Gentlemen,
April 15th, 1842.
By Lord Stanley’s desire I send you a copy of Dr.
Madden’s Report, on the Gold Coast, and its dependencies.
I am to add, that this is sent to you as being personally interested
therein, but that you will be good enough to consider it as entirely
confidential.
I have, &c.
R. R. Gibbons.
The Report of Dr. Madden forms part of the Appendix to the
“Report from the Select Committee on the West Coast of Africa[3],”
and although the first official communication which was received by
the house of Messrs. Zulueta & Co., it is not inserted, in consequence
of its want of connexion with the chief subject of this publication.
It is entitled, “Report of Her Majesty’s Commissioner of Inquiry on
the State of the British Settlements on the Gold Coast, at Sierra
Leone, and the Gambia, with some Observations on the Foreign
Slave Trading Factories along the Western Coast of Africa, in the
Year 1841;” and sets forth its object as follows:—
“Pursuant to the instructions of Her Majesty’s Secretary of State
for the Colonies, the following matters were duly examined into, and
the result of the best consideration that could be given to these subjects
will be found in the following order:—
“1st. The state and condition of our forts and settlements on the
Western Coast of Africa, their trade, population, resources, and government.
“2d. The facilities afforded in these settlements to the foreign
slave traders resorting to them, by affording supplies in goods or stores
that are essential to the trade.
“3d. The prospects and practicability of emigration from Sierra
Leone to our West India Colonies.
“4th. The climate, salubrity, and nature of the locality of our settlements
on the Western Coast of Africa: and in addition to these
subjects, I have to add the consideration of two very important ones,
not specified in my instructions, but which, in their execution, became
part and parcel of them, and which I conceived I would not have
done my duty had I left unnoticed, or taken no steps to remove the
evils connected with them; these subjects are:—
“1. The existence of slavery in our settlements on the Gold Coast.
“2. The co-operation of British commerce with slave-trade interests,
at the factories of notorious slave dealers on the Western
Coast of Africa.”
In treating of the last subject here mentioned, the following remarks
occur:—
“It is very true the Consolidated Slave Law, the 5th of Geo. IV,
comprehends every case of aiding and abetting the slave trade, that
I have proposed to have still more formally and specifically prohibited;
and there can be no question that any infraction of this law, whether
by insuring slave property, selling goods for slave trading objects,
lending money, or giving any species of assistance for the promotion
of these objects in any court in England, where the case would be
tried on its proper merits, and not decided on by a jury implicated or
involved in the interests of slavery, that the offender would be convicted
of the felony and punished. But few of those employed in
judicial situations on the Western Coast of Africa have been persons
belonging to the legal professions, and those who did belong to it, and
were the advisers of our governors, have not been persons of very
profound experience in the law, and the consequence has been that,
with few exceptions, our authorities on the Western Coast of Africa
hold the opinion that was entertained at Cape Coast as to the legality
of aiding and abetting the slave dealers, of supplying them with the
goods and stores essential to the purchase of the slaves. The Consolidated
Slave Trade Act, of 1824, distinctly states in the very
second clause, that it is unlawful ‘in any manner to engage, or to
contract to engage, directly or indirectly therein (the slave trade), as
a partner, agent, or otherwise, or to ship, tranship, lade, receive, or
put on board, &c.... knowing that such ship, vessel, or boat is
actually employed, &c.’....
“In the 7th clause, with the customary verbiage, it is declared,
that ‘if any person shall knowingly and wilfully ship, or put on board
of any vessel any money, goods, or effects, to be employed in accomplishing
any of the objects hereinbefore declared unlawful, then and
in every other such case the person so offending, and their procurers,
counsellors, aiders, and abettors, shall forfeit and pay for every such
offence double the value of all the money, goods, or effects so shipped,
transhipped, laden, received, or put on board, or contracted so to be
as aforesaid.’
“And by the 10th clause, the persons thus aiding and abetting
the slave trade, are further declared to be felons, and shall be transported
for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or confined and kept
to hard labour for a term not exceeding five years, nor less than three
years, at the discretion of the Court.
“The right and privilege heretofore exercised of suing in Vice-Admiralty
Courts for the forfeitures or penalties incurred by the contravention
of this law, are set forth in the 12th clause, notwithstanding
any criminal proceedings that may have been instituted against the
aiders and abettors of this trade. That the merchant in the case of
the Dos Amigos had left himself subject to both sorts of proceedings
there can be no doubt. In a case somewhat analogous to this, of
recent occurrence, a British vessel, commanded by a British subject,
the Augusta, dispatched by a London house, was captured by
Lieutenant Hill, of Her Majesty’s ship Saracen, having merchandise
on board adapted for the slave trading factories, and having a direct
destination to one of these. The vessel was condemned at Sierra
Leone, but no proceedings have been taken in the Vice-admiralty
Court in England by Lieutenant Hill, to recover the penalties incurred
by this breach of the law. The notoriety of this vessel at
all the factories on the coast of Africa had its weight in the tribunal
where she was ultimately condemned for aiding and abetting the
slave trade. In no respect was the evidence against this vessel
stronger than that against the Cape Coast merchant, yet that vessel
was condemned by the authorities at Sierra Leone, and the merchant
is defended by those at Cape Coast. The Augusta, a notorious slaver,
had only been captured and sent to England a few months before under
the name of the Gollupchik, and under Russian colours, and she was
found again on the coast, under the British flag, the property of
London merchants. The Spanish slave trader, who was captain
of the Gollupchik, when captured by the Saracen, and sent to
England was subsequently taken near Whydah by Commodore
Tucker of the Wolverine, while I was passenger on board that
vessel, in another slaver called the Liberal; and from this man I
learned particulars entirely corroborative of the documentary evidence
found on board the Augusta. The recent relinquishment of the slave
trade on the part of Don Theodore Canot at his slave factory at New
Sesters, one of the principal slave dealers on the Kroo Coast, led to
the giving up of his books and papers to Lieutenant Segrim, of Her
Majesty’s ship Termagant, with whom he entered into arrangements
for renouncing his unlawful trade; and, on examining these books
on board of Her Majesty’s ship Wolverine, I found that a London
house had long been in the habit of supplying stores and merchandise
to his slave factory from their vessels on the coast. On the 4th
of December, 1839, there is an entry of the arrival at his factory,
for the purposes of trade, of the English brig Enterprise.
“1st January, 1840. There is an entry of the arrival of an
English brig ‘Corcyra,’ belonging to another house in London,
for the purposes of trade, and of having purchased of him 50 guns,
100 cutlasses, 100 large kettles, and 100 bars of irons.
“13th May, 1840. There is an entry of the re-appearance of the
captain of the ‘Enterprise,’ at his factory, and having purchased
from him 83 cruces of rice, or about 2,000lbs. weight, for which he
paid 63 dollars, and 84 dollars for 21 guns.
“1st July, 1840. There is an entry of the arrival of the English
schooner ‘Gil Blas,’ of London, and of having purchased two
pieces of cloth, eight bars of tobacco, and one gallon of rum.
“On the 5th of December, 1840, Don Theodore Canot placed
himself under the protection of the British flag, renounced his
traffic, and gave up 104 slaves to Lieutenant Segrim.
“Lieutenant Hill, of Her Majesty’s ship ‘Saracen,’ on the 14th
January, 1839, visited the British vessel ‘Medora,’ and was informed
by the master that he had just disposed at the Gallinas of
10,000 dollars’ worth of goods to the factories there.
“Lieutenant Segrim, of the ‘Termagant,’ recently boarded the
British merchant vessel ‘The Guinea Man,’ and the master admitted
having just sold 500l. worth of goods to the slave trade factories at
the Gallinas.
“A British trader, a man of colour, who has an establishment at
Accra, has one likewise at Little Popoe, where he is known to dabble
in this trade.
