"The boy Mitchell is of notorious bad character, and I verily believe his testimony is altogether false; he does not understand the sacred obligation of an oath, and if he did, what does his evidence amount to? that he saw Quamina come into my yard on Tuesday morning, in open daylight, when the sun was high. I do not believe the boy, and I must solemnly declare, I never saw Quamina on the Tuesday morning; he may have gone into the yard, or he may not; I never saw him, nor had I ever any direct or indirect knowledge of his being there, until I heard the evidence of Mitchell in court." [Missionary Society's Rep. p. 88.]

This, we are aware, is a mere statement, yet, were it necessary to do so, we should not hesitate to ask our readers to credit it, in preference to the oath of an ignorant negro, without any notion of religion, or of the obligation to veracity under which he spoke. But in truth it signifies nothing whether he swore truly or not, as all he proves is, seeing Quamina go into the yard of the house without ever bringing him in company with Mr. Smith. As to the meeting on the Wednesday, it is distinctly proved, that on the Tuesday about noon, Mrs. Smith sent for a female slave to ask her what the people were doing, a plain proof that she herself knew nothing of the object of their insurrection, the day after she and her husband had together accidentally witnessed its first movement of insubordination; and a presumption also so strong, as almost to amount to demonstration of the like ignorance on the part of her husband, who, had he been in the secret, could not have failed partially communicating it to her, to allay those fears, which, during the whole of the preceding night, had been so strong as to prevent her getting any sleep. In this state of alarm, she expressed a very natural wish to see Quamina or Bristol, the two negroes whom she best knew, with a view, no doubt, of ascertaining from them what was the nature of their proceedings, and the danger to which the white population would thereby be exposed. The witness, who was herself also much alarmed, sent for Quamina, who came in the evening to her house; and on his despatching her, to see if any one was at Mr. Smith's, when she found a woman of colour there, who had come to the house for protection, Mrs. Smith desired her to take her out of the way, but did so in a low tone of voice, or whisper, so that Mr. Smith could not possibly hear what was said, though he was in the room; from which it is manifest, that the sending for Quamina was an act of Mrs. Smith's, done without his knowledge, and apparently studiously concealed from him. What took place when he did

come, could not be proved in evidence, as Mrs. Smith was the only person present, and although her acts, and even her declarations in his absence, were most illegally given and admitted in evidence against him, her testimony in his favour could not be received. We can only, therefore, give his own statement of the transaction, which agrees altogether with the probabilities of the case, and the general tenor of the evidence against him..

"It has not been proved that Quamina was a rebel; if he was, I did not know of it. I did not send for him, nor did I know any thing of his arrival. I gave him no communcation touching and concerning the revolt, for I had nothing to communicate; and if I had, still I would not have done any thing so improper; it was not until I asked him where he had come from, that even his manner became changed, and without answering me, he suddenly turned round and went away. Mrs. Smith was the only person present, and if the Court could admit her testimony, she could explain the whole. One of the facts which appear to militate against me, I think I can prove is incorrect, viz. that Mrs. Smith shut the door. I can do this, because I have a witness. With regard to the other two points, I could explain them also, had I any other witness than Mrs. Smith to support my statement." [House of Com. Rep. p. 77.]

The shutting of the door is accordingly contradicted by the servant of Mrs. Smith, who also incidentally furnishes this strong collateral proof of her husband's ignorance of the intended insurrection or its objects, that when she came home from the house of Mr. Stewart the manager, where she and her husband fell in with the negroes just as they had risen, she was alarmed and in tears. She also proves, that their conversation was not such as would have been held by conspirators, or even of a secret nature, as both Mr. Smith and Quamina talked so loud, that she heard them in the kitchen, which is an out-house, at least 20 paces from the hall where Mr. Smith was sitting. The only other facts connected with this interview, are, that the same servant (a little girl who did not know her age) swore that Mrs. Smith afterwards threatened to lick her, if she told any one that Quamina had been there, a thing not very probable in itself, and if true, not in the least criminating Mr. Smith, who could not in law be criminally answerable for the actions of his wife; and that when Quamina left the house, he had with him a bottle, which he said contained porter, and which it is inferred, and not unnaturally we admit, that he got at Mr. Smith's, though from whom does not appear; most likely from Mrs. Smith, or one of the negro servants,

and of all persons in the house, least probably from him. The present was, however, of so trifling a nature, and so utterly unconnected with any ideas of furthering the objects. of the insurrection, that it is immaterial from whom this bottle was received.

We pass on, therefore, to the law of the case, which is as decidedly in favour of the accused, as are the facts proved, or fairly presumable, destitute of all legal evidence of any thing approximating to a criminal communication with Quamina, which, if ever so distinctly proved, falls entirely to the ground, unless it could be shewn that such communication was for the purpose of aiding and abetting him in his treason, or of supporting and maintaining him after his guilt as a traitor was clearly known. Nor could any one, by the English law, be indicted as a principal in treason, in this secondary degree, where the principal in the first degree, or actual traitor himself, has not previously been legally convicted. We object, then, on the authority of all the textwriters on our law, to any proof of a receipt and comforting of this traitor by Mr. Smith, because, Quamina never was legally convicted of treason, having been summarily shot in the woods, without ever being brought to trial. But, even admitting that he was engaged in planning this very insurrection, is there any proof that Mr. Smith knew him to have been so, save what the testimony of Bristol, with respect to the soldiers, furnishes, and that, we have already shewn, cannot be entitled to belief. Manuel and the other negroes, as we have before remarked, rather proved him to have sustained, in all his communications with Mr. Smith, the character of a man anxious to restrain his hot-headed son, and other slaves of a like ardent spirit, from outrage. Hence, after the insurrection had broke out, he might naturally, and not only allowably, but praiseworthily, have wished to see Quamina, and even sent for him, (as he did not, and is not proved to have done,) in order to avail himself of the disposition, which his deacon had previously manifested, to bring the revolters back to the path of duty and submission. But we will go further, and maintain that the latter is not proved to have been a traitor, engaged in this revolt, for no man can say, that such proof is afforded by evidence like the following, from his alleged accomplice Bristol.

"The revolt began at Success. I know Quamina, of Success; he was engaged in that revolt, because I heard they took him up before the revolt began. Jack and Paris were the leaders of the

revolt; they said they would go on with it, and then did so." [Ib. p. 21.]

The account of his conduct given by another of the insurgents, Seaton, tallies precisely with the previous representation of Manuel.

"After Quamina came to the meeting, did ment as to the rising?-It was made before.

you make any agree

"Did Quamina join in that agreement when he first came to the middle walk?-No.

"Why did he refuse?—He said Mr. Smith told him he must not rise."

"Did he afterwards agree?-After the people heard what Quamina said, they would not agree.

"Did the people then persist in their intention to rise?—Yes. "How long did the meeting last?-A quarter of an hour.

"Had Quamina any hand in the revolt?-He did not rise before he was taken up, but did afterwards." [Missionary Society's Rep. p. 44.]

These two pieces of evidence coupled together, would naturally conduct us to the conclusion, that Quamina, though aware of the intention of his son and others to take some violent measures for the attainment of what they considered their new rights, was not an original ringleader in them, or if he was, become anxious to prevent their adoption, from his knowledge of Mr. Smith's decided condemnation of every thing of the kind; and that after his conversations with him on the Sunday he was particularly desirous to persuade his fellow slaves to listen to his good advice; though after his son and he were taken, and not till then, he did actually join the revolters. His disposition to put a stop to any violent proceeding, is still further manifested by the following extract from Seaton's evidence of a declaration of Quamina's, (which was no evidence by the way at all against the prisoner,) on going to Mr. Smith's a second time on the same day.

"What did Quamina go to Mr. Smith's for, the second time?— He did not tell me properly; but he told me on the way, that he did not know what to say to Goodluck to stop him from going on; and that if he could get any person that same night, he would send to Jack, to stop the people over the coast." [Ibid. p. 44.]

But a still stronger corroboration of the correctness of this view of Quamina's conduct, is afforded by the evidence of Mr. Stewart, the manager of the Success estate, who very distinctly declares, that, whilst all the other negroes

named were most active in the attack upon his house to obtain arms, Quamina was not only doing no harm that he saw, but was engaged in keeping the rest back, and preventing them from doing him any injury. From the whole of his conduct, therefore, from the beginning to the end of this disturbance, it is manifest that Mr. Smith had every reason to believe Quamina at the very most an unwilling actor in it, and therefore a person most likely to use his influence and exertions for the restoration of order. Every thing negatives his knowledge of his being a leader of the rebellion, or even a rebel-every thing disproves his abetting him in or approving of this rebellion-every thing in fact tends to shew his ignorance, moral as well as legal, of abetting, harbouring, supporting, or wilfully neglecting to secure a man whom he knew to have been a traitor, and to whom he might have rendered all those services, without subjecting himself to any punishment for the misprision of treason with which he was charged, as the treason of Quamina was never proved. Upon this point, we prefer, however, giving the authority of Lord Hale, as very properly (though to such a court ineffectually) quoted by Mr. Smith in his defence,

to our own.

"It is not shewn that Quamina was a rebel. Some questions have been asked, and answers given, to shew that Quamina was engaged in the revolt; but this is not sufficient; it ought to have been shewn that he had been convicted as such. It is laid down in Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 234, "That if a person be arrested for treason, he that rescues him is guilty of treason;" but according to the same author, 235, "this case is not at all now in force, nor binding. That therefore at this day, if one be committed for suspicion of treason, and another break gaol to let him out, yet unless the party imprisoned were really a traitor, this is no treason at this day." The same author, in page 237, says, "He that rescueth a person imprisoned for treason, or suffers him voluntarily to escape, shall not be arraigned for that offence till the principal offender be convicted of that offence; for if he be acquitted of the principal offence, the gaoler that suffered the escape, and he that made the rescue, shall be discharged; and the reason is, because, though rescuing a person charged with treason, or suffering him wilfully to escape, be a great misdemeanour, yet it is not treason, unless in truth and reality he was a traitor; for a man may be arrested or imprisoned under a charge of treason, and yet be no traitor;" again, in page 238, and though the receiver of a traitor knowingly, be a principal traitor, and shall not be said an accessary, yet this much he partakes of an accessary.

"That if he be indicted by a several indictment, he shall not be