Chapter III: Part 3

There may be something so revolting in the whole conduct of such proceedings to the consciences of men, as to stand in the way of a conviction by an English Jury; but it has been seen in what way every other indignity may, at all events, be safely inflicted; and as affecting men and families of certain education and feeling--who, be it never forgotten, are the very parties said to be most obnoxious to the charge--a verdict of guilty need not arrive, to produce evils as great or greater than any penalties which it is possible for any human law to impose. And when it is considered--first, that the legitimate popular sense of words is distorted in order to call _slave trading_ that, which is neither directly nor indirectly _dealing in slaves_; secondly, that under the guise of a question of fact, a very subtle metaphysical argument about the nature and the degree of knowledge in the mind of an individual, is the thing really submitted to minds the least likely to apprehend the very nice distinction upon which the decision must hang--and, lastly, when every means are industriously resorted to in order to make it appear that the crime largely prevails in the class to which the accused is likely to belong, and to represent that the only difficulty is to get over the technicalities of legal evidence, but that moral evidence abounds--when all these things are taken together, it is easy to discover how much even the failure of such a prosecution as this, facilitates the next attempt: perhaps it may be practically found that it does so, more than its success could have done.

The resolution of the London Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society of the 8th of December, which has been already quoted, broadly states the prevalence of the crime among British merchants; and another, of a still more recent date, besides repeating the same assertion in another form, clearly intimates that the obstacle to its being visited as it deserves, does not consist in the want of proof of the existence of the guilt, but in “the difficulty encountered in the course of the prosecution in an English Court of Law:” that is, in the technicalities of the rules of evidence, even after the stretch of these rules, which this particular Act of Parliament would, by the experience of the late proceedings, seem to demand.

These resolutions, just published, passed by the Committee on the 29th December, are as follows:--

“Zulueta’s Trial.--At a meeting of the Committee of the British and
Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, held at 27, New Broad Street, on Friday,
December 29, 1843, George William Alexander, Esq., in the chair, the
following resolutions were adopted:--

“I. That this Committee, regarding the recent trial of Pedro de
Zulueta, Jun., on a charge of slave trading, in the Central Criminal
Court, on the 27th of October last, and following days, as an event of
the highest interest and importance, feel it their duty to express
their sentiments on the state of things which has been developed by
it.

“II. That, abstaining from all comment on the verdict of the Jury,
this Committee regard the following points as brought out with great
force by this trial, _viz._--

“1. That articles of British manufacture are principally used on the
coast of Africa in barter for slaves.

“2. That British merchants who are engaged in furnishing such supplies
to slave traders are practical supporters of the African slave trade.

“3. That, although a British merchant may furnish supplies to the most
notorious slave traders in the world, the evidence by which a charge
of aiding and abetting the slave trade can be substantiated against
him is of such a nature that it is extremely difficult, if not almost
impossible, to prosecute such an offender to conviction.

“4. That the practice of aiding and abetting the slave trade by
supplying goods to slave traders prevails to a considerable extent
among British merchants, and that, by a portion of the mercantile
community, it is not regarded with the sentiments due to its
flagitious character.

“III. That this Committee regard in particular the last fact now
stated with the deepest and most poignant regret; and that they
earnestly invoke, not so much the fear of punishment as the sense of
honour, of justice, and of benevolence, in the British community, for
the correction of so great an evil.

“IV. That the difficulties encountered in the course of this
prosecution in an English court of justice, and the extended
ramifications of the slave trading interest which have been developed
by it, have, in the judgment of this Committee, confirmed the
principle held by the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, that
the only effectual mode by which the slave trade can be abolished is
the abolition of slavery itself.

“JOHN SCOBLE, Secretary.”

In these resolutions, the Committee describe the particular matter which they had under their consideration, _viz._ the supply of British goods. Not so in the previous resolution of the 9th of December (see page xxvi). In it a hope is expressed, that by the proceedings against Pedro de Zulueta, “a salutary check will be given to the notorious implication of British capital and commerce in that nefarious traffic.” How this implication takes place is not pointed out. Upon the merits of the matters contained in these resolutions, it is not, of course, my intention to enter; I take them as they are put forth, for the only purpose which perhaps gives them any value or importance, _viz._ as expressions of the sentiments and opinions of people who show every disposition to sanction, and have the pecuniary means required in order to encourage or to assist others in the use of that power of private prosecution which every one possesses, even if they themselves are not inclined to exercise it in their own persons.