“This man was an agent of a mercantile house in London; and information
reached me of his having embarked for Popoe some time ago,
in the neighbourhood of St. Paul’s, a number of slaves on board a
British vessel then under discharge. On visiting this part of the
coast in Her Majesty’s ship ‘Wolverine,’ on my way to Princes’
Island, we found at Great Popoe a British subject of colour holding
a factory, from which Captain Tucker had information he had lately
shipped a cargo of slaves. While at anchor off the shore, Captain
Tucker addressed a letter to him on the subject, informing him of
the report he had heard, and giving him to understand that, on any
repetition of his illegal proceedings, he would destroy his factory and
carry himself to Sierra Leone. He returned a submissive, and I
must add a very proper answer, not denying the transaction alluded
to, but promising faithfully in future to abstain from exporting
slaves.
“I have noticed these circumstances, though not apparently bearing
on the subject of this part of my Report, namely, the resources,
trade, and government of our settlements on the Gold Coast, and the
influence of the latter on the adjoining districts, in order to show the
necessity there is for a new enactment to prevent the facilities that
are now afforded by our commerce from supplying the slave trade
factories with these commodities which are indispensable to the slave
traders. It is evident that those factories are supplied with goods
by British traders, and especially by London merchants, to a very
great extent.” ...
London, 31st July, 1841.
(signed)
R. R. Madden.
My Lord,
London, 25 April, 1842.
A letter has been addressed to us under date of the
15th inst., by Mr. R. R. Gibbons, sending to us, at your Lordship’s
desire, a copy of Dr. Madden’s Report on the Gold Coast of Africa,
and its dependencies, and stating that this is done in consideration
of “our being personally interested therein, but that we are to
consider it as entirely confidential.”
In common with all other merchants in this city, we may of course
be said to possess more or less of a professional interest in all matters
which relate to commerce.
As having occasionally executed shipping orders for ports in the
coast of Africa, on foreign account, of lawful merchandise, lawfully,
and therefore publicly cleared at Her Majesty’s Customs, in lawful
vessels, and as far as we, as mere shipping agents, could be supposed
or expected to know, to the best of our knowledge, for no unlawful
purpose, without any other interest or emolument in the operation
antecedent or subsequent to the shipment than that of the simple
and regular commission usually charged in, or legitimately connected
with the invoice, and possessing no control, direct or indirect, over
either vessels or goods, from the moment they left the shores of
Great Britain, we may perhaps be supposed to feel a more direct
interest in whatsoever throws light on the subject of trade with ports
with which, in the course of our mercantile career, we may have had
general business transactions, although they have not been either
extensive or frequent.
Still more as shippers, in the form and capacity just described,
and in no other, of a cargo consisting not only of legal, but even
unsuspected merchandise on board the English schooner Augusta,
Captain Jennings, the Report of Dr. Madden, as a document in
which the capture of that vessel is alluded to, may also be supposed
to form an interesting piece of information, whatever its merits may
be in other respects.
Such is the nature and the extent of the interest which we
acknowledge to possess in the Report of Dr. Madden, neither more
nor less; and we submit that, in describing it as personal, a supposition
is advanced which, considering the nature of that Report, we
have reason to deem unfavourable to our characters, which the facts
will not justify, and which we may say, even appearances will not
warrant.
The Report brings together a number of transactions, not one of
which have we even the remotest knowledge until the perusal of it,
with the sole exception of the case of the Augusta. Now, as when
looking at them together as a whole, and in conjunction with the
other facts, most probably equally unknown to us, which in the
course of the investigation now carried on before the Committee may
be brought forward, there is no telling to what extent the association
of our name with the matters of the Report may be carried, we have
thought it right to explain to your Lordship what kind of interest we
have no objection to be supposed to possess in the perusal of
Dr. Madden’s Report, or in the inquiry now before the Committee.
