6918. Is it supposed that a vessel can be engaged in the slave trade without the cognizance of the captain?--Engaged in the slave trade indirectly, as the Hamburgh ship, the Echo, was, I think is possible; it is very unlikely. 6919. You would say generally, that where the ship was condemned and the captain escaped, it was through some want of legal proof?--Through the want of bringing home the proof of his having actual knowledge of the tendency of the trade in which he was engaged. 6920. _Chairman._] Upon whom would the loss fall of the condemnation of the ship?--Upon the owners of the ship. 6921. The owners being in Hamburgh?--The owners being in Hamburgh. 6922. What control would they have over their ship in the Havannah, except through the medium of the captain?--They might have an agent there, who might be ordered to allow her to be taken up for freight to any part of the world, and who might send the goods on board; and the master might not know what part of Africa he was going to till the moment before he loosed sails. 6923. But a guilty knowledge on the part of some party is necessary to the condemnation of the vessel, is it not?--Yes, it is. 6924. In such cases as those, would the articles have nothing on the face of them in the character of equipment, to serve the purposes of the slave trade?--Not necessarily. 6925. Where can the guilty knowledge reside which shall condemn the vessel and the goods consigned, if the captain is supposed not to have possessed it?--The guilty knowledge, in my opinion, might be presumed. It is the duty of owners to take care that their ships are not turned into pirates or into smugglers, and if they are turned into smugglers or pirates, they must take the consequences; and so if they break other laws I conceive. 6926. Mr. _Milnes_.] Do you know other instances of ships being condemned, and the captains acquitted?--Yes; the Augusta, captured by Captain Hill, was a case of that description. 6927. Mr. _Forster_.] Is it not equally an offence on the part of the captain?--Undoubtedly so, if a guilty knowledge can be proved against him. 6928. You cannot prove a guilty knowledge in the case of the ship?--I think you may be able to show that the persons owning the ship or acting as agent for the owners may have had a guilty knowledge, where the master had no guilty knowledge. 6929. Mr. _Milnes_.] But you cannot legally sell the property of the captain when the captain himself is declared to be not guilty?--If the vessel was declared guilty by a proper court, undoubtedly that is a consequence of the condemnation.