that to punish is far less difficult than to prevent. The analogous question of the legality of selling condemned slave goods repels back to "I have dealers, or selling them lawful food &c. & the aftertrwards employed in buying for Planes" (whether circuitously or directly) has been much the subject of anxious consideration in Parliament, and the possible prevention by further legislation of the "diminishing of those very considerable facilities for the slave trade". The opinions of the present Chief Baron (at that time Attorney for England) & of Mr. Justice Wightman, at that time Counsel to another public Department, were taken; the former on July 8/40 and June 8:/42.
As to "clandestine dealings for Fresh Pollack" the former was of opinion that "An English owner, or charterer, or Supercargo, or other person who engages in such Commercial 'dealing', as above described, is not guilty of any offence, nor subject to any punishment." Mr. Wightman was more guarded, opining that "Unless the merchant knew when the sale of the goods was made, that they were used for the slave trade, he (or W.) was not guilty of felony": "that the question of knowledge would depend upon the evidence" and that "the Governor could hardly do more than warn merchants not to deal in articles used for bartering for slaves with suspected people, upon peril of the consequences!"
The Committee of the House of Commons reluctantly "came to the conclusion" (vide Report dated April 1842) that they had not "prepared" a recommendation that such dealing should be made illegal by new enactment, stating that "provision is difficult to be carried out, so legislation, & yet so ineffectual for its object, should be made the subject of legislation".
I am of course aware that Piracy on the High Seas is a felony of a very different kind; & that what might not have been illegal on the part of British dealers with West African Slave Dealers may be, ergo, absolutely illegal on the part of Confederate Privateers.
But the difficulties are not less in respect to prevention than those stated in the foregoing Report, & I cannot advise this course.
Signed,
Herbert Ansley
that to punish is earn less difficult than to
prevent. The analogous queation of the legality
"
"
of selling courdemned slave repels back to
" I lave dealers, or selling them lawful food st
Be
"
view & the
" an aftertrands comployed in buiten for Planes " (whether circintously or directly) has been
mach the subject of anxion couredtration ti Parliament, mich
& the posible prevention by further legislation of the "Zwinishing of thion very considerable facilities for the slave trade" ( the opinions of the present Chief Baron (at that time Attr
7. Several for England ) & of he justice Wightman, at that time
Counsel to another public Department, were taken; the
on
former July 8/40/-
-
June 8 :/42 . & the letter on
as to chour dealings
For Fresh Pollack was of opinion that
" An English owner, or enarter, or
-Supercargo,
"other person who
engages in such Commercial "dealing", as above described, is noth
not guilty "If any offence, nor subject trang punishment. Io Partice Wightman enore guarded artified that "Unless the merchant knew when
D
were used
340 "The sale the foods, that they uired for on the slave tracte, le (or W.) was
"Carrying
not guilty off
" clearly of quinion that he was not, "Jelony": "that "the question of knowledge " would depend upon the evidence" and that
: hardly do more than warn "the fovernor could hardly do
merchants not to deal in articles used for " bartering for slaves with suspected tepel, "upon peril of the consequences!" The Cogutter of the tones of furgons" Celuctantly " Came to the conclusion" (they say. Report Wear (part of Afreien 1842 ) that they have not "prepared" & recommend that such dealing thoud
illegals by
"be made
"1
new enactinentex that
provision is difficult the carried out, so "bepation, & yet so ineffectual for its styect "Should be made the subject plegiolation":"
I am of course aware that
thus Robbery on the High Peas is a Pernicy of a very different kinet; & strat what might not have been illegal o the British dealer with west befinna Plave Enders
may be, erazis, absolutely illegal to the confecterate for Chinige Prates.
Bout the difficulties
are not the lef in respect
toprevention than those stated in the founous Repor
& I cannot advise this back.
& encounter their.
Signed
Shave te
Herholen Ansley
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.