Beyond casual shipments in the manner described, and the acceptance
of credits opened at our establishments by parties abroad, in
behalf of parties resident in that coast, we have not even one single
correspondent, or have we even consigned or sold, or in fact transacted
any business whatsoever, or had any intercourse with individuals
resident in those parts. We possess no interest in the trade with
them, and even the agency for buying and shipping, which now and
then we have had, is so insignificant, that we look with the most
perfect indifference, as may easily be believed by any one who knows
any thing of our business, as to any future legislation which may be
the result of the present Parliamentary inquiry, or, indeed, as to
any construction which may be put upon that now in existence. It
is not, therefore, with the view of in any degree influencing the
deliberations of the Committee, or of offering any remark on the facts
or on the opinions contained in Dr. Madden’s Report, that we address
your Lordship. Let the result of the labours of the Committee be
what they may, and let the merits or the influence of Dr. Madden’s
Report be what it may, whatever legislation may emanate from these
proceedings, as a matter of business, it is of no moment to us, and
therefore it is not our intention to throw the weight of a feather in
the balance. Our sole object is to place our position in its true
light; and the simple fact of our possessing no interest whatever,
either personal or otherwise, in any branch of trade with the coast of
Africa, much less with that lamentable branch of it which, much
before the law was carried to even its present extent, our firm has
shunned in all its branches and ramifications during an existence in
business of more than seventy years, independent of the consideration
of its illegality, without partaking in many of the views entertained
by others concerning it, but from the principle of not wishing to
derive profit or advantage from the sufferings of humanity, whether
avoidable or unavoidable.
We have, &c.
(signed)
Zulueta & Co.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Select Committee on West Coast of Africa.
R. R. Gibbons, Esq. to Messrs. Zulueta & Co.
Gentlemen,
July 13th, 1842.
I am desired by Lord Sandon, the chairman of this
committee, to forward to you copies of evidence taken before them,
in which your house is mentioned; and I am to acquaint you that if
you are desirous of making any statement thereon, either personally
or by letter, the committee will be ready to receive the same.
I have, &c.
(signed)
R. R. Gibbons.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Lord Viscount Courtenay.
Lord Viscount Ebrington.
Mr. Evans.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. Milnes.
Mr. W. Patten.
Mr. Stuart Wortley.
Lord Viscount Sandon in the chair.
Henry William Macaulay, Esq. called in; and further examined.
5003. Chairman.] Will you state what has been your connexion
and acquaintance with the coast of Africa?—I went out to Sierra
Leone first in the early part of the year 1830 as a merchant, and at
the latter end of the year 1831 I was appointed one of the judges in
the court of Mixed Commission; I then left business and devoted
myself entirely to the business of the court; and I ceased to act as a
judge on the 31st of December, 1839.
5004. Since what time have you been at home?—I remained on
the coast a short time to recover my health. I was too unwell to
move for some months, and then went to the Island of Ascension,
from which I came home in the latter end of the year 1840.
5005. Will you state what the court of mixed commission consists
of?—The Portuguese court consists of a British commissary judge
and a Portuguese commissary judge, who have to decide upon every
Portuguese case; in case of any difference of opinion between the
two principal judges, the British commissioner of arbitration and the
Portuguese commissioner of arbitration draw lots as to which of the
two the case is to be referred to for final decision. In the same way,
in the Spanish court, the British commissary judge meets the Spanish
commissary judge, and in case of difference of opinion, the case is
left to either the British or Spanish commissioner of arbitration, as the
lot may determine.
5006. Are there any judges for other nations?—The courts at
Sierra Leone are the Portuguese court, the Spanish court, the Brazilian
court, and the Dutch court; but no court during my time
has been perfect in the number of its judges except the Brazilian
court.
5007. You mean by perfect, that the British judge has had to sit
alone?—The treaties require that after a certain time, in the absence
of any foreign judge, the British commissioner of arbitration shall act
as the foreign commissary judge.
5008. Who is the British commissioner of arbitration; is he a
distinct person from the British commissary judge?—Yes; the
British court is always perfect.
5009. What does it consist of?—It consists of the British commissary
judge and the British commissioner of arbitration; and the
treaties point out how any vacancy, either by death or absence, is to
be supplied; the governor in the first instance, attends for the absent
judge, whoever he may be, and after him, the chief justice, and then
the colonial secretary. It is left to those three officers; but I presume
that if those three should all be ill, or their places be vacant by
death, the office would then descend to the person next in seniority
in the colonial government there; but we never went lower than the
colonial secretary. The Brazilian court has been the only one perfect,
and the British commissioner of arbitration has always sat in my
time for the Portuguese and Spanish commissary judges. No case
at all has occurred in the Dutch court.
5010. In case a vessel taken under the colours of any other nation
were brought into Sierra Leone, how would that case be decided?—There
are other treaties than those I have mentioned. A French case
is sent to the French authorities under the French treaty, and in the
treaties with all other nations that have treaties on the model of the
French treaty, the vessels are handed over to their own judicial authorities.
5011. Within Sierra Leone?—The treaty points out where they
are to be taken; if a French vessel is taken, it is sent to Goree.
5012. Then no vessels are brought in for adjudication to Sierra
Leone but Dutch and Portuguese, and Spanish and Brazilian vessels?—Not
for adjudication by the mixed commission; but there is
the vice-admiralty court, which under the late act relating to Portugal,
for the suppression of the slave trade, takes cognizance of
vessels under that flag which are captured; and may take cognizance
of any vessels under any flag that are captured in British waters,
wherever they are taken, whether at Sierra Leone, or the Gambia, or
any British settlement on the coast, and that has been rather frequent
of late.
5013. The mixed commission court has jurisdiction over all cases
which are brought within the limits of the treaty with Portugal, and
the Vice-Admiralty Court in the Portuguese cases, over which we
have assumed jurisdiction by Act of Parliament, that is to say, all
cases of vessels captured south of the Line?—Yes; it is optional still
for the captor to prosecute a Portuguese vessel, captured under the
Act of Parliament, before the admiralty court, if he chooses, instead
of bringing her before the mixed commission court, but the process is
so much more summary with us, and the expense so much less, that
that option is seldom taken.
5014. Will you proceed to explain what is the process which is
pursued when a slaver is brought into Sierra Leone for adjudication?—Whenever
a vessel appears in the harbour under any of the flags of
which we can take cognizance, the marshal of the court goes on
board, and he receives from the prizemaster who is on board an account
of the capture, which he fills into a printed form, and he sends
one of those printed forms to each of the judges, and one to the governor,
immediately; in fact, generally before the vessel comes to
anchor, and then the court is made aware of the vessel being in the
harbour, and is prepared to make arrangements for the landing of the
slaves, if there are any, generally the morning after its arrival, if it
comes in the evening, or if it comes in early in the morning, the same
day. The proctor for the captor brings the papers of the vessel before
the court, and they are always accompanied by a declaration of
the captor. All the forms of the court are very much the same as
those of the Admiralty Court in England. If there are slaves, the
proctor petitions for the admission of the vessel into court, and generally
accompanies that by a petition to land the slaves; and since I
have been there, in every case of inquiry the slaves were landed and
handed over to the superintendent of the African department pending
the investigation, and held in their character of slaves during the
time that the vessel was passing through the court. The proctor
then produces his witnesses, and they are examined upon printed interrogatories,
which have been used ever since the court was formed.
These questions are framed with a view to make out a case, and they
always do prove slave dealing wherever it has existed, if the witness
answers truly; and in an ordinary case, where slaves are on board,
no defence is ever attempted, it is out of the question. Then as soon
as the evidence is given, generally by the captain and one of the
officers of the captured vessel, the proctor prays for publication; and
when the monition which issues in the first instance, calling upon any
persons to bring forward a claim if they have any against the capture,
or to show cause why the vessel should not be condemned, is returned,
trial is prayed for, and it takes place on an early day after
arrival of the vessel; in an undefended case, and where the capture
has been made properly by the man-of-war, the vessel is condemned,
the slaves are emancipated at the same time; a commission of appraisement
and sale issues, which directs the particular officer of the
court who has the duty of conducting the auctions to expose both the
vessel and the goods, and any thing that may be on board, to public
auction, after due notice given. Those things are then sold, and the
proceeds are divided equally between the British Government and the
foreign government, and the proceeds are then paid into the commissariat,
which settles with the Government at home, and they pay the
money, or set it off against any claim they may have against the
foreign government; but the foreign government has a claim to one-half
the proceeds of the vessels and cargoes.
