CO885-(10-11) — Page 123

24.

MY LORD,

No. 95. (ВАНАМАВ.)

ADVOCATE GENERAL to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Doctors' Commons, December 3, 1861. I AM honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Layard's letter of November 28th ultimo, stating that, with reference to my report of January 22nd, 1858, in which I stated that Dimnock Charlton (alias John Bull), who was sold into slavery and claimed compensation from the United States Government, was not entitled to the interference of Her Majesty's Government in his behalf, owing to his not being a British subject, he was directed to transmit to me a correspondence which has passed between the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office, by which it will be seen that Charlton now claims the interference of the British Government to procure the release of his wife and children, who are stated to be British subjects, and detained in slavery in the United States.

Mr. Layard was also pleased to request that I would take these papers into con- sideration and furnish your Lordship with my opinion whether Her Majesty's Govern- ment would be justified in interfering to procure the release of Charlton's wife and childron.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, I have taken these papers into considera- tion, and have the honour to

Report

That, assuming the facts to be as suggested (that is to say, that the wife of Dimnock Charlton (otherwise John Bull) is the daughter of Francis and Mary Cox, who were free people of colour, natives of Nassau (Bahamas), and natural-born British subjects), I am of opinion that your Lordship's question must be answered in the affirmative.

The papers do not contain sufficient proof to establish these facts; but the case appears to me to require and deserve a thorough investigation, which I would suggest should be undertaken in the first place by the Attorney General at Nassau. With the assistance of Charlton and the printed " narrative" (with the papers), this officer might prepare a specific and intelligible statement for the guidance of Her Majesty's Govern- ment and of the British Consuls at Savannah, New York, and Philadelphia in their ulterior proceedings, more especially with regard to the proof of the necessary facts which can now be adduced.

Although this narrative is, from want of specification of dates, places, and so forth, not such as will enable me to make use of it with effect, yet there are many persons and facts alluded to therein by which it may, with Charlton's assistance, be rendered available for the purpose in view (see, for instance, the statements at pages 12 and 13 of the liberation of Charlton's granddaughter Ellen from slavery by judicial proceedings taken before the Hon. William Robertson, judge of the county of West Chester, which were instituted and conducted by Mr. John Jay, district attorney, apparently in 1859). Charlton may be able to refer to other persons at Savannah or elsewhere in the United States, and to suggest some measures which can be taken there to attain the object in view.

The Consul at Savannah (where the persons in question are apparently in slavery) should receive a copy of the papers and the Attorney General's statement, when it is prepared, and should be required to report fully on the case, taking a legal opinion if needful.

The suggestion (at page 6 of the "narrative," which is also noticed by the Colonial Office in Mr. Elliott's letter of October 16th) to the effect that Consul Molyneaux, of Savannah, himself holds slaves requires serious consideration.

Upon the whole, I would observe that although the case is at present presented in a very imperfect shape, and although there has been an extraordinary lapse of time and long acquiescence or silence on the part of the persons in question, yet these circum- stances are to a great degree explained by the very peculiar state of facts now disclosed. Charlton's extraordinary story is apparently credited both in the United States and by the Governor of the Bahamas, and is not without corroboration; he has recovered case, on which his freedom and is within British jurisdiction; he states a "prima facie he has long insisted, to the effect that his wife is a natural-born British subject, who is, together with her descendants, now unjustly held in slavery, and if this should turn out on investigation to be the fact no effort should be spared to secure their liberation.

Earl Russell.

I have, &c. (Signed)

""

J. D. HARDING.

D 16278,-184,

25.-9,06.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.

885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON