessed before; and I put it to you, if this was a

civil instead of a criminal case, and in which a man was to pay a sum of

money, whether the fair inference is not, that, they shipped these goods

without knowing that they were to be employed in the slave trade, that

they did not know that Martinez was engaged in it till it became the

subject of discussion; and I ask you, what is there to establish that it

was so notorious that Martinez was a slave dealer, that Mr. Zulueta must

have known that the goods were to be so employed? I ask you, why may not

Mr. Zulueta, as much as any other merchant or manufacturer in the

kingdom, who is asked to sell goods to go to the coast of Africa, why

may he not, when there is an immense extent of lawful trade to that

coast, have supposed that they were to be used in the lawful trade as in

the unlawful trade, which it would be criminal in him to promote? I say

that in a civil case, but in a criminal case, if there is a shadow of

doubt upon your minds whether he is innocent or guilty--and in this I

shall be sanctioned by my Lords the Judges--if doubt be left in your

minds, when it was the duty of the prosecutor to remove that doubt, the

prisoner must have your verdict. It is not because it is probable or

possible that the goods might have been so employed--it is not because

there is something doubtful in the transaction--you must be satisfied

that he knew they were to be so employed, and that he shipped them with

that object--and unless you are convinced of that, there is no case fora

verdict of guilty. I say the whole question rests upon the notoriety of

the place and the character of the parties, and upon that you find that

this gentleman knew nothing at the time of these transactions either of

the nature of the trade or the character of the persons there.

Then they talk about the ship, and so on. Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “Your

house had nothing to do with any letters that might be put on board the

Augusta after she sailed from this country?--Nothing whatever.” And that

is the way that was perfectly disposed of, and so the Judges have held

in rejecting the letters put on board after the vessel left the country.

He says, “The Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa, on the charge

of slave trading?--I believe that was the case.” Then he is asked, “Have

you reason to suppose that the whole of that large commerce is

subservient to the carrying on of the slave trade by the house of Blanco

and Martinez at the Havannah?--I do not know; I know that they have

large transactions in general business. I know that a short time ago I

got 40,000_l._ or 50,000_l._ of Spanish bonds in the market for

Martinez. I know that he is a large speculator in Spanish bonds and in

securities of state.” Then he names the house for whom that was done.

Then he goes on, “Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah to

ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for the

African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of the

same kind as those that were in the ‘Augusta;’ cotton goods and other

things of that sort.” Would that make it felony if you shipped goods to

the Havannah, if the persons there used them in the slave trade? Where

is it to stop? It is essential that it should be so understood by

juries, as well as mercantile men; there must be some clear and distinct

rule. Men are not, while carrying on their fair and mercantile

transactions, to be treading on the verge of transportation every moment

of their lives, which they would be if they deal in these goods which

are sent in these ships, and may be so employed or engaged.

Then he is asked, “Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah

to ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable for

the African trade?--We have sometimes shipped goods to the Havannah of

the same kind as those that were in the ‘Augusta;’ cotton goods, and

other things of that sort.” “Have you sent any goods of that description

since you first began to send goods out direct to the coast of

Africa?--They have been mixed; I cannot draw a distinction between the

two destinations; some have gone to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.”

Then he is asked, “How long have you conducted the trade upon the coast

of Africa?--As I said before, I do not think we have conducted any trade

on the coast of Africa, either legal or illegal.” He persists in

maintaining, as I do on his behalf, that his transactions were closed at

Liverpool; he knows nothing more about it. Then he is asked, “How long

have you acted as agents for Martinez, on the coast of Africa?--As long

as we have had any connexions with Martinez; it is part and parcel of

other operations; that is to say, in the multitude of other operations

that have intervened we have shipped goods as I have said.” And it would

be a strange thing if these gentlemen, for the sake of putting into

their pockets an inconsiderable sum of money by this purchase--I am

afraid to calculate it, for fear I should fall into an error--were to

put themselves in jeopardy of an indictment for a felony, and

transportation for fourteen years. If they have done so, it must be from

some strange ignorance. To suppose they would do so for that which would

not pay their clerks’ salary for a day, when they have stood so far

above suspicion, is absolutely incredible and impossible.