5015. Is there any large proportion of cases in which condemnation
does not follow, and under what circumstances principally has
condemnation not been the consequence?—There have been vessels
restored for being seized, for instance, Portuguese vessels from the
southward of the Line, contrary to treaty. In two cases there were
vessels restored with upwards of 8,000l. damages against the captors
in each case, making 16,000l.; and there was again one case of
the Pepita, which I remember, when it was proved that the slaves
had been embarked under circumstances that would not justify condemnation
under the treaty; she was restored with damages. There
have been several cases under the equipment article since the new
slave treaty came into force, where vessels have been restored because
the equipment was not deemed sufficient to warrant condemnation.
There have been also vessels taken on the suspicion that black persons
on board were slaves, who have been proved to be domestics,
and not bought for the purpose of the traffic. There have been a
variety of condemnations; but in any case where the treaty would
not warrant condemnation, the vessel has been restored; and where
the treaty required it, restored with damages.
5016. Have there been a considerable number of restorations; can
you state, from statistics, the number?—I have statistics for two
years; from the 1st of January to the 31st of December 1838, one
vessel only was liberated.
5017. What number were condemned?—Forty-one; during the
year 1839 there were two liberated, and 45 condemned; and in
addition to those, there was a very large number of American vessels
which were seized, with American papers on board, and which I
refused to receive into court at all; there were some in 1838, and
there was a large number in 1839.
5018. Can you state the number?—I think the number was 13;
but the reports of the whole of those cases are in the Parliamentary
Papers.
5019. Were they bonâ fide American?—I believe not American,
in any one case, but sailing under the American flag, and with
American papers, supplied to them by American authority.
5020. Where?—Almost entirely, I think, without one exception,
at Havannah.
5021. Supplied by the American consul?—Yes; but I considered
that as they sailed with those American papers, however wrongfully
they might have been given by the American authority, we had no
right to interfere with them.
5022. Mr. Forster.] Have not some vessels belonging to the
States been condemned?—Yes; since my time.
5023. You were not a party to the condemnation?—I was not.
5024. Mr. W. Patten.] But in those cases which you mention,
you had not the slightest doubt in the world that they would have
been condemned if they had not American papers on board?—Certainly
they would, with the exception of one case, which seemed
to be a sort of experimental seizure: it was known that almost every
vessel on the coast under the American flag, at that time was a
Spanish vessel in disguise; and this vessel seems to have been
seized in the hope that the captain and officers might be able to
prove, by some evidence found on board, that she was really Spanish;
but though we had access to the papers, we found nothing that
would have condemned her if she had been prosecuted in the court;
there was a deficiency of papers on board; the captain, perhaps had
either destroyed them or concealed them, and we could not get at the
proof that would have enabled us to condemn her as being a Spanish
vessel; but none of the cases I speak of were prosecuted; I would
not allow them to be libelled in court.
5025. So that those cases do not appear upon the records of the
court?—No; but I took the opportunity of examining the papers,
and sending home all the particulars to the Foreign-office, and the
papers are copied in the Parliamentary Returns.
5026. Mr. Forster.] Will those seizures be matter of complaint on
the part of the owners?—I do not know that any of those seizures
have been matter of complaint; some of the seizures made subsequently
have been.
5027. Seizures of vessels belonging to the United States?—Yes;
but none of those that came before me have been made matter of
complaint.
5028. Are you aware that there are several cases of condemnation
that have been the subject of remonstrance with the British Government
by the United States?—I believe the whole of them are.
5029. Chairman.] You have not heard that they complain of
vessels being brought in for condemnation to Sierra Leone which
you did not allow to be libelled in court?—No, except as regards
the general right which was exercised. There has been no complaint
with respect to a particular vessel, so far as I know; but complaints
have been made of the right which was exercised by cruizers on the
coast to board any American vessel and search it.
5030. Mr. Aldam.] Has the practice of the court been changed
since your time?—Yes, it was changed the day that I left; there
was an American vessel waiting at Sierra Leone for adjudication the
day I left, and the officer suspecting, that if presented to me, I
should refuse her in the same way as I had done the others, detained
her till I left, and she was condemned by my successor under orders
from Lord Palmerston.