Now, although it is not distinctly stated in the resolution just quoted how this _notorious_ implication of British capital is supposed to take place--not to say any thing at present about a most unjustifiable use of the word _notorious_, which, in these matters, is constantly made--the mode in which the implication takes place must be supposed to be large enough to be notorious--large enough, when even a check to it is made the object of hope and the subject of a resolution, which, as it conveys a serious charge against fellow-citizens, nothing but a very overwhelming sense of the necessity of a _check_ could have induced the Committee to overcome the painfulness of publishing. The term could not properly apply to any direct concern in the slave trade; _that_ would be something more than _implication_. It cannot be confined to the supply of goods, since this is a subject treated in a separate set of resolutions. It must be taken to apply to other operations also, such as occur in the progress of a mercantile intercourse with other countries in which slavery, or the slave trade, are permitted to exist, and must apply to all or any transactions with those countries, at least, unless a clear and distinct separation can be made that will render it quite certain and quite capable of proof that neither the slave trade nor slavery can possibly be forwarded directly or indirectly by the transaction. This is the only certain way of avoiding _implication_. This sense of the charge against British merchants at large, is perhaps the only one which can render either intelligible or practicable the observation which was so emphatically delivered by the learned Serjeant Bompas in his opening speech at the trial, that “if merchants in this country would not accept bills drawn by slave traders, if they would not send goods from this country to be employed for the purpose--in fact, the trade could not be carried on at all.”

And whether this rather extraordinary assertion be or be not correct, I deal with it as with the resolutions of the Anti-Slavery Committee--it is quite enough, upon such a question, and with such momentous interests at stake, that such opinions prevail in certain quarters, and that the power exists of giving them that fatal effect which these proceedings reveal, in order to force upon us, as merchants, the consideration of whether any mercantile transactions whatsoever can possibly be carried on with countries wherein the slave trade or slavery exist, with any real safety to our persons and to our property, whilst things remain as they have been shown to be in the practical development of the law.

It is very true, that previous to the late elucidation of its working, there were such high legal authorities on the subject, as will be found in the pages immediately following this address; and even now, if a case is placed before the very highest counsel of the land, you will be told that _knowledge, wilful knowledge_, of the _guilty_ intent can condemn the acts upon which you are seeking advice--that that, of itself, will condemn the most indirect--and nothing short of that can condemn the most direct act of abetting the slave trade. But, in order to make good a charge, the evidence of a _probable knowledge_ is made up of those very acts which, without presupposing the knowledge, you had been told are innocent, perfectly legal, and such as you could perform. When once that case of probable knowledge is thus made out, you are called upon to meet it with a case of your own, in which you cannot allege, with any success, the innocent nature of your acts; for although those have been already declared to be innocent in themselves, they are also taken as evidence that you must be possessed of _a knowledge_ of what they were intended to be made subservient to by a foreigner at some thousands of miles distant, in a country which to you may be _terra incognita_.

The question resolves itself therefore into one of prudence, about which you will be told by the learned Counsel, and properly told, that you alone can be, and you alone must be, the judge, _viz._ whether, under the state of the law which has been developed, it is safe to enter into any dealings, not which you know or suspect (this is _a fraud of the law_), but which _may be_ rendered subservient, however indirectly by others, to a slave trading purpose. The letter of the law seems to speak of _knowingly and wilfully_ aiding and abetting the slave trade, and so it is expounded by the highest legal authority of the land, when consulted upon any one case in perspective; but the practice renders this a most _egregious fraud_ on the part of the law itself, which presents itself under false colours; for, whilst in theory it does not permit of any other advice being given for its observance than that just mentioned, in practice it has been seen how the proof of your knowledge is established, not by evidence produced against you, but by that which you do not produce when a case of probable _knowledge_, founded upon knowledge of others in totally different circumstances, has been made out.

These things speak for themselves and show what is the practical situation of merchants trading with countries in which dealing in slaves and slave negotiations are both legal and of common occurrence. I need not say, that the United States, Cuba, Brazils, and a large portion of Europe, without talking of Africa, fall exactly under this description. It has been admitted, for indeed it cannot be denied, that it is impracticable to draw a line of separation, in order to distinguish the illicit from the licit traffic, in countries where they both subsist, for they are interwoven and mix themselves with, and merge the one into, the other. This is perfectly clear, and indeed the only intelligible account of the matter. Under such a view of the nature of the thing--after what has been brought to light in the late proceedings as to the mode in which a man may be attacked, with ruin staring him in the face at the first onset, whatever the subsequent result may be, seized on--laid hold of at any, perhaps the most critical, moment--after what has been seen of the method in which his prosecution will be suffered to be carried on, and the manner in which the evidence will be made to bear, in order to prove the _knowledge_ which constitutes the guilt--after seeing that no precaution can guard a man against the attack, and no endeavour to ascertain the real sense of the treacherous law, which speaks one thing and means a very different one--after seeing that as a merchant of wealth, character, and education, he carries in those very circumstances as many presumptions of guilt--after it has been shown that the only thing which can save him, according as the law is laid down and administered, is that which in the nature of mercantile transactions is, and must be in almost every case impossible--after all this, which the late proceedings have so strongly brought to light--there remains but one safe course, _viz._ to abstain from all mercantile intercourse with countries in which slavery or the slave trade exists.

