Chapter XXVII: Part 27

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.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER.

Mr. _James Cook_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Do you reside in London?--Yes.

Are you a colonial-broker?--I am a colonial-broker under the firm of Truman and Cooke.

How long have you known the prisoner at the bar?--From ten to fifteen years.

What character has he borne during the time you have known him?--A very high character: I consider Mr. Zulueta to be one of the most honourable men in the City of London. It falls to my lot to be acquainted with a very large circle of the mercantile community. I am in close connexion with most of the large houses--Messrs. Baring, Messrs. Rothschilds, and houses of that stamp--and if I were put in a position to make any exception as to honour and integrity among the houses I have named, including Mr. Zulueta, the young man at the bar, I should put my finger upon him as the exception, as the most honourable and most straightforward man I ever knew.

Is that the mode in which you have heard him spoken of among mercantile men?--I believe I may say, without exception, it is generally understood to be so.

[_Adjourned._

THIRD DAY.
MONDAY, 30TH OCTOBER, 1843.

The names of the Jury were called over.--All present.

The Defendant took his place within the Bar.

Alderman Sir _John Pirie_, Bart., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

I believe you are extensively connected with trade and shipping in the City of London?--Yes.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--Perfectly.

And the defendant, who we understand is one of the firm?--I believe so.

How long have you been acquainted with him?--I should think about twelve years.

What character during that time has he borne among those who have known him for veracity and honour as a British merchant?--I have always considered him as one of the most respectable merchants in the City of London; a gentleman very unlikely to give encouragement to this nefarious trade.

_Anselmo de Arroyave_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

I believe you live in Tavistock Square?--Yes.

Are you a merchant of this City?--Yes.

Extensively engaged in business?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands behind you, Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--Yes.

How long have you been acquainted with his firm?--With his firm I have been acquainted about thirty-two years--the firm in Spain.

How long have you known the gentleman who stands at the bar?--I should think about twelve years.

What character has the house, and himself a member of it, borne for the honourable nature of their transactions, their integrity, and their compliance with the laws of this country?--I always heard that they were men of the most correct principle in all dealings; his father and grandfather always bore the best character.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I understand the gentleman to give him a very high character; I cannot hear the expressions.

Mr. _Clarkson_. Is there a house, in your judgment, in the City of London, which bears a higher character for principle and honour than the house of Zulueta?--It stands second to none.

_Thomas Hallifax_, Esq. sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a banker of the firm of Glyn, Mills, & Co.?--I am.

How long have you known the gentleman who stands before you?--The firm have been known to our house, I believe, eighteen or nineteen years; I cannot say the precise time I became acquainted with Mr. Zulueta, but I should say from ten to fifteen years.

Have you had an opportunity of knowing during that time the reputation he bore in the City of London for the honour and integrity of his dealings and conduct?--I believe him to bear the highest possible character; I believe him to be a man of the highest honour, and the most amiable disposition. I have known him as connected with his eminent firm in the City, and also in private, and I have great pleasure in giving to the best of my knowledge the high character he has borne from his amiability and irreproachable conduct.

_Samson Ricardo_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a merchant of the City of London?--I am a member of the Stock Exchange.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--Very well.

You know the house and the whole of the members?--Yes, perfectly.

Have you had transactions with them?--Yes.

What has been the character and reputation of the gentleman in the dock for honour and integrity in his personal conduct and his mercantile dealings?--The highest possible, and most straightforward: he is quite incapable of engaging in any transactions of a questionable nature.

The Honourable Baron _Lionel de Rothschild_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you acquainted with the gentleman who stands in the dock?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--I have known him the best part of twenty years.

What character has he borne for honour and humanity as a man of business?--Most highly honourable as respects personal character, and as respects his firm the best and most straightforward.

Is he a man of humane disposition?--I should think perfectly so, incapable of being connected in any way with the offence charged.

_Manuel Gregorio de Isasi_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a merchant of this City?--Yes.

Where do you carry on your business?--In Water Lane.

Are you concerned in shipping at all?--No.

What is the business in which you are engaged?--A wine-merchant.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--From his childhood.

Did you go to school with him?--Yes.

You knew him before he came to this country?--Yes, quite well, at Cadiz.

You are yourself from Cadiz?--Yes.

Have you had an opportunity of forming an opinion of the character he bears and deserves for integrity and honour, and his feelings of humanity in his personal character?--The highest, and his family at Cadiz. I should say that in every relation of life it is so.