5031. Then the orders from Lord Palmerston changed the practice
of the court?—Yes.
5032. Do you know the nature of those orders?—The orders
appear in the printed correspondence.
5033. Mr. W. Patten.] Can you state briefly the nature of the
orders?—His Lordship stated that the Queen’s advocate was of
opinion that the court was justified in making use of information
obtained by the search of vessels under the American flag. The
court had decided, that having no right to search vessels sailing as
American, and recognised as American by American authorities, they
could not make use of any information which they obtained by
unauthorised and illegal acts, and Lord Palmerston considered that
they had a right.
5034. Chairman.] You held that the papers protected the vessel?—I
did.
5035. Mr. Forster.] Then it is those condemnations which are
appealed against at present by the American government?—I have
not seen any appeal of the American government except against the
general right exercised by the British cruizers.
5036. The complaint is, of seizing vessels as connected with the
slave trade, which, from their papers, ought not to have been subject
to that suspicion?—I am not aware of any appeal in any case of
that kind.
5037. Mr. Aldam.] Have any vessels with strictly American
papers been condemned?—You can hardly call them strictly American
papers where the papers have been applied for, and given through
fraud. The American authorities at the Havannah who gave them,
knew very well that the vessel had no more claim to be styled an
American vessel than a Dutch vessel.
5038. Chairman.] But as far as the documents themselves showed,
those vessels were American?—Yes, they had an American register,
just in the same form as any vessel sailing from New York, or Baltimore;
indeed it was a copy of the same document.
5039. What indication was there in other papers taken, to lead
you to know that the property was not bonâ fide American?—It
appeared, from the very strict overhauling these vessels received
from the cruizers, that in many of those cases there were papers on
board showing that the man who appeared as the American captain
was only a passenger, and that the 30 Spanish passengers who took
out passengers’ licences at Havannah were the real crew; and there
were also instructions, found on board, to the pretended captain,
what he was to answer to the cruizers when they boarded him. The
whole thing was a complete fraud without any doubt whatever.
There were many of those cases where it was quite plain that the
vessels were only Spaniards in disguise; that they only kept the
American flag until their cargo was ready. In some cases the vessels
that were boarded one day by the cruizers under the American flag,
were boarded two or three days afterwards with the Portuguese or
Spanish flag hoisted, and full of slaves.
5040. And condemned?—Yes.
5041. What was the object of hoisting the Spanish or Portuguese
flag?—If the vessels had been captured by a British cruizer with
the American flag hoisted, he would have carried them into America;
and if he did carry them into America, every man on board would
have been hung as a pirate.
5042. Had he authority to do so?—It was done; the American
authorities did not complain of it.
5043. Mr. W. Patten.] Were they hung in that case?—No,
there were no slaves on board.
5044. Mr. Aldam.] Every ship of war has a right to capture a
pirate?—Yes.
5045. The law of the United States recognizes slavery as piracy?—Yes,
but it is not piracy by the law of nations, and indeed our own
courts have decided most positively on that point, that the slave
trade is not piracy by the law of nations; that it can only be punished
by the municipal law of the particular country to which the vessel
belongs.
5046. Mr. Forster.] The class of condemnations to which you
have alluded are different from the cases which have taken place
since you left, under the direction of Lord Palmerston?—No condemnations
took place before the 1st of January, 1840; there were
vessels condemned by me that were captured under the American
flag, and with American papers, but they were taken in British
waters, where British ships had a right to visit and search the vessel,
and the captor might make use of any information he obtained in the
search: when apparent American vessels were boarded on the high
seas, we deemed that the captor had not that authority.
5047. Chairman.] What do you consider British waters on the
coast of Africa; what would you for instance, on the Gold Coast,
consider British waters?—The waters of a nation are those within
gun-shot of the shore; generally reckoned three miles; it is the
same all over the world.
5048. With regard to the Gold Coast, you are aware that our
settlements consist of several forts; do you consider the whole line
of coast, from end to end, along which our forts are planted, to be
British water?—No, for there are foreign forts there mixed with ours;
but in every case we have the sovereignty over three miles of the sea
from our own possession, wherever it may be, and the only ports to
which a vessel could go, have forts attached to them; a vessel lying
at Accra, or lying at Cape Coast, would be within three miles of the
fort.