Then he is asked, “Have you ever received consignments from them, or on

their behalf, of palm oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the coast of

Africa?”--He says, “Never; we never have received any thing from the

coast of Africa whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will

perhaps appear strange to the Committee that I should not know more of

the coast of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had shipped

to the amount of 100,000_l._ to the coast of Africa, or carried on any

considerable trade there, we should certainly have known more about the

coast of Africa; but in transactions of a very large amount, an invoice

occasionally of about 2,000_l._ or 3,000_l._ of goods was a thing that

we sent as a matter of course, and did not trouble our heads about,

especially as the remuneration we got was a mere trifle, not of itself

worth pursuing, if it had not been for the general business we had?”

Now you see, Gentlemen, this in one respect confirms what I do not

intend to dispute, the testimony of these naval gentlemen that there are

not shipments from this colony; but the question is not whether that is

the fact, or what information it conveyed to them, or what information

it conveyed to Mr. Zulueta; he says, “We never received any produce from

that country but that would not show that there were no produce. “Our

shipments were in discharge of former liabilities; we had received

sugars and sold them, and we were called upon to make shipments to the

coast of Africa, and we do so; and the nature of the transaction is such

that we could not have any return;” and therefore he says, “if our

transactions had been larger, we should have known a great deal more of

this trade than we do. We had a sum of money, the proceeds of sugar and

other articles, and we sent a small shipment to Africa debiting the

house with that shipment; that being all we knew, and our transactions

closing the moment the ship left Liverpool, how can we know any more of

it? We know no more, and that accounts for our ignorance.”

Then he is asked about another vessel in which the name of Mr. Kidd was

introduced--that is quite unimportant. He is asked, “You have no

connexion with Mr. Kidd in any way?--No, nor any knowledge of him.” He

then says something to which I should call your attention. Something had

been said by another witness, “Zulueta, the gentleman in London to whom

the vessel was sent, and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner,

is a name well known on the coast in connexion with the slave trade.”

That is what somebody had said before the Committee, which he came

before the Committee voluntarily to contradict; he says, “Now, what is

known on the coast I really cannot pretend to say; but I believe that

not many persons can say that which I can say, that neither myself, nor

my father, nor my grandfather, nor any body in our firm, has ever had

any kind of interest of any sort, or derived any emolument or connexion

from the slave trade.” Gentlemen, would to Heaven that every gentleman

in a mercantile house could say the same I But this gentleman is

challenging contradiction, he is speaking in the presence of those

conversant with the trade, and in the presence of the Secretaries of

State he is laying himself open to contradiction, and he says openly,

knowing it will be published to the world, and knowing he may be

denounced as a man guilty of gross falsehood if it is untrue, he says,

“Neither myself, nor my father, nor grandfather, ever made one shilling

by the slave trade:” and yet this young man is to be selected out of the

firm and made the victim in respect of the Augusta, and that upon this

statement, as my learned friend reminds me; that he who comes before the

Committee and challenges disproof--he says, “I challenge any one to say

that I was ever engaged in the slave trade--” that that is to be made

evidence and offered in a British Court before a British Jury. Now see

what follows, and I believe it is not a vain boast, it is not a mere

statement--he says, “My father had at one time an interest in a

bankrupt’s estate at the Havannah, upon which he was a creditor. There

were some slaves on the estate, and they formed part of the property

assignable to the creditors, and my father got the slaves assigned to

him; because the other gentlemen and the creditors were not of the same

opinion.” That is, because the other people did not think there was any

thing wrong in the slave trade. “He got them assigned to him, and made

them free; and that is all the connexion we have ever had with any

slaves in the world. I do not know how far that may be considered

irrelevant to the point, but I state it because we are here mentioned

three or four times as connected with slave dealers, as a name well

known in connexion with the slave trade. That sort of statement--” Well

indeed may he say so, and I say on his behalf, “that sort of statement

is rather a difficult thing to deal with.” It is indeed, Gentlemen. When

I hear my learned friend say, that because he sent out a vessel with an

English captain, and because at Portsmouth there are some shackles, and

because Captain Hill and Captain Denman knew this was a slave trading

colony, therefore you are to convict him; I say, “it is a very difficult

thing to deal with.” That is what he said before the Committee; this has

been published fifteen months, and before the public; the prosecutor has

had it fifteen months--has he contradicted any one letter in it? He

says, “My father, and my grandfather, and my house, never had any

connexion with the slave trade; except that he took some slaves, because

he wished to make them free, under a bankrupt’s estate, and he made them

free, that is the only connexion we ever had with the slave trade in the

world.” That is his evidence, and I beg you to contrast it with the

other evidence of my learned friend and the doubtful inferences he has

suggested.

Then he is asked, “If it is meant to insinuate by these observations

that you ever had any other connexion with the slave trade, than being

the shipping agent of goods which were sent to a man who was a dealer in

slaves, you entirely deny it?” He says, “I assure the Committee, that

although I have a general notion as to what interest Blanco and Martinez

have in slaves, yet, if I was put upon my oath to make any particular

statement, I really could not, because I do not know it. Of course I

believe it; but my personal knowledge amounts only to that which the

knowledge of what we read in a newspaper amounts to.” It is quite

evident what he means--I know nothing of their being slave traders:

since these matters have been under consideration I have read the

newspapers, and I see enough to lead me to suppose that they deal in

slaves. But he does not say he had that knowledge in 1840, when these

transactions took place. Then he is asked, “There was nothing upon the

face of the transactions which you had with those parties which spoke of

a connexion with traffic in slaves?--Nothing whatever. It is well known,

that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of business in

Cadiz”--There is another point inviting attention and contradiction.--He

says, “It is well known, that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary

course of business in Cadiz to insure operations in slave trading.” So

it was at that time: slave trading, in all its branches, and of the

worst character, was perfectly legal both in Spain, and I grieve to say,

also in England, or English colonies. And he goes on to say, “My house

at that time were underwriters, and it was notorious that a policy of

that kind would never enter the doors of our house; and nobody would

come to offer such a thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both

here and in Spain, that we set our faces distinctly against having any

interest of any kind in the slave trade.”

Now, Gentlemen, is it not grievous, is it not cruel, that this young

man, almost just entering life, belonging to a family, belonging to a

house, which can say this with truth, that while the slave trade was

deemed lawful by the British law and universally practised throughout

Spain and the Spanish colonies, and recognized in all its forms, “My

house would not execute a policy for slaves?” Is it not cruel, that the

youngest partner at the very outset of life is to have his character

blasted and held up as a felon, because it is said he had done something

to assist that trade?

Then he is asked, “It is further stated, ‘It appears, that it is a

regular thing sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they

come to England to him, he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again

to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ Have you any observation

to make upon that?--It is all untrue, the whole of it; I have never

received a vessel from those gentlemen; there has been nothing of the

kind.” He denies it; it might have been proved, and it has not been

proved. “Have you any thing further to state upon the subject?”--Then he

states a number of other matters, which as nothing has been said upon

them I do not comment upon. Then he says, at the end of the last answer,

“‘My answer was intended to describe only the course of that particular

transaction and not to apply to any other case.’ I never received a

single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor any body for

us.”

Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “Then that statement is entirely

untrue?--Totally, from beginning to end; we never did so, and nobody for

us; and nobody to our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in

the most distinct manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay is

asked, ‘Have you any thing further to say with regard to the connexion

of Zulueta with the slave trade?’ The answer is, ‘I would refer to his

connexion with the Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case

it appeared that the vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from

London.’--That is the same vessel as the Augusta, which I have already

explained; it formerly bore the name of Gollupchik.”

Then he is asked about some other matters, but as they have not been

made the subject of evidence here I will not comment upon them. He

speaks upon the moral point, and he enters into a very lengthened

statement in which he says, “I am not here to discuss the moral

propriety or impropriety of the slave trade; I have my own opinions upon

it, and if I thought it was a justifiable trade I should not shrink from

expressing it.” That is the result of a long statement: and, in answer

to a very comprehensive question of Sir Thomas Acland, “You have stated

in your letter, that your principle is, that of ‘not wishing to derive

profit or advantage from the sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable

or unavoidable,’ and you have acted upon that principle?”--He says,

“That is the principle upon which we have acted.” Then there is a great

deal about the nature of various other transactions.

Then we come to something that appears upon another point--a point made

a distinct matter, and which I very much rejoice is the last one to

which I shall have to refer, and that not requiring any large

consumption of your time. Among other reasons urged upon you as tending

to the conclusion that this ship, was dispatched for the purposes of the

slave trade was this by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, that the vessel in the

course of the voyage unnecessarily put into Cadiz, as if there was some

previous concert or arrangement that the vessel though dispatched

nominally for the Gallinas should go to Cadiz, and that there some one

or other should afford them facilities for carrying on the slave trade.

Upon that I have some observations to make. First, one does not see how

that was to be better promoted by touching at Cadiz than if she had

proceeded direct to the Gallinas, and for this reason, if it had been

found when she arrived on the coast of Africa that she had taken on

board any materials to facilitate the carrying on the slave trade, that

would be something to draw an inference from; but no such thing appears.

Why she should have touched there to facilitate the carrying on the

slave trade I do not understand, and still less do I understand why it

is to be imputed to Mr. Zulueta that a vessel to all outward appearance

cleared for the Gallinas, that it was intended she should touch at

Cadiz; and I pray you to answer the question to yourselves, you cannot

answer it to me, if it was intended for the purpose of good or evil she

should touch there, why conceal it? Why not give out “with liberty to

touch at Cadiz,” if any suspicion attached to the transaction?

_Foreman of the Jury._ Did we not understand that the English sailors

were landed at Cadiz, and took in Spanish sailors there?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, some English sailors were discharged; but there is

nothing about the Spanish sailors being taken in: there is nothing about

that--some English sailors, two or three of them, did go on shore, but

it was not in any way connected with Mr. Zulueta, or to which he could

be a party. You understand, when they had sailed from England some of

the sailors rebelled and mutinied; the captain, like a clear-sighted

man, said, if I go to Cork these men will all leave me; I will not do

that, but as it is necessary to go somewhere, I will go to Cadiz. It was

not the result of any previous concert. They say it was intended before

he left that he should stop there. If it had been intended I do not see

why it should not have been stated in the charter-party, it would not

have had a more suspicious appearance that the vessel should touch there

than go to the Gallinas direct, the suspicion of the slave trade was the

mention of the Gallinas. Captain Denman, who knew the place, might draw

his suspicious inference from the mention of the Gallinas, but nobody

would suspect it from Cadiz. It was from some mutiny of the men, added

to the stress of weather, the master would not go to Cork, he went to

Cadiz: it was an event arising from something in the course of the

voyage, and not from any thing that occurred before the vessel left

England, and it was when the vessel left England that the participation

of Mr. Zulueta in the whole transaction ceased; but if it were of any

importance for the purpose of the prosecution, you should have had it

distinctly explained to you what took place on board the vessel, what

the nature of the bad weather was which should have made it desirable to

go to Falmouth or to Cork: why do they not produce the log? they have

the ship’s papers.

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

Mr. _Kelly_. How did they get the papers from the Admiralty? The log is

on board the vessel; some of the crew were on board; none of them were

produced but the cabin-boy, who knew nothing; it was more convenient to

bring a boy who knew nothing, than men who should enlighten you upon the

object. But whether it was for a good or bad purpose that Captain

Jennings went to Cadiz, what had Mr. Zulueta to do with it? To make it

of any importance, the prosecutor should have proved that Mr. Zulueta

had contrived, for some purpose or other, that he should touch at Cadiz.

Nothing of the kind is proved upon the subject; all that is said upon

the subject is what Mr. Zulueta says. Now what is it that he says? The

Chairman says, “It would appear from Question 5087, that your name is

supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper, as connected

with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page 38, in Class B.

Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred to in the answer,

and see if there is any trace of your name in that transaction?--I do

not find my own name there; I only find an allusion at the bottom to the

name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in no way connected with me, and

stating a circumstance which I never knew. In Question 7965*, it is

stated, ‘The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her way out from England?’

The answer is, ‘Yes, and landed part of her cargo at Cadiz, although it

was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.’ Now Captain Hill, who has

given this answer, must have known why she touched at Cadiz, and why she

discharged part of her cargo, for it must be in the log-book of the

vessel. It was because she was nearly wrecked in her passage; she put

into Cadiz in distress, and there she landed a part of her cargo, which

was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the benefit of the

underwriters. Now that has not been stated here, but I think Captain

Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of the vessel

which he took.”

