Part 57

Then he is asked, “If it is meant to insinuate by these observations that you ever had any other connexion with the slave trade, than being the shipping agent of goods which were sent to a man who was a dealer in slaves, you entirely deny it?” He says, “I assure the Committee, that although I have a general notion as to what interest Blanco and Martinez have in slaves, yet, if I was put upon my oath to make any particular statement, I really could not, because I do not know it. Of course I believe it; but my personal knowledge amounts only to that which the knowledge of what we read in a newspaper amounts to.” It is quite evident what he means--I know nothing of their being slave traders: since these matters have been under consideration I have read the newspapers, and I see enough to lead me to suppose that they deal in slaves. But he does not say he had that knowledge in 1840, when these transactions took place. Then he is asked, “There was nothing upon the face of the transactions which you had with those parties which spoke of a connexion with traffic in slaves?--Nothing whatever. It is well known, that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz”--There is another point inviting attention and contradiction.--He says, “It is well known, that, fifty years ago, it was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz to insure operations in slave trading.” So it was at that time: slave trading, in all its branches, and of the worst character, was perfectly legal both in Spain, and I grieve to say, also in England, or English colonies. And he goes on to say, “My house at that time were underwriters, and it was notorious that a policy of that kind would never enter the doors of our house; and nobody would come to offer such a thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both here and in Spain, that we set our faces distinctly against having any interest of any kind in the slave trade.”

Now, Gentlemen, is it not grievous, is it not cruel, that this young man, almost just entering life, belonging to a family, belonging to a house, which can say this with truth, that while the slave trade was deemed lawful by the British law and universally practised throughout Spain and the Spanish colonies, and recognized in all its forms, “My house would not execute a policy for slaves?” Is it not cruel, that the youngest partner at the very outset of life is to have his character blasted and held up as a felon, because it is said he had done something to assist that trade?

Then he is asked, “It is further stated, ‘It appears, that it is a regular thing sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they come to England to him, he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ Have you any observation to make upon that?--It is all untrue, the whole of it; I have never received a vessel from those gentlemen; there has been nothing of the kind.” He denies it; it might have been proved, and it has not been proved. “Have you any thing further to state upon the subject?”--Then he states a number of other matters, which as nothing has been said upon them I do not comment upon. Then he says, at the end of the last answer, “‘My answer was intended to describe only the course of that particular transaction and not to apply to any other case.’ I never received a single vessel from the coast of Africa at any time, nor any body for us.”

Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “Then that statement is entirely untrue?--Totally, from beginning to end; we never did so, and nobody for us; and nobody to our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in the most distinct manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay is asked, ‘Have you any thing further to say with regard to the connexion of Zulueta with the slave trade?’ The answer is, ‘I would refer to his connexion with the Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In that case it appeared that the vessel went out direct to the Gallinas from London.’--That is the same vessel as the Augusta, which I have already explained; it formerly bore the name of Gollupchik.”

Then he is asked about some other matters, but as they have not been made the subject of evidence here I will not comment upon them. He speaks upon the moral point, and he enters into a very lengthened statement in which he says, “I am not here to discuss the moral propriety or impropriety of the slave trade; I have my own opinions upon it, and if I thought it was a justifiable trade I should not shrink from expressing it.” That is the result of a long statement: and, in answer to a very comprehensive question of Sir Thomas Acland, “You have stated in your letter, that your principle is, that of ‘not wishing to derive profit or advantage from the sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable or unavoidable,’ and you have acted upon that principle?”--He says, “That is the principle upon which we have acted.” Then there is a great deal about the nature of various other transactions.

Then we come to something that appears upon another point--a point made a distinct matter, and which I very much rejoice is the last one to which I shall have to refer, and that not requiring any large consumption of your time. Among other reasons urged upon you as tending to the conclusion that this ship, was dispatched for the purposes of the slave trade was this by Mr. Serjeant Bompas, that the vessel in the course of the voyage unnecessarily put into Cadiz, as if there was some previous concert or arrangement that the vessel though dispatched nominally for the Gallinas should go to Cadiz, and that there some one or other should afford them facilities for carrying on the slave trade. Upon that I have some observations to make. First, one does not see how that was to be better promoted by touching at Cadiz than if she had proceeded direct to the Gallinas, and for this reason, if it had been found when she arrived on the coast of Africa that she had taken on board any materials to facilitate the carrying on the slave trade, that would be something to draw an inference from; but no such thing appears. Why she should have touched there to facilitate the carrying on the slave trade I do not understand, and still less do I understand why it is to be imputed to Mr. Zulueta that a vessel to all outward appearance cleared for the Gallinas, that it was intended she should touch at Cadiz; and I pray you to answer the question to yourselves, you cannot answer it to me, if it was intended for the purpose of good or evil she should touch there, why conceal it? Why not give out “with liberty to touch at Cadiz,” if any suspicion attached to the transaction?