_José Maria Barrero_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are at the head of the consulate of this country from Spain?--I am.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--Yes.

Have you known him long and well?--About twenty years.

That is very much the greater part of his life I suppose?--Yes.

What has been his conduct and character in the City of London?--The highest possible.

Are you acquainted with him in his relations in private life, as well as his conduct as a merchant?--Yes.

Have you had an opportunity of knowing whether his character and conduct in private life have been altogether unexceptionable?--Yes.

_Charles Tottie_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a merchant in this country?--Yes.

Are you also at the head of the consulate of Spain?--I am consul for Sweden and Norway.

Do you know Mr. Zulueta and his firm?--Yes.

What have you to say to his Lordship and the Jury respecting his character for integrity and humanity?--I have known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta for upwards of fourteen or sixteen years, and I always considered him of the highest character, and a truly Christian man. His cousins and my sons went to school together.

What has been his character for humanity and veracity?--Oh, very high.

Dr. _Neil Arnott_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Your name is Neil Arnot?--Yes.

You are a physician?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands by your side?--I have known him from his youth as physician to the family.

Have you had an opportunity of forming a judgment with relation to the character he has borne for honour and integrity as an individual and as a merchant?--From the many opportunities I have had of conversing with him, and knowing him in the character of a physician to his family, I have had an opportunity; also, as physician to most of the Spanish ambassadors; and I have known him as a countryman of theirs.

What character has he borne?--His father spared nothing on his education; it was the best this country could afford.

Is he a man of veracity and humanity?--In all the relations of life, kindred, friendship, and acquaintance, I consider him as standing very high.

Has he always borne the character of a humane, upright, Christian man?--As much as possible.

_Charles Dodd_, Esq., sworn.

I believe you are a solicitor?--I am.

Where do you live?--In Billiter Street, my house of business.

Are you acquainted with Pedro de Zulueta the prisoner?--I am.

I believe you have known him from his youth?--I have known him for twelve or fourteen years most intimately. I have the highest possible opinion of his honour and his integrity, and his moral and religious character. I have considered it a great blessing that my sons formed a strict intimacy with him, believing him as incapable of committing an offence against the law as it is possible for a man to be.

_Christobal de Murrieta_, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you of the firm of Aguirre Solarte and Murrieta, merchants of London?--Yes.

Do you know the gentleman who stands in the dock?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--About eighteen years.

What is the reputation which he has borne for honour, veracity, uprightness of conduct, and humanity, during the whole of the time you have known him?--The highest in both ways.

You mean the highest in all ways?--Yes.

Mr. _Charles Dodd_, Jun., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are the son of the gentleman who has been just examined?--I am.

Have you formerly been at school with the prisoner at the bar?--No, I have not been at school with him; I have known him since the year 1831.

What opinion have you formed as to his character for honour, veracity, and integrity of conduct?--I do not believe a more honourable man exists. I have felt the greatest pleasure in his acquaintance since when I first left school; and when I was forming those acquaintances which would conduct me through life, there is no man whose society I regretted losing more than Pedro de Zulueta’s when he left Camberwell.

_Hugh Sandeman_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a stock-broker in this City?--Yes.

Do you know Mr. Zulueta?--Yes, perfectly well, for sixteen years.

What opinion have you formed of him during that time?--Of the very highest description, and in all my intercourse with houses in the Royal Exchange, I have never found but the same opinion was expressed by all of him as a private individual, and as a member.

Has his moral and religious character been perfectly unexceptionable--Perfectly so.

_William Gibbs_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you of the firm of Anthony Gibbs & Son of this City?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--Perfectly well.

And every one of its members?--Perfectly well.

Have you had an opportunity of ascertaining the reputation which Mr. Pedro Zulueta has enjoyed in the City; whether it is an unexceptionable character, morally as well as religiously speaking?--I consider him as entitled to the highest honourable character. I have always heard him so described.

Have his transactions been to your knowledge of that character?--Perfectly; all marked with integrity and honourable conduct.

_Timothy Bevington_, Esq., solemnly affirmed. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

Are you a member of the Society of Friends?--I am.

The Society has expended much money and labour to put down the traffic to which reference has been made in the course of this trial?--Yes.

Do you know Mr. Pedro Zulueta?--Yes.

How long have you known him?--The last ten years.

What character has he borne during that time?--Excellent.

Do you know the house of which he is a member?--Very well; they have been my next door neighbours for many years.

Regard being had to the nature of the charge against him, what can you say as to his general character for uprightness and honour?--I have been perfectly satisfied in all the transactions I have had with him.

Have you always heard him spoken of as a man of humane and honourable conduct and feelings?--Perfectly so.

_William Tindal_, Esq., solemnly affirmed. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are a member of the Society of Friends?--I am of that persuasion.

Are you a ship-owner of the City of London?--I am.

Do you know Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I know him well.

How long have you known him?--I have known the elder Mr. Zulueta for fifty years; the younger one ever since he came over.

During that time have you had opportunities of ascertaining the general character and reputation he has borne in all the relations of life?--Yes.

What can you say to his Lordship and the Jury in those respects?--He has been a very exemplary character, both as a merchant and in moral character in every way.

Do you know a house in the City of London which stands higher than that house?--There is not one; and also they have the same reputation in Cadiz.

For humanity and integrity?--Yes, for humanity and integrity, and in every way as merchants.

_Samuel Jones Loyd_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are a banker in the City of London?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co., of which this gentleman is a partner?--I have no personal knowledge of the gentleman, but I know the house by character.

What character did the house bear in the City of London for general honour?--They have a very high reputation in every respect as mercantile men.

_Frederick Huth_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you a merchant in the City of London?--I am.

I believe you are one of the Directors of the Bank of England?--My son is.

How long have you known the house of Zulueta & Co.?--For the period of forty years. I have known them forty years.

Are you acquainted with the member of the firm who is unfortunately where he is now?--Perfectly so.

How long have you known him?--For twelve years.

As to individual character, how can you speak of him during the time you have known him with regard to integrity and humanity?--I cannot better describe him than that I know of no man in the City of London or any where else, a merchant, of whom I should give a higher character.

Have you ever heard a suggestion against his character as an individual, or against his regularity as a merchant?--Nothing whatever.

_Abraham Mocatta_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you one of the firm of Mocatta and Goldsmid?--I am.

You are bullion dealers in the City of London I believe?--Bullion merchants.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known him about sixteen years.

Have you also known the firm of which he is a member?--Yes, I have known them for that time or longer.

Have you any knowledge of their transactions in the City, the reputation they bear?--I have always understood them to bear the highest character that I have known as gentlemen of character. I have known the gentleman as a neighbour of mine for several years. He was in the habit of visiting our family, and we have the highest opinion of him; he was considered particularly humane and considerate of the wants of others.

_Edwin Gower_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you of the firm of Gower & Co.?--I am.

Merchants in this City?--Yes.

How long have you known Mr. Zulueta.--I have known him ever since he has been connected with the City of London, he and his senior.

And his family I suppose before him?--Yes.

What reputation has he enjoyed during the time you have known him, and his family, and the house as a mercantile firm?--I should say, as our connexions and theirs are very similar, we have almost daily more or less intercourse with him, and I never heard the most distant rumour against his character; I believe it to be quite unimpeachable: and the house, as a house of business, stands as high as any house in the City of London.

_George Rougemont_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you a merchant in the City?--I am.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known the house for a great number of years, and always heard it spoken of in the highest terms. Mr. Pedro de Zulueta I have been acquainted with and visited him perhaps six or eight years, and I have had frequent opportunities of seeing his conduct as a son, as a husband, as a father, and as a neighbour, and have always found it in the highest degree unexceptionable in every respect. I consider him an amiable and kind-hearted man, and quite incapable of any thing of the kind laid to his charge.

_Joseph Sadler_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Bodkin_.

Are you a merchant?--I am.

In the City of London?--Yes, Sadler, Harris, & Co. is my firm.

How long have you known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known him ten or twelve years.

What character has he appeared to bear as a man of integrity and humanity?--The very first character; I should say he is the last man I have known that I consider would be guilty of that which is charged.

_F. I. Vanzeller_, Esq., sworn. Examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.

You are the Portuguese consul I believe?--I am.

Do you know the house of Zulueta & Co.?--I have known it well.

Do you know Mr. Pedro de Zulueta?--I have known Mr. Pedro de Zulueta for ten years.

What character can you give of him, as a general character, to the Jury for humanity, integrity, and good conduct of every description?--The very highest character possible.

Is that the reputation which the house of which he is a member has borne in the city of London?--Certainly.

SUMMING UP.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Gentlemen of the Jury--Pedro de Zulueta is indicted for an offence against an Act of Parliament made for the prevention of the slave trade, for employing a vessel for the purpose of accomplishing objects declared to be illegal by that Act; that is to say, dealing in slaves, and also having loaded goods on board a vessel for that purpose.

