5399. Mr. _W. Patten_.] Should you imply that this was guilty knowledge, that the vessel should be sold to a notorious slave dealer on any part of the coast, who was perfectly known to have no legitimate traffic of his own?--That is a legal question which would be decided in the common law courts, whether a guilty knowledge might be implied from particular circumstances, though it could not be proved directly. 5400. Mr. _Forster_.] You have given an opinion upon the construction of the words “knowingly and wilfully” used in the Act of Parliament; upon what authority have you given that opinion?--The Act cannot be misunderstood; I think no person can read it without seeing the meaning of it, whether lawyer or not. 5401. To sell goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco, for example, would that, in your opinion, bring a party within the meaning of the Act?--No, not unless you could prove that he sold them knowing that they were to be applied to an unlawful purpose. 5402. _Chairman._] The difficulty, then, is not in understanding the purpose and object of the Act, but in proving the offence?--Yes; the difficulty is in proving the guilty knowledge, and that is the only difficulty. 5403. Sir _T. D. Acland_.] Was not the principal design of that Act to prevent persons from aiding in fitting up vessels for the direct and notorious purpose of engaging in the slave trade, and for no other purpose?--Yes, it was one object. 5404. Therefore, would not any person selling shackles, or any thing else that was notoriously employed in procuring slaves, or in exchange for slaves, be brought under the Act?--If you could prove that at the time he made them he contemplated that they would be employed in the slave trade, he would be brought within the purpose of the Act. 5405. If he sold shackles to vessels engaged in the slave trade?--I should think he would be brought within it then, because the guilty knowledge would be properly inferred in that case; but shackles may be made in England, and kept on board merchant vessels to be employed on the crew. 5406. Mr. _Forster_.] You do not think, then, that the intention of that Act was to prevent British subjects and British capital from being engaged in partnership, or having an interest in the slave trade itself, and nothing beyond that?--Yes, I think the intention of the Act was to prevent such engagements. 5407. Do you think that it goes beyond that?--I think that is all we require, that they should have no connexion with the traffic. 5408. How would you bring the party within that Act who sold goods, having no interest or partnership in the transaction to which they were subsequently applied?--In that case I think the Act would not reach him. 5409. What becomes, then, of the guilty knowledge of which you have spoken so much?--No guilty knowledge can be proved against the party in the case you suppose.