5049. If she was sailing along the coast, should you consider her
to be in British waters?—Where an indefinite authority is exercised
along a line of coast, without any real right, I do not consider those
British waters.
5050. You would consider as British waters only those which
were a certain distance from the fort?—Yes; the difficulty occurred
in the case of the Jack Wilding, one of the richest prizes that was
made during the year 1839; she was seized lying in British Accra
roadstead, and she was under the American flag; she was brought up
to Sierra Leone, and defended, on the ground that, though the vessel
was in British waters, she was within three miles of the Dutch fort,
but we considered that that could not make any difference, that we
could not allow slave trading within three miles of any acknowledged
British fort, and we condemned the vessel.
5051. Have you seen practical evil arise from the mixed commission
being fixed at Sierra Leone?—No, certainly not.
5052. Not as to the health of the slaves in the length of the
voyage from the place of seizure to the place of condemnation?—I
believe that there is a great misapprehension on this subject, which
would be corrected by a mere reference to the statistics of the trade;
there seems to be an impression that a very great majority of the
cases of capture are made to the eastward of Cape Palmas, and in
the bights, but a large number have been taken for many years past,
and might always have been taken, to the westward of Cape Palmas,
and in the neighbourhood of Sierra Leone.
5053. Is there any statement of the length of voyage of each
vessel from the time of its seizure to the time of its condemnation?—I
do not think there is any table drawn out; but in the printed
reports the times and places of capture are stated, which comes to the
same thing; because, where the vessels are captured in the immediate
neighbourhood of Sierra Leone, the voyage is very short, and in
going through the reports the number of days can be calculated.
In the detailed reports which are given of each case, the date of the
capture is always mentioned, and the date of arrival at Sierra Leone.
In some cases the vessels are delayed after capture, and you could
not get an exact account; but in most cases the difference between
the date of capture and the date of arrival would be the length of
voyage.
5054. Mr. Forster.] Has not the great bulk of the seizures been
made in the bights and to the eastward of Cape Palmas?—Not a
very large majority during the last year, and before that a large
portion were made to the westward of Cape Palmas; and if that part
of the coast had had the number of cruizers that it ought to have
had, there would have been a much larger number of captures made
there.
5055. Chairman.] You think that the slave trade has gone on
with greater intensity to the westward of Cape Palmas?—With great
intensity in the Gallinas, which was unnoticed for some years; and,
indeed, that part of the coast was utterly neglected. The admiral
and commanding officers seemed to fancy that the slave trade could
only be carried on in the bights, but a great deal of slave trade was
carried on to the westward.
5056. Where?—In Gallinas, principally, New Sesters, Sherboro’;
those are the principal ports in that part; there are others smaller.
5057. For all those ports, of course, Sierra Leone you consider to
be the most advantageous position?—Certainly.
5058. Mr. Forster.] But in speaking of the amount of slave trade
carried on at those places which you have just named, do you speak
of those in comparison with the bights, and also with the Spanish
and Portuguese settlements to the south of the Line?—I speak of
the amount of captures that have been made there. The south was
left very nearly in the same state in which the north was. The
cruizing of the squadron was almost entirely confined to the bights.
5059. To the south of the Line they could not cruize, could
they?—Yes, they could cruize near the Portuguese settlements, for
the court practically got over the article in the treaty under which
captures were forbidden to the southward of the Line, by establishing,
which they did in 1838, the principle, that the national character of
any vessel was to be taken from the residence of the owner, the place
where he carried on his mercantile business, and also from the course
of trade in which the vessel was engaged; and as there could be no
foreign Portuguese slave trade, for Portugal has no colonies to
supply with slaves, we were sure to make the vessel either Brazilian
or Spanish. She was captured under Portuguese colours, and with
Portuguese papers, but the treaty had given us a right to search her
any where, either north or south; it had not given us the right to
detain her south of the Line, if she was bonâ fide Portuguese; but if