The absurdity which appears on the face of such a statement as this just made, involving as it does the cutting off communication with half the world at least, and leaving the communication with the other half very much on the footing of an inconsistency, renders the accuracy of the rule, as a conclusion from the preceding reasoning, very suspicious. I appeal, however, to every candid and honest mind whether it be or it be not the conclusion which, but for its _absurdity_, (if so it is to be called) would be imperative, and such as could not be avoided without manifest want of honesty. If such is the real fact--if the conclusion is just and legitimate, and yet it leads to something absurd and wrong; then the principles upon which it proceeds must themselves be the _wrong-doers_. The state of the law, which leaves no other alternative than that of an impracticable absurdity on the one side, and on the other an exposure, imminent and threatening, to an indictment, followed up by the most terrible consequences, even if a conviction does not take place--must be wrong. It deserves a stronger epithet, lest it should be thought that by wrong is only meant _unwise_--it is positively of the very nature of a national crime--it is a deep moral stain upon the people who suffer this state of things to continue in all its hideous deformity, whilst the victims to such a state of the law could only be looked upon as barbarously sacrificed: the people tolerating its continuance, when once made aware of what was being done, could be considered only as a race of heartless, cruel tyrants. In the pursuit of a praiseworthy object it is very possible, and indeed it is not uncommon, for a nation no less than for an individual to betray itself into a very false position, which is made so much the more mischievous, because, in the case of the nation no less than the individual, people are found ready to take advantage of that position. But so soon as the evil reveals itself in this practical shape, the nation, quite as much as the individual, is called upon to remove the very possibility of a repetition of the act of oppression arising from that false position.

And what is the false position in which this country appears before the whole world in the matter before us? It is this. Here is a people with whom trade and manufactures form very important elements of wealth, independent of the justly admitted tendency of both to promote civilization--a most important, but not the present consideration--these people thrive largely by their mercantile intercourse with Cuba, with the Brazils, with Spain and with Portugal, with the United States, with Africa, so much so, that they cannot dispense with that trade. Those of their people who follow the commercial career in all its branches, their merchants, manufacturers, and ship-owners, and conduct the intercourse with those countries, materially contribute to the welfare and to the prosperity of every class of the community in which they live. They contribute not a little to the support of the State, and when an emergency arises, when the credit of the country and the honour of the Crown are at stake, they are among the first upon whom the call is made, and is not made in vain: and yet the state of the law among this people who derive the important benefits, which have not certainly been exaggerated, from a commercial intercourse with the countries just mentioned, is such as to place those of their fellow-countrymen, who conduct that intercourse, and are therefore nearest in contact with those countries, liable to be dragged from the scene of their labours, so vital to the prosperity of this people, as common felons, upon an indictment secretly procured and obtained; and their very acts, notoriously necessary for carrying on the very operations of commerce, which the country cannot dispense with, are in the first instance to form the presumption of the guilt, and afterwards the proof of it, unless they can prove them to be _not guilty_. It is true that this people have anathematized a branch of trade which subsists in those countries, and have expunged that trade from their code of licit pursuits at an immense sacrifice to themselves, and are determined to extinguish it among the nations of the earth, as far as it can be done by lawful means; but inasmuch as they cannot dispense with all other intercourse with other countries, although fully aware that from that intercourse the proscribed traffic must necessarily derive assistance (since it cannot be separated from any one licit pursuit in the countries wherein it prevails), they are bound so to construct the law as to protect the men who conduct that intercourse, against any attacks which may be founded more or less on the use to which others, and not themselves, may turn the acknowledged necessary and legitimate acts, without which the intercourse cannot exist. And if such be the meaning of the law, as I have no doubt whatever there is not one man in Great Britain at all acquainted with these matters, who has not been, to this moment, in the understanding that such and no other was the state of the case--if it be not meant that the intention is that a law shall be made with apparently one meaning, and to be used for a quite different purpose--when the perversion which it seems to authorise shall have been discovered, sharpened by the application of the right of private prosecution, and in the form of a secretly procured indictment, which destroys before it convicts--there is only one of these honest courses left--_either let the law--a clearer law--be substituted for that which exists, or let it be clearly explained; and, at all events, let the right of prosecution be placed exclusively in hands, and limited to a course of proceeding, which will afford some guarantee for its right use_. Let us cast away from us the worst features of the Inquisition.

It cannot be meant to leave matters so--that the nation shall be deriving all the benefits of commercial intercourse with the countries already mentioned, trusting to our desire for profit as merchants to get the better of our prudence as reasonable men--that we shall be content to run the risk of private prosecution, and secretly procured indictments, of arrest, imprisonment, ruin, disgrace, transportation, the sacrifice of all that is dear to a man on earth; and, therefore, that the nation will go on prospering by our labour, whilst we ourselves may be told that we need _only be a little more_ careful. And all this, as if it was meant to be insinuated that if a victim is now and then made, it is expedient that it should be so; that it is not extremely harsh, since merchants are to be thought of only as men accustomed to risks, and therefore who get obdurate against adversity--as if it were assumed, that as to the victim so made, it is sure to be some one who has deserved his fate by a more than ordinary degree of temerity, by going a _little_ too far, or by an act of rebellion against the attempt to fix the brand on his forehead, which really, when once we have suffered ourselves to be so far stigmatised, there can be little doubt will be designated as a degree of fastidiousness to which an exclusively money-making and money-loving race can have no just pretensions. You may trust to their rapacity (it would seem to be argued by this defamatory process, which before it is openly avowed must work its way by implying as much in action, as, if it were not too revolting, would be stated in as many words)--you may trust to their rapacity for any necessary amount of risk being encountered, and therefore no fear of trade being given up, because we make it a _little_--only just take care that it shall not appear too dangerous.