Now Captain Hill has said the same thing here to-day--the purpose of

going to Cadiz was by some previous contrivance, for some purpose of Mr.

Zulueta. The log would have shown the state of the weather registered

from day to day during the passage of the vessel, and the rebellious

part of the crew would have no desire to give Mr. Zulueta much benefit

by their evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. It is not fair for Mr. Kelly to state that: the

log would not be evidence against Mr. Zulueta. After you had decided

against four documents, I would not offer a fifth.

Mr. _Kelly_. I have to thank my learned friend for this very singular

instance of his forbearance; if the log, as it regards this transaction,

was not evidence against me, and I do not say it would be, I cannot

understand how letters written by other persons found in the vessel

could be evidence against me;--but let us waste no more time upon that

subject; if the log would not be evidence, he might have called some or

the crew; he has only called the cabin-boy; there is no evidence to show

the state of the weather; and you are called upon in a case like this to

suppose that there was some previous contrivance by which the Captain

was to touch at Cadiz.

Then he says, in answer to another question, and the question is

directly put to him by Sir Thomas Acland, “It was not intended when she

left England, that she should put into Cadiz?--Most certainly not; all

the facts of the case show that she went there because she was obliged.

I have not seen the log-book, but it must be there; because in the

log-book the captain is bound to enter those things, and whoever

captured the vessel must have seen the log-book of course. In answer to

Question 7967*, it is said, ‘Messrs. Zulueta must be aware that it is

contrary to law to act as agents or otherwise for the shipment of goods

that are to be employed in the slave trade; they were bound to do

nothing illegal; they are merchants residing in England, and they must

conform themselves to the laws of England, and they cannot by the laws

of England plead ignorance of those laws.’ Now I and my partners are

British subjects, and therefore we are bound by the law, and we must

obey the law; and I say that to endeavour to elude the law is criminal

in my estimation of things. In the answer to Question 7970*, it is

stated, ‘I have endeavoured to be particular in making it appear that

this vessel was chartered to a place where there were no constituted

authorities.’ I think that in the Gallinas there are constituted

authorities. It is the first time that I ever heard that it is illegal

for any merchant to ship goods for any places without ascertaining

beforehand whether there are constituted authorities there.” Then, at

the end of his examination, he is asked, “You have given the Committee

the names of the parties drawing the bills, and on whose account they

were drawn, and you speak of their being drawn in favour of Sierra Leone

houses; have you any objection to furnish the names of the houses in

whose favour they were drawn?--I say that I have no objection, except

that I should not like to introduce names unnecessarily; but the bills

are in my hands, and any gentleman can look at them who chooses; they

are at the disposal of any body who likes to look at them.” He says, in

another part of the evidence which refers to the documents, “I do not

like in this transaction to mention names; any gentleman may see at my

counting-house documents to verify what I state.” Gentlemen, I am

reminded that it will appear that he put in the bills themselves in

order to verify the statement; they were produced before the Committee,

it is written down in express terms--“The witness produced the bills;”

so that you see, when he makes a statement of what were his

transactions, he verifies it by the documents, and produces them to the

Committee.

Then, the next day, he states a fact which is perfectly conclusive as to

this matter at Cadiz. He is asked, “The Committee understand that you

have some further observations to make upon the evidence which has been

given with reference to your house?--With reference to the destination

of the Augusta, from Liverpool to Gallinas, and the fact of its having

put into Cadiz unforeseen and unpremeditated altogether, in consequence

of stress of weather, I omitted to mention a circumstance which will put

the thing beyond doubt, and it is this: an insurance was made at

Lloyd’s, from Liverpool to the Gallinas, and it is well known that, of

course, we should have forfeited the insurance by going to any other

port except from the peril of the sea, and the British consul at Cadiz

is well aware of the circumstance, because he is Lloyd’s agent there;

and therefore he had to interfere in the whole proceeding; without his

sanction nothing could have been done. We have called upon the

underwriters upon that account, and it has been paid, and which would

not have been paid without its being proved. I stated yesterday that the

transactions of my house with Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, with

Blanco and Carvalho of the Havannah, and with Pedro Martinez of Cadiz,

had amounted in the twenty years to 100,000_l_., I was afraid of

overrating the amount; but on reference to the books of the house, I

find that our transactions with them in twenty years have amounted to

400,000_l_., out of which the 22,000_l_. that was mentioned is the whole

amount of goods that have been shipped by their orders for the coast of

Africa.”