_Foreman of the Jury._ Did we not understand that the English sailors were landed at Cadiz, and took in Spanish sailors there?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, some English sailors were discharged; but there is nothing about the Spanish sailors being taken in: there is nothing about that--some English sailors, two or three of them, did go on shore, but it was not in any way connected with Mr. Zulueta, or to which he could be a party. You understand, when they had sailed from England some of the sailors rebelled and mutinied; the captain, like a clear-sighted man, said, if I go to Cork these men will all leave me; I will not do that, but as it is necessary to go somewhere, I will go to Cadiz. It was not the result of any previous concert. They say it was intended before he left that he should stop there. If it had been intended I do not see why it should not have been stated in the charter-party, it would not have had a more suspicious appearance that the vessel should touch there than go to the Gallinas direct, the suspicion of the slave trade was the mention of the Gallinas. Captain Denman, who knew the place, might draw his suspicious inference from the mention of the Gallinas, but nobody would suspect it from Cadiz. It was from some mutiny of the men, added to the stress of weather, the master would not go to Cork, he went to Cadiz: it was an event arising from something in the course of the voyage, and not from any thing that occurred before the vessel left England, and it was when the vessel left England that the participation of Mr. Zulueta in the whole transaction ceased; but if it were of any importance for the purpose of the prosecution, you should have had it distinctly explained to you what took place on board the vessel, what the nature of the bad weather was which should have made it desirable to go to Falmouth or to Cork: why do they not produce the log? they have the ship’s papers.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. My learned friend says he has not it.

Mr. _Kelly_. How did they get the papers from the Admiralty? The log is on board the vessel; some of the crew were on board; none of them were produced but the cabin-boy, who knew nothing; it was more convenient to bring a boy who knew nothing, than men who should enlighten you upon the object. But whether it was for a good or bad purpose that Captain Jennings went to Cadiz, what had Mr. Zulueta to do with it? To make it of any importance, the prosecutor should have proved that Mr. Zulueta had contrived, for some purpose or other, that he should touch at Cadiz. Nothing of the kind is proved upon the subject; all that is said upon the subject is what Mr. Zulueta says. Now what is it that he says? The Chairman says, “It would appear from Question 5087, that your name is supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper, as connected with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page 38, in Class B. Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred to in the answer, and see if there is any trace of your name in that transaction?--I do not find my own name there; I only find an allusion at the bottom to the name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in no way connected with me, and stating a circumstance which I never knew. In Question 7965*, it is stated, ‘The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her way out from England?’ The answer is, ‘Yes, and landed part of her cargo at Cadiz, although it was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.’ Now Captain Hill, who has given this answer, must have known why she touched at Cadiz, and why she discharged part of her cargo, for it must be in the log-book of the vessel. It was because she was nearly wrecked in her passage; she put into Cadiz in distress, and there she landed a part of her cargo, which was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the benefit of the underwriters. Now that has not been stated here, but I think Captain Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of the vessel which he took.”

Now Captain Hill has said the same thing here to-day--the purpose of going to Cadiz was by some previous contrivance, for some purpose of Mr. Zulueta. The log would have shown the state of the weather registered from day to day during the passage of the vessel, and the rebellious part of the crew would have no desire to give Mr. Zulueta much benefit by their evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. It is not fair for Mr. Kelly to state that: the log would not be evidence against Mr. Zulueta. After you had decided against four documents, I would not offer a fifth.

Mr. _Kelly_. I have to thank my learned friend for this very singular instance of his forbearance; if the log, as it regards this transaction, was not evidence against me, and I do not say it would be, I cannot understand how letters written by other persons found in the vessel could be evidence against me;--but let us waste no more time upon that subject; if the log would not be evidence, he might have called some or the crew; he has only called the cabin-boy; there is no evidence to show the state of the weather; and you are called upon in a case like this to suppose that there was some previous contrivance by which the Captain was to touch at Cadiz.

Then he says, in answer to another question, and the question is directly put to him by Sir Thomas Acland, “It was not intended when she left England, that she should put into Cadiz?--Most certainly not; all the facts of the case show that she went there because she was obliged. I have not seen the log-book, but it must be there; because in the log-book the captain is bound to enter those things, and whoever captured the vessel must have seen the log-book of course. In answer to Question 7967*, it is said, ‘Messrs. Zulueta must be aware that it is contrary to law to act as agents or otherwise for the shipment of goods that are to be employed in the slave trade; they were bound to do nothing illegal; they are merchants residing in England, and they must conform themselves to the laws of England, and they cannot by the laws of England plead ignorance of those laws.’ Now I and my partners are British subjects, and therefore we are bound by the law, and we must obey the law; and I say that to endeavour to elude the law is criminal in my estimation of things. In the answer to Question 7970*, it is stated, ‘I have endeavoured to be particular in making it appear that this vessel was chartered to a place where there were no constituted authorities.’ I think that in the Gallinas there are constituted authorities. It is the first time that I ever heard that it is illegal for any merchant to ship goods for any places without ascertaining beforehand whether there are constituted authorities there.” Then, at the end of his examination, he is asked, “You have given the Committee the names of the parties drawing the bills, and on whose account they were drawn, and you speak of their being drawn in favour of Sierra Leone houses; have you any objection to furnish the names of the houses in whose favour they were drawn?--I say that I have no objection, except that I should not like to introduce names unnecessarily; but the bills are in my hands, and any gentleman can look at them who chooses; they are at the disposal of any body who likes to look at them.” He says, in another part of the evidence which refers to the documents, “I do not like in this transaction to mention names; any gentleman may see at my counting-house documents to verify what I state.” Gentlemen, I am reminded that it will appear that he put in the bills themselves in order to verify the statement; they were produced before the Committee, it is written down in express terms--“The witness produced the bills;” so that you see, when he makes a statement of what were his transactions, he verifies it by the documents, and produces them to the Committee.

Then, the next day, he states a fact which is perfectly conclusive as to this matter at Cadiz. He is asked, “The Committee understand that you have some further observations to make upon the evidence which has been given with reference to your house?--With reference to the destination of the Augusta, from Liverpool to Gallinas, and the fact of its having put into Cadiz unforeseen and unpremeditated altogether, in consequence of stress of weather, I omitted to mention a circumstance which will put the thing beyond doubt, and it is this: an insurance was made at Lloyd’s, from Liverpool to the Gallinas, and it is well known that, of course, we should have forfeited the insurance by going to any other port except from the peril of the sea, and the British consul at Cadiz is well aware of the circumstance, because he is Lloyd’s agent there; and therefore he had to interfere in the whole proceeding; without his sanction nothing could have been done. We have called upon the underwriters upon that account, and it has been paid, and which would not have been paid without its being proved. I stated yesterday that the transactions of my house with Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, with Blanco and Carvalho of the Havannah, and with Pedro Martinez of Cadiz, had amounted in the twenty years to 100,000_l_., I was afraid of overrating the amount; but on reference to the books of the house, I find that our transactions with them in twenty years have amounted to 400,000_l_., out of which the 22,000_l_. that was mentioned is the whole amount of goods that have been shipped by their orders for the coast of Africa.”

Now observe what he here states: he says, I am charged with having known, before this vessel quitted England, that she was to go to Cadiz, and that it was for some unlawful and improper purpose. He says--Not only do I deny that I knew it (I say not only is there no proof that he knew it, but he gives this convincing evidence), he says, before the vessel sailed I effected an insurance upon the ship and goods, and by that policy of insurance there was no provision for going to Cadiz. I need not observe that by the law, if a vessel deviates from the course stipulated in the policy, unless it is matter of compulsion and stress of weather, the policy is forfeited--here it is clear that there was a policy effected, under which the vessel was in no condition to touch at Cadiz--the policy would be forfeited; and yet it is supposed that this old established house, having effected this policy, into which they might have introduced the going to Cadiz, contrived that this deviation should take place, under which, if a loss had happened, they could not have recovered a shilling. It is perfectly clear, whether by accident or design, with which we have nothing to do--I think it was by accident--it is perfectly clear, that Zulueta & Co. knew nothing of it; and if a loss had happened, they could not have enforced it.

Now there are one or two more lines, and one or two only, with which I have to trouble you in this evidence. The witness is asked as to the former transactions of his house upon the coast of Africa: he is asked, “Have you bought other vessels for him (Martinez) than those which have been employed in the slave trade?--Yes, decidedly so; there was the _Star_, Captain Jennings.” You remember, I think, Captain Denman said there was no lawful trade carried on at the Gallinas--the question is, how far Mr. Zulueta knew that, and I asked him if he had heard of the Star; he said “No.” See what Mr. Zulueta says, “There was the Star, Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent from here to the Gallinas, precisely the same as the Augusta has been sent. She delivered her cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I believe, and from there to Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she came back to Spain, and she was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not Martinez, or any body connected with him; in fact, she was sold for very little. The object of that vessel was just the same as the Augusta, to maintain a legal trade with Gallinas; that is within my own knowledge.”

Now I do think--I should rather say I venture to submit to you--that it appears to me, that this answer which might clearly have been contradicted, because there are specific facts stated which could have been contradicted if untrue--this answer, if true, is perfectly decisive of this case. What is it? Gentlemen, this is the nature of the transaction: he says--My house has had other transactions of the same description with the coast of Africa; we sent out the Star to this very place, the Gallinas. And the question is, whether Messrs. Zulueta & Co. had any reason to know that this was an illegal trade. If the goods had to their knowledge been bartered for slaves, if the Star had brought an illegal cargo, and if she had been seized and condemned for slave trading, then they might begin to suspect--Here is one vessel we have sent to the Gallinas for Martinez & Co. seized, we must consider before we send any more. But here was a case in which they had sent in a ship, commanded by Captain Jennings, a cargo of the same description--the transaction had been legally completed without any thing partaking of an illegal character--the ship had taken a cargo of wine and gone to some other part of the world, and then returned to England and been sold at Liverpool. Then I pray of you--and nothing can be safer than to ask you--to put yourselves for a moment in the situation of the party charged with this offence. Suppose that you had been charged with putting on board a ship a quantity of merchandise for the Gallinas--the question is, if you would have any reason to suspect there was any thing illegal in it? If you had the year before, when these British cruizers were in the seas, sent a cargo of the same goods for the same house to the same place, and the transaction had been legally completed, and if you had heard that the ship had carried a cargo of goods to Madeira, would not you say, I have done one transaction of this kind, I know nothing illegal in it, and I may enter into another of the same description? And that it was so here, you have the evidence that the Star had been there, a case in all forms of this transaction, and never impugned in the slightest degree. The present transaction of the Augusta is of the same character, and yet you are asked to believe that Zulueta & Co. knew that this last transaction was altogether unlawful and to encourage the slave trade, when they had completed a former transaction without any suspicion of any thing illegal in it.

Then he is asked some questions about the nature of the trade, and he says, “I could not say what trade there is at the Gallinas of a legal nature, but I know that those vessels would have taken nothing if there was nothing legal to take, from that place to the Havannah, or to any other place; I am aware that my answers upon this point must be deficient, because I am really very ignorant of the trade of the West Coast of Africa.” You are called upon to believe that this is all false, that he knew all about it; and he says--“At this period I am ignorant of it:” and it is not because a man is ignorant that he is to be impeached. He is asked, “Do you suppose that the vessels would be used to carry on a legal trade?--Most certainly I do; because persons find it worth while to send goods there constantly. The Committee will observe, that what the application of the goods is afterwards I cannot say, but I speak of the fact of the vessels having gone there with the intention of returning to the Havannah to bring a cargo of some description here, to pay a freight, and then to go again with the same kind of goods to Africa.” Then he is asked about Liverpool; and the Chairman says, “You have stated before, that you have cleared out for the Gallinas from Liverpool?--Yes.” “In carrying on operations of that kind, should you have ever thought it necessary to exercise any disguise as to what part of Africa you were clearing out for?--Not at all.” Nor did he. “You did not imagine, that in being the instrument of sending lawful goods to any part of Africa you were doing any thing which required concealment?--Nothing at all of the kind; and the proof of that is, that in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body could see our names as consignees of the vessel, and see entries made in our names of every thing.”

Now here again is a matter in which the prosecutors might, if they had thought proper, have contradicted this gentleman, and overset the foundation of his case. He says--“True it is that the goods may have been shipped in the name of Captain Jennings, but the whole of the transactions were conducted by our house, and the name of our house appeared in all the documents in Liverpool.” It is impossible there should have been any concealment: they might have produced the documents, or official copies of them, from Liverpool, and have shown that the shipment was not in the name of Zulueta & Co., and have contradicted him; they have produced no one document, and you are bound to suppose that it is true; and if it was so done--and there is no doubt of it, though Captain Jennings’s name may have been mentioned as the shipper, what becomes of the charge of secrecy, or any thing clandestine? It fades away before you, and vanishes before the truth, as it now appears.