This is not, I am sure, the position which is meant to be taken by the country towards a profession heretofore deemed honourable, and which has become interwoven with the highest ranks of our society. It is not, it cannot be meant, that such be the state of things at home, as between the merchant and the country.

Neither is another position (in every moral point of view equally indefensible) to be taken by British merchants towards their correspondents abroad, even supposing it could last. It is well known and admitted, that a mercantile intercourse imposes a tacit contract between the two parties who carry on a correspondence, a breach of which can be visited by the law; that in the progress of the intercourse all acts mutually required within the mercantile usage, and not otherwise illegal or improper, shall be performed. If a man carries on a correspondence with another and a course of business, he is not at liberty, either as a matter of principle or of law, to break it off when and how he pleases. Are we called upon as merchants in England, either by the requirements of the law, or by public opinion, to encourage our foreign correspondents to send their sugars and their coffees, their tobacco and their cotton, their copper ore, their minerals, and other produce, to us in England, and when we are quite sure of our profits, when they begin to dispose of the proceeds of their property, and we fancy (which must be very soon, after what the late proceedings have exhibited) that we may render ourselves liable to a prosecution--are we then to turn round upon our correspondents, and say, “I cannot accept your bill until you show me that its proceeds are not going to buy slaves with?” “I cannot honour the credit you have opened in behalf of A, B, or C, because I see in the ‘Anti-Slavery Reporter,’ that ‘he is a _notorious_ slave dealer.’” Are we, when our correspondent sends an order to buy a ship which is on public sale, and which may be employed in any trade, and goods which you, reader, may happen to manufacture yourself--are we then to turn upon our correspondent and say, “Show to us satisfactorily that these things are not intended by you or any one connected with you, indeed that they cannot be used, in promoting the slave trade?”

And again, are we to trust to the circumstance of his being in our power, and to the odium which the simple imputation of slave dealing will attach to him, to bear us out in our justification, should he bring an action against us? Are we, upon receiving an order from our correspondent, to lay it before counsel for their opinion, which we have seen will advance us very little? Shall we disclose the name of our correspondent with the insinuation that he _may be_ a slave dealer, or that we suspect him to be one, or that some one else suspects him, thus helping, as far as we are able, to put his property in peril, and to render every communication with him dangerous? Shall we advertise our counting-houses in England, not, as they have been hitherto considered to be, the symbol of security and good faith, but as nests of treachery, deceit, and suspicion? and shall our intercourse with foreign merchants assume the character of covert _espionage_? A state of things such as this, inflicting gross injustice, cruel injury, inexpressible degradation, upon one class of men, and that class of which England has had hitherto good reason to be proud--such a state of things at home, and so much scandal and disgrace abroad, is not, cannot be, contemplated without feelings of the deepest horror.

I denounce this state of things as involving a national crime--as attended with national disgrace; I denounce it as a stain which should be wiped off without delay from the character of a nation eminently jealous of its public as much as of its private morality, as an offence to the religious feeling which is not wanting among us; I appeal to the conscience of every man in Great Britain against this state of things. May I not take upon myself to say, that I make this appeal in behalf of a class which yields to no other of the community in high principle or right feeling--a class which is not at all below the standard of morality, religious convictions, tastes, education, which may be set by the most distinguished in this country? I do appeal to the Legislature and to the Government of the land, which do not make laws or maintain them as a snare or a trap against a particular class of their subjects. I appeal to the Honourable Members of the Committee of the House of Commons on the West Coast of Africa, before whom I appeared in 1842; I appeal to them as senators, as gentlemen, as men of honour and principle--I do appeal to all, whether the position of merchants in mercantile intercourse with countries in which the slave trade and slavery exist, should remain as it has been shown to be now by the late proceeding; whether the laws should not be made such, that, whilst we should be answerable for our own acts, and for our participation and consent in the wrong acts of others, we may not be undone before we are even heard in our defence; that we may not be required to prove ourselves innocent before we are proved to be guilty; and, above all, that the right of prosecution may be confined to such hands, and its use to such a procedure as will afford the British merchant a guarantee against private, malicious, secretly conducted attacks, and will make his personal security something more than a mockery. I make this appeal with the same confidence in the result, which my conscience felt when I stood before the British Jury, into whose hands it pleased Providence, by so unexpected a proceeding, to place, in point of fact, my very existence--the existence of all that is dear to me on earth--of much that the world has had opportunities to try and has stamped as honourable in character--of much, not the less valuable because the world can never know of it--the Jury upon whose verdict hung the honour of this country--a country for whose honour and estimation among the nations of the earth I must feel strongly--and from which a gross and cruel injustice would be doubly felt, bound to it as I am by those ties, which it has been attempted barbarously to tear asunder, but which it is only in the power of God to dissolve.