Now, although this case has occupied a very considerable portion of time, I do not think it will be necessary for me to add much to it in the observations I shall think it necessary to make to you with respect to the evidence. It is not very long, and the points to which it goes are not very numerous--I mean the evidence on the substance of the charge. The case occupied about fifteen hours on Friday and Saturday, but the evidence did not occupy much above four hours. It will not be necessary for me to occupy much time in observations upon it, and I should think it will not be necessary for me to read over the evidence.

The offence, as I have told you, is put in these two shapes--the employing a vessel, and the loading goods for a purpose prohibited by the statute; that is, for the purpose of dealing in slaves. The charge is not, it does not necessarily import, nor is it necessary to support it, that it should be proved that the ship in question, the Augusta, was intended to be used for the conveyance of slaves from the coast of Africa. If there was a slave adventure--if there was an adventure of which the object was that slaves should be brought from the coast of Africa, that there should be slave trading there, and if this vessel was dispatched and employed for the purpose of accomplishing that object, although it was intended to accomplish that object otherwise than by bringing home the slaves in that vessel, that is within the Act of Parliament. So, if the goods were loaded for the purpose of accomplishing the slave trade--whether it was intended to bring back the slaves in the vessel in question, or that they should be brought away in some other vessel, or whether that was a matter left undecided at the commencement of the adventure, and to be determined according as matters might turn out to be convenient for the accomplishment of it--in any of these cases the crime charged in this indictment would be committed, the allegations in the indictment would be supported, and the prohibition of the Act of Parliament would be violated. The Act would have been very imperfect indeed, if it had prohibited slave trading and had not prevented any dealing of that description, except where the same vessel was to bring home the slaves; if, at all events, it went out for the purpose of carrying goods which were to be bartered for them. From one of the witnesses, who, in the course of his public duty was conversant with what takes place on this slave coast of Africa, we hear that it frequently happens that the slaves are got away by a different vessel from that which carries out the goods which formed the fund for their purchase. That is the nature of the offence.

Gentlemen, I do not think there will be any great difficulty in some of the preliminary questions you will have to decide upon this occasion. One is, whether the prisoner at the bar did at all dispatch, did at all employ this vessel, the Augusta, or did at all load any goods on board; because, though a person may employ a vessel and load goods--he may do that quite innocently--the fact, that he employed a vessel and loaded goods, is by no means conclusive of his guilt till you go further and show that he did it for the illegal purpose charged in the indictment. If it had not been shown that the prisoner at the bar did employ the vessel, or load the goods, the inquiry would have been stopped; for the purpose never could have been brought in question, and there would have been an end, or rather there would have been no beginning of this enquiry: but with respect to that branch of the case, there appears to have been no doubt made on the part of the prisoner that he did employ this vessel. He says he did it as the agent of Pedro Martinez & Co., and that he did it without knowing what the purpose was for which the vessel was employed, or whether it was employed in the slave trade; and that he did load the goods on board the ship--and there appears to be to the value of a good many thousand pounds, a considerable cargo (the value I get only from the cockets), a considerable quantity of goods. The vessel undoubtedly was dispatched with the knowledge of the prisoner and through his agency to carry goods to the coast of Africa. So much does not seem to be a matter in dispute.

Then the matters in dispute are two--one, whether this vessel was dispatched for the purpose of slave trading at all; if it was not, there is an end of all question. If it appears that there was no slave trading, or intention of slave trading, no person is guilty of the violation of the law charged in this indictment. There is no offence on the part of any one, if a slave adventure was not contemplated by the persons engaged in this transaction. Unless you decide that question in the affirmative, that is to say, unless you think there was such an adventure, there is no case made at all against the prisoner at the bar. It has been contended, and strenuously--not in a separate form, but mixed up with the other point in the case to which I will next draw your attention--it has been contended on the part of the prisoner, that there was no slave adventure, that the ship Augusta went to the Gallinas loaded in this way not for the purpose of dealing in slaves, or for any unlawful purpose, but that she went either for some lawful purpose, or else without any purpose of dealing at all: you will say whether there could be any such possibility. It has been contended that at any rate the ship did not go for the purpose of slave trading. If you are of opinion there was no slave trading contemplated, that that was not the object of the voyage, there is an end of that question; but, supposing you should think there was slave dealing intended, and the vessel went out for the purpose of slave dealing, then there is another important question--and that is the object of the evidence to character--whether, supposing there was a slave trading intended, the prisoner was cognizant of it?