Now observe what he here states: he says, I am charged with having

known, before this vessel quitted England, that she was to go to Cadiz,

and that it was for some unlawful and improper purpose. He says--Not

only do I deny that I knew it (I say not only is there no proof that he

knew it, but he gives this convincing evidence), he says, before the

vessel sailed I effected an insurance upon the ship and goods, and by

that policy of insurance there was no provision for going to Cadiz. I

need not observe that by the law, if a vessel deviates from the course

stipulated in the policy, unless it is matter of compulsion and stress

of weather, the policy is forfeited--here it is clear that there was a

policy effected, under which the vessel was in no condition to touch at

Cadiz--the policy would be forfeited; and yet it is supposed that this

old established house, having effected this policy, into which they

might have introduced the going to Cadiz, contrived that this deviation

should take place, under which, if a loss had happened, they could not

have recovered a shilling. It is perfectly clear, whether by accident or

design, with which we have nothing to do--I think it was by accident--it

is perfectly clear, that Zulueta & Co. knew nothing of it; and if a loss

had happened, they could not have enforced it.

Now there are one or two more lines, and one or two only, with which I

have to trouble you in this evidence. The witness is asked as to the

former transactions of his house upon the coast of Africa: he is asked,

“Have you bought other vessels for him (Martinez) than those which have

been employed in the slave trade?--Yes, decidedly so; there was the

_Star_, Captain Jennings.” You remember, I think, Captain Denman said

there was no lawful trade carried on at the Gallinas--the question is,

how far Mr. Zulueta knew that, and I asked him if he had heard of the

Star; he said “No.” See what Mr. Zulueta says, “There was the Star,

Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent from here to the Gallinas,

precisely the same as the Augusta has been sent. She delivered her

cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I believe, and from there to

Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she came back to Spain, and she

was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not Martinez, or any body

connected with him; in fact, she was sold for very little. The object of

that vessel was just the same as the Augusta, to maintain a legal trade

with Gallinas; that is within my own knowledge.”

Now I do think--I should rather say I venture to submit to you--that it

appears to me, that this answer which might clearly have been

contradicted, because there are specific facts stated which could have

been contradicted if untrue--this answer, if true, is perfectly decisive

of this case. What is it? Gentlemen, this is the nature of the

transaction: he says--My house has had other transactions of the same

description with the coast of Africa; we sent out the Star to this very

place, the Gallinas. And the question is, whether Messrs. Zulueta & Co.

had any reason to know that this was an illegal trade. If the goods had

to their knowledge been bartered for slaves, if the Star had brought an

illegal cargo, and if she had been seized and condemned for slave

trading, then they might begin to suspect--Here is one vessel we have

sent to the Gallinas for Martinez & Co. seized, we must consider before

we send any more. But here was a case in which they had sent in a ship,

commanded by Captain Jennings, a cargo of the same description--the

transaction had been legally completed without any thing partaking of an

illegal character--the ship had taken a cargo of wine and gone to some

other part of the world, and then returned to England and been sold at

Liverpool. Then I pray of you--and nothing can be safer than to ask

you--to put yourselves for a moment in the situation of the party

charged with this offence. Suppose that you had been charged with

putting on board a ship a quantity of merchandise for the Gallinas--the

question is, if you would have any reason to suspect there was any thing

illegal in it? If you had the year before, when these British cruizers

were in the seas, sent a cargo of the same goods for the same house to

the same place, and the transaction had been legally completed, and if

you had heard that the ship had carried a cargo of goods to Madeira,

would not you say, I have done one transaction of this kind, I know

nothing illegal in it, and I may enter into another of the same

description? And that it was so here, you have the evidence that the

Star had been there, a case in all forms of this transaction, and never

impugned in the slightest degree. The present transaction of the Augusta

is of the same character, and yet you are asked to believe that Zulueta

& Co. knew that this last transaction was altogether unlawful and to

encourage the slave trade, when they had completed a former transaction

without any suspicion of any thing illegal in it.

Then he is asked some questions about the nature of the trade, and he

says, “I could not say what trade there is at the Gallinas of a legal

nature, but I know that those vessels would have taken nothing if there

was nothing legal to take, from that place to the Havannah, or to any

other place; I am aware that my answers upon this point must be

deficient, because I am really very ignorant of the trade of the West

Coast of Africa.” You are called upon to believe that this is all false,

that he knew all about it; and he says--“At this period I am ignorant of

it:” and it is not because a man is ignorant that he is to be impeached.

He is asked, “Do you suppose that the vessels would be used to carry on

a legal trade?--Most certainly I do; because persons find it worth while

to send goods there constantly. The Committee will observe, that what

the application of the goods is afterwards I cannot say, but I speak of

the fact of the vessels having gone there with the intention of

returning to the Havannah to bring a cargo of some description here, to

pay a freight, and then to go again with the same kind of goods to

Africa.” Then he is asked about Liverpool; and the Chairman says, “You

have stated before, that you have cleared out for the Gallinas from

Liverpool?--Yes.” “In carrying on operations of that kind, should

you have ever thought it necessary to exercise any disguise as to

what part of Africa you were clearing out for?--Not at all.” Nor did

he. “You did not imagine, that in being the instrument of sending lawful

goods to any part of Africa you were doing any thing which required

concealment?--Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof of that is, that

in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body could see our names as

consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our names of every

thing.”

Now here again is a matter in which the prosecutors might, if they had

thought proper, have contradicted this gentleman, and overset the

foundation of his case. He says--“True it is that the goods may have

been shipped in the name of Captain Jennings, but the whole of the

transactions were conducted by our house, and the name of our house

appeared in all the documents in Liverpool.” It is impossible there

should have been any concealment: they might have produced the

documents, or official copies of them, from Liverpool, and have shown

that the shipment was not in the name of Zulueta & Co., and have

contradicted him; they have produced no one document, and you are bound

to suppose that it is true; and if it was so done--and there is no doubt

of it, though Captain Jennings’s name may have been mentioned as the

shipper, what becomes of the charge of secrecy, or any thing

clandestine? It fades away before you, and vanishes before the truth, as

it now appears.

Then he is asked, “Is not there a document officially published daily in

London and at Liverpool, stating the daily entries at the Custom-house

of all goods shipped, with the description of the goods, and the name of

the port and of the shipper?--Yes, there is.” “Is not this printed from

time to time in the public papers?”--There were on the Committee people

connected with Liverpool, and knew every thing about the trade, or they

could not have put these questions.--“It is in general circulation;

there is hardly any merchant in Liverpool or in London who is not

possessed of one. The Liverpool entries are reprinted in London,

Liverpool being such an important place of business. The bill printed in

London contains also Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol.” Then he is asked,

“So that every such transaction is perfectly notorious to every

one?--Notorious to every one who chooses to read the public papers.

There is another thing which escaped me, till I came into the room this

morning. As I have been in the business from my childhood, I know every

thing that is going on in it.” Then he speaks of the Arrogante, but as

that has not been made the subject of evidence, I do not trouble you

with it. Then he was asked, “whether the Augusta was equipped for the

slave trade the second time; the answer was ‘She was not.’ I wish to

state, that before any goods were put on board of her”--he states, that

an order was given, which we have evidence was obeyed--“it was our

express wish and order that every thing in her that was fit for that

trade should be taken down and the vessel put in the same condition as

any other merchant vessel; and we should not have loaded any thing in

her if that had not been done. It is stated in the evidence that the

Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave dealers; now we had never

in our lives heard of the name of any one of the parties to whom she was

consigned.”

Now, Gentlemen, what becomes then of the evidence you had from either of

the honourable officers called before you to prove that they, who almost

lived upon the coast of Africa, knew that these parties were notorious

slave dealers? and yet you are called upon to infer that Mr. Zulueta,

who had never been there in his life, knew it himself, notwithstanding

this account which he gave when not charged with felony. If he gave it

now you might suspect it, but it was a voluntary statement; he need not

have gone voluntarily to tell a series of falsehoods, he might have left

it uncontradicted; but he is asked with reference to the persons to whom

these vessels were consigned, Alvarez, Rolo, and Nimenes, and he says,

“neither he, nor any of his house, ever heard of the names before.” If

it were otherwise it could be proved, and it is not proved. His evidence

is used against him, and it is surely but fair to use it as far as it

goes for him. You have this young man freely coming forward and stating

that, as to these parties to whom the goods were consigned, “I knew very

little about it, and as to these people I never heard of any one of

them.” Then, what becomes of the effect of the evidence of Captain

Denman and others, which no doubt they have given truly, as to the

nature of the slave trade? This gentleman never having been there and

knowing nothing about it, how can you fix this dreadful charge of guilt

upon him upon evidence which leaves him entirely untouched upon this

important part of the case, and untouched by this part of the evidence

given by himself?

There is a good deal more said in the course of the evidence which I do

not feel it right to read. I know you must be wearied as I am myself by

the exertions it has been my duty to make, and therefore I do not go

over the rest of the evidence. The effect of the whole is, that as to

these goods having been shipped, and this vessel consigned to the coast

of Africa under the circumstances you have heard mentioned, the part

that was taken in it by Mr. Zulueta, the prisoner, was but a small part,

but as far as it went it was perfectly legal. The question remaining is,

whether he participated in the transaction with the object, that is in

order to accomplish the object, of the slave trade. That is the question

to be submitted to you. The whole evidence shortly stated is, that

Captain Denman and others familiar with the spot knew that the slave

trade was carried on there to a very great extent, but the evidence does

not show that this unfortunate gentleman, the prisoner, knew any thing

of the place or the persons by whom it was carried on, that is a matter

of speculation, and the only mode in which the case could be completed

so as to induce you to find a verdict of guilty is, by bringing before

you the evidence he himself gave upon the subject.

Gentlemen, take that evidence as it is; I am sure you will consider it

fairly--consider it altogether; consider that if it had been false in

its material parts, it could have been contradicted, and if it be true,

as you have every reason to believe it is, what does it prove? It proves

that these gentlemen, in trading with Spain and Portugal, and Africa and

the Brazils, must trade with persons more or less engaged in the slave

trade, and it proves his own solemn declaration, that in this

transaction, as in every other in which the house was ever engaged,

neither he, nor as far as he knows, his father or grandfather, ever had

any participation, direct or indirect, to the most minute particular in

this nefarious trade. He does not confine himself to a mere denial; he

states facts, and points to other facts as far as concerns his father

and the early history of the house; he details the taking of slaves

under a bankrupt estate, and liberating them at a time when there were

not the same opinions upon the subject which happily exist; he points to

those facts as in confirmation of his solemn declaration, that as far as

his own knowledge goes, that neither himself, nor to his belief his

father, nor his family, nor any member of the house were directly or

indirectly concerned in the trade, but endeavoured earnestly, and

heartily endeavoured, to discountenance it.

Gentlemen, such is the case before you, and I have only to say in

conclusion, not only do these facts appear in evidence before you, but I

shall call before you a body of witnesses to the character of this

gentleman; I shall call before you some of the most honourable and

eminent men in the City of London in all branches of commerce, who have

known this gentleman in trade, and in every way; and they will all tell

you, Gentlemen, that to their experience and knowledge, according to the

language in which they may express themselves, what was told you by one

witness in the box before you, that this young man was a good son, a

good brother, a good father, and a good and honourable member of

society, incapable of wilfully evading or violating the law. Such is the

character he has hitherto sustained, such is the character I shall

sustain before you, and when I have called those witnesses to establish

that character, rare indeed for a man so young, I shall then with

confidence, under the Judge’s directions, leave this case in your hands,

knowing well that when all that is dear in life, and all that which is

more dear than life, his honour, is resting upon your verdict; _it will

not be upon vague suspicions, not upon doubts, but upon what does not

exist here, clear and direct and positive proof of guilt, that you will

convict him of that offence, of which he is incapable from his heart’s

core_.

I shall sit down confidently awaiting your verdict of Not Guilty, which

will restore this young man to that high and honourable station, and to

that happiness which he has hitherto worthily enjoyed.