P. DE ZULUETA.

_London, 17th January, 1844._

OPINIONS OF THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES
_Referred to in_ p. lxii.

“1 & 2. There is not any thing in the Act of Parliament in question which renders illegal a commercial dealing on the coast of Africa, in usual lawful merchandise, though such dealing may be with a person known to gain his livelihood by dealing in slaves, and therefore of course, an owner or supercargo making a sale in the manner described to any such person, does not subject himself or the ship to any of the penalties of the Act.

“3. Independently of the above Act, an English owner, or master, or supercargo, or other person who engages in such commercial dealing as above described, is not guilty of any offence against the law, nor subject to any punishment.

(signed)

“_Fred. Pollock._”

“Temple, 8 June, 1842.

(_Vide Report, West Coast of Africa, Part I_, p. 344.)

* * * * *

“1. Unless the merchant knew, when he sold the goods, that they were used for carrying on the slave trade, I am clearly of opinion that he is not guilty of felony. The question of knowledge will be for the Jury, if the case is tried by a Jury, or by a Judge or Judges without a Jury, and will depend upon the evidence that is given either of direct knowledge, or that the circumstances were such that he must have known the destination and occupation of the vessel and her crew.

“2. It will appear from the statutes 11th and 12th, and 46th of Geo. III, c. 54, &c., that the merchant might be tried at Sierra Leone, and if so, I am disposed to think that the constituted authorities at Cape Coast would be warranted in apprehending him and sending him for trial to Sierra Leone, as the offence committed is felony.

“3. I hardly know what precautionary measures can be adopted by the Governor in cases where it is unknown whether the vessels are intended for the slave trade or not. The same articles that are used for bartering for slaves are no doubt also used in bartering for palm-oil, elephant’s teeth, and other African products, and to prohibit all dealing in such articles of barter would be greatly prejudicial to the innocent trade carried on with Africa. The Governor can hardly do more than warn merchants not to deal in such articles with suspected vessels upon peril of the consequences.

(signed)

“_W. Wightman._”

“Inner Temple, July 8th, 1840.

(_Vide Report, West Coast of Africa, Part II, Appendix, &c._, p. 25.)

* * * * *

“If a person fitted out a vessel to traffic with slave factories and settlements, and sold goods to those factories, out and out, though they were such as might be used for the slave trade, as well as the innocent commerce of the coast; and though, in point of fact, they were used in slave trading, he was of opinion that this did not amount to slave trading: whether it was a commendable use of capital or not, was a different question. If the goods sent out were of such a description that it could not be doubtful that they were to be used in the slave trade alone, such as a cargo of fetters or other implements that could only be employed in such a trade, he had stated that he deemed this much more doubtful, yet he was not prepared to say that it was an act of slave trading which would render the exporter of such articles liable to be tried for felony. But if goods were sent, whether of one kind or the other, whether of an ambiguous description, or plainly fitted for the slave trade alone, and the price of the goods was to depend (as the petitioners stated to be the fact) upon the slave trade, in which such goods were to be employed, he had stated that his opinion was that this was an act of slave trading, being in truth a partnership with slave traders, and the persons exporting such goods would be guilty of a felony within the meaning of the Abolition law.”

(_Extract from_ LORD BROUGHAM’S _Speech before the House of Lords,
Oct. 5, 1841. Vide Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. LIX, fo.
1116._)

DOCUMENTS,
_&c. &c._

R. R. GIBBONS, Esq., to Messrs. ZULUETA & CO.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

_Select Committee on West Coast of Africa._

Gentlemen,

April 15th, 1842.

By Lord Stanley’s desire I send you a copy of Dr. Madden’s Report, on
the Gold Coast, and its dependencies.

I am to add, that this is sent to you as being personally interested
therein, but that you will be good enough to consider it as entirely
confidential.

I have, &c.

R. R. GIBBONS.

* * * * *

The Report of Dr. Madden forms part of the Appendix to the “Report from the Select Committee on the West Coast of Africa[3],” and although the first official communication which was received by the house of Messrs. Zulueta & Co., it is not inserted, in consequence of its want of connexion with the chief subject of this publication. It is entitled, “Report of Her Majesty’s Commissioner of Inquiry on the State of the British Settlements on the Gold Coast, at Sierra Leone, and the Gambia, with some Observations on the Foreign Slave Trading Factories along the Western Coast of Africa, in the Year 1841;” and sets forth its object as follows:--

“Pursuant to the instructions of Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for
the Colonies, the following matters were duly examined into, and the
result of the best consideration that could be given to these subjects
will be found in the following order:--

“1st. The state and condition of our forts and settlements on the
Western Coast of Africa, their trade, population, resources, and
government.

“2d. The facilities afforded in these settlements to the foreign slave
traders resorting to them, by affording supplies in goods or stores
that are essential to the trade.

“3d. The prospects and practicability of emigration from Sierra Leone
to our West India Colonies.

“4th. The climate, salubrity, and nature of the locality of our
settlements on the Western Coast of Africa: and in addition to these
subjects, I have to add the consideration of two very important ones,
not specified in my instructions, but which, in their execution,
became part and parcel of them, and which I conceived I would not have
done my duty had I left unnoticed, or taken no steps to remove the
evils connected with them; these subjects are:--

“1. The existence of slavery in our settlements on the Gold Coast.

“2. The co-operation of British commerce with slave-trade interests,
at the factories of notorious slave dealers on the Western Coast of
Africa.”

[3] Vide Part II, p. 9, et seq.

In treating of the last subject here mentioned, the following remarks occur:--

“It is very true the Consolidated Slave Law, the 5th of Geo. IV, comprehends every case of aiding and abetting the slave trade, that I have proposed to have still more formally and specifically prohibited; and there can be no question that any infraction of this law, whether by insuring slave property, selling goods for slave trading objects, lending money, or giving any species of assistance for the promotion of these objects in any court in England, where the case would be tried on its proper merits, and not decided on by a jury implicated or involved in the interests of slavery, that the offender would be convicted of the felony and punished. But few of those employed in judicial situations on the Western Coast of Africa have been persons belonging to the legal professions, and those who did belong to it, and were the advisers of our governors, have not been persons of very profound experience in the law, and the consequence has been that, with few exceptions, our authorities on the Western Coast of Africa hold the opinion that was entertained at Cape Coast as to the legality of aiding and abetting the slave dealers, of supplying them with the goods and stores essential to the purchase of the slaves. The Consolidated Slave Trade Act, of 1824, distinctly states in the very second clause, that it is unlawful ‘in any manner to engage, or to contract to engage, directly or indirectly therein (the slave trade), as a partner, agent, or otherwise, or to ship, tranship, lade, receive, or put on board, &c.... knowing that such ship, vessel, or boat is actually employed, &c.’....

“In the 7th clause, with the customary verbiage, it is declared, that ‘if any person shall knowingly and wilfully ship, or put on board of any vessel any money, goods, or effects, to be employed in accomplishing any of the objects hereinbefore declared unlawful, then and in every other such case the person so offending, and their procurers, counsellors, aiders, and abettors, shall forfeit and pay for every such offence double the value of all the money, goods, or effects so shipped, transhipped, laden, received, or put on board, or contracted so to be as aforesaid.’

“And by the 10th clause, the persons thus aiding and abetting the slave trade, are further declared to be felons, and shall be transported for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or confined and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding five years, nor less than three years, at the discretion of the Court.

“The right and privilege heretofore exercised of suing in Vice-Admiralty Courts for the forfeitures or penalties incurred by the contravention of this law, are set forth in the 12th clause, notwithstanding any criminal proceedings that may have been instituted against the aiders and abettors of this trade. That the merchant in the case of the Dos Amigos had left himself subject to both sorts of proceedings there can be no doubt. In a case somewhat analogous to this, of recent occurrence, a British vessel, commanded by a British subject, the Augusta, dispatched by a London house, was captured by Lieutenant Hill, of Her Majesty’s ship Saracen, having merchandise on board adapted for the slave trading factories, and having a direct destination to one of these. The vessel was condemned at Sierra Leone, but no proceedings have been taken in the Vice-admiralty Court in England by Lieutenant Hill, to recover the penalties incurred by this breach of the law. The notoriety of this vessel at all the factories on the coast of Africa had its weight in the tribunal where she was ultimately condemned for aiding and abetting the slave trade. In no respect was the evidence against this vessel stronger than that against the Cape Coast merchant, yet that vessel was condemned by the authorities at Sierra Leone, and the merchant is defended by those at Cape Coast. The Augusta, a notorious slaver, had only been captured and sent to England a few months before under the name of the Gollupchik, and under Russian colours, and she was found again on the coast, under the British flag, the property of London merchants. The Spanish slave trader, who was captain of the Gollupchik, when captured by the Saracen, and sent to England was subsequently taken near Whydah by Commodore Tucker of the Wolverine, while I was passenger on board that vessel, in another slaver called the Liberal; and from this man I learned particulars entirely corroborative of the documentary evidence found on board the Augusta. The recent relinquishment of the slave trade on the part of Don Theodore Canot at his slave factory at New Sesters, one of the principal slave dealers on the Kroo Coast, led to the giving up of his books and papers to Lieutenant Segrim, of Her Majesty’s ship Termagant, with whom he entered into arrangements for renouncing his unlawful trade; and, on examining these books on board of Her Majesty’s ship Wolverine, I found that a London house had long been in the habit of supplying stores and merchandise to his slave factory from their vessels on the coast. On the 4th of December, 1839, there is an entry of the arrival at his factory, for the purposes of trade, of the English brig Enterprise.

“1st January, 1840. There is an entry of the arrival of an English brig ‘Corcyra,’ belonging to another house in London, for the purposes of trade, and of having purchased of him 50 guns, 100 cutlasses, 100 large kettles, and 100 bars of irons.

“13th May, 1840. There is an entry of the re-appearance of the captain of the ‘Enterprise,’ at his factory, and having purchased from him 83 cruces of rice, or about 2,000lbs. weight, for which he paid 63 dollars, and 84 dollars for 21 guns.

“1st July, 1840. There is an entry of the arrival of the English schooner ‘Gil Blas,’ of London, and of having purchased two pieces of cloth, eight bars of tobacco, and one gallon of rum.

“On the 5th of December, 1840, Don Theodore Canot placed himself under the protection of the British flag, renounced his traffic, and gave up 104 slaves to Lieutenant Segrim.

“Lieutenant Hill, of Her Majesty’s ship ‘Saracen,’ on the 14th January, 1839, visited the British vessel ‘Medora,’ and was informed by the master that he had just disposed at the Gallinas of 10,000 dollars’ worth of goods to the factories there.

“Lieutenant Segrim, of the ‘Termagant,’ recently boarded the British merchant vessel ‘The Guinea Man,’ and the master admitted having just sold 500_l._ worth of goods to the slave trade factories at the Gallinas.

“A British trader, a man of colour, who has an establishment at Accra, has one likewise at Little Popoe, where he is known to dabble in this trade.

“This man was an agent of a mercantile house in London; and information reached me of his having embarked for Popoe some time ago, in the neighbourhood of St. Paul’s, a number of slaves on board a British vessel then under discharge. On visiting this part of the coast in Her Majesty’s ship ‘Wolverine,’ on my way to Princes’ Island, we found at Great Popoe a British subject of colour holding a factory, from which Captain Tucker had information he had lately shipped a cargo of slaves. While at anchor off the shore, Captain Tucker addressed a letter to him on the subject, informing him of the report he had heard, and giving him to understand that, on any repetition of his illegal proceedings, he would destroy his factory and carry himself to Sierra Leone. He returned a submissive, and I must add a very proper answer, not denying the transaction alluded to, but promising faithfully in future to abstain from exporting slaves.

“I have noticed these circumstances, though not apparently bearing on the subject of this part of my Report, namely, the resources, trade, and government of our settlements on the Gold Coast, and the influence of the latter on the adjoining districts, in order to show the necessity there is for a new enactment to prevent the facilities that are now afforded by our commerce from supplying the slave trade factories with these commodities which are indispensable to the slave traders. It is evident that those factories are supplied with goods by British traders, and especially by London merchants, to a very great extent.” ...

London, 31st July, 1841.

(signed)

R. R. MADDEN.

COPY OF A LETTER
FROM
MESSRS. ZULUETA & CO. TO LORD VISCOUNT SANDON.

My Lord,

London, 25 April, 1842.

A letter has been addressed to us under date of the 15th inst., by Mr.
R. R. Gibbons, sending to us, at your Lordship’s desire, a copy of Dr.
Madden’s Report on the Gold Coast of Africa, and its dependencies, and
stating that this is done in consideration of “our being personally
interested therein, but that we are to consider it as entirely
confidential.”

In common with all other merchants in this city, we may of course be
said to possess more or less of a professional interest in all matters
which relate to commerce.

As having occasionally executed shipping orders for ports in the coast
of Africa, on foreign account, of lawful merchandise, lawfully, and
therefore publicly cleared at Her Majesty’s Customs, in lawful
vessels, and as far as we, as mere shipping agents, could be supposed
or expected to know, to the best of our knowledge, for no unlawful
purpose, without any other interest or emolument in the operation
antecedent or subsequent to the shipment than that of the simple and
regular commission usually charged in, or legitimately connected with
the invoice, and possessing no control, direct or indirect, over
either vessels or goods, from the moment they left the shores of Great
Britain, we may perhaps be supposed to feel a more direct interest in
whatsoever throws light on the subject of trade with ports with which,
in the course of our mercantile career, we may have had general
business transactions, although they have not been either extensive or
frequent.

Still more as shippers, in the form and capacity just described, and
in no other, of a cargo consisting not only of legal, but even
unsuspected merchandise on board the English schooner Augusta, Captain
Jennings, the Report of Dr. Madden, as a document in which the capture
of that vessel is alluded to, may also be supposed to form an
interesting piece of information, whatever its merits may be in other
respects.

Such is the nature and the extent of the interest which we acknowledge
to possess in the Report of Dr. Madden, neither more nor less; and we
submit that, in describing it as personal, a supposition is advanced
which, considering the nature of that Report, we have reason to deem
unfavourable to our characters, which the facts will not justify, and
which we may say, even appearances will not warrant.

The Report brings together a number of transactions, not one of which
have we even the remotest knowledge until the perusal of it, with the
sole exception of the case of the Augusta. Now, as when looking at
them together as a whole, and in conjunction with the other facts,
most probably equally unknown to us, which in the course of the
investigation now carried on before the Committee may be brought
forward, there is no telling to what extent the association of our
name with the matters of the Report may be carried, we have thought it
right to explain to your Lordship what kind of interest we have no
objection to be supposed to possess in the perusal of Dr. Madden’s
Report, or in the inquiry now before the Committee. Beyond casual
shipments in the manner described, and the acceptance of credits
opened at our establishments by parties abroad, in behalf of parties
resident in that coast, we have not even one single correspondent, or
have we even consigned or sold, or in fact transacted any business
whatsoever, or had any intercourse with individuals resident in those
parts. We possess no interest in the trade with them, and even the
agency for buying and shipping, which now and then we have had, is so
insignificant, that we look with the most perfect indifference, as may
easily be believed by any one who knows any thing of our business, as
to any future legislation which may be the result of the present
Parliamentary inquiry, or, indeed, as to any construction which may be
put upon that now in existence. It is not, therefore, with the view of
in any degree influencing the deliberations of the Committee, or of
offering any remark on the facts or on the opinions contained in Dr.
Madden’s Report, that we address your Lordship. Let the result of the
labours of the Committee be what they may, and let the merits or the
influence of Dr. Madden’s Report be what it may, whatever legislation
may emanate from these proceedings, as a matter of business, it is of
no moment to us, and therefore it is not our intention to throw the
weight of a feather in the balance. Our sole object is to place our
position in its true light; and the simple fact of our possessing no
interest whatever, either personal or otherwise, in any branch of
trade with the coast of Africa, much less with that lamentable branch
of it which, much before the law was carried to even its present
extent, our firm has shunned in all its branches and ramifications
during an existence in business of more than seventy years,
independent of the consideration of its illegality, without partaking
in many of the views entertained by others concerning it, but from the
principle of not wishing to derive profit or advantage from the
sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable or unavoidable.

We have, &c.

(signed)

_Zulueta & Co._

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
_Select Committee on West Coast of Africa._
R. R. GIBBONS, Esq. to MESSRS. ZULUETA & CO.

Gentlemen,

July 13th, 1842.

I am desired by Lord Sandon, the chairman of this committee, to
forward to you copies of evidence taken before them, in which your
house is mentioned; and I am to acquaint you that if you are desirous
of making any statement thereon, either personally or by letter, the
committee will be ready to receive the same.

I have, &c.

(signed)

_R. R. Gibbons._

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WEST COAST OF AFRICA.

_Veneris, 10º die Junii, 1842._

MEMBERS PRESENT.

Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Lord Viscount Courtenay.
Lord Viscount Ebrington.
Mr. Evans.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. Milnes.
Mr. W. Patten.
Mr. Stuart Wortley.

LORD VISCOUNT SANDON in the chair.

_Henry William Macaulay_, Esq. called in; and further examined.

5003. _Chairman._] Will you state what has been your connexion and acquaintance with the coast of Africa?--I went out to Sierra Leone first in the early part of the year 1830 as a merchant, and at the latter end of the year 1831 I was appointed one of the judges in the court of Mixed Commission; I then left business and devoted myself entirely to the business of the court; and I ceased to act as a judge on the 31st of December, 1839.

5004. Since what time have you been at home?--I remained on the coast a short time to recover my health. I was too unwell to move for some months, and then went to the Island of Ascension, from which I came home in the latter end of the year 1840.

5005. Will you state what the court of mixed commission consists of?--The Portuguese court consists of a British commissary judge and a Portuguese commissary judge, who have to decide upon every Portuguese case; in case of any difference of opinion between the two principal judges, the British commissioner of arbitration and the Portuguese commissioner of arbitration draw lots as to which of the two the case is to be referred to for final decision. In the same way, in the Spanish court, the British commissary judge meets the Spanish commissary judge, and in case of difference of opinion, the case is left to either the British or Spanish commissioner of arbitration, as the lot may determine.

5006. Are there any judges for other nations?--The courts at Sierra Leone are the Portuguese court, the Spanish court, the Brazilian court, and the Dutch court; but no court during my time has been perfect in the number of its judges except the Brazilian court.

5007. You mean by perfect, that the British judge has had to sit alone?--The treaties require that after a certain time, in the absence of any foreign judge, the British commissioner of arbitration shall act as the foreign commissary judge.

5008. Who is the British commissioner of arbitration; is he a distinct person from the British commissary judge?--Yes; the British court is always perfect.

5009. What does it consist of?--It consists of the British commissary judge and the British commissioner of arbitration; and the treaties point out how any vacancy, either by death or absence, is to be supplied; the governor in the first instance, attends for the absent judge, whoever he may be, and after him, the chief justice, and then the colonial secretary. It is left to those three officers; but I presume that if those three should all be ill, or their places be vacant by death, the office would then descend to the person next in seniority in the colonial government there; but we never went lower than the colonial secretary. The Brazilian court has been the only one perfect, and the British commissioner of arbitration has always sat in my time for the Portuguese and Spanish commissary judges. No case at all has occurred in the Dutch court.

5010. In case a vessel taken under the colours of any other nation were brought into Sierra Leone, how would that case be decided?--There are other treaties than those I have mentioned. A French case is sent to the French authorities under the French treaty, and in the treaties with all other nations that have treaties on the model of the French treaty, the vessels are handed over to their own judicial authorities.

5011. Within Sierra Leone?--The treaty points out where they are to be taken; if a French vessel is taken, it is sent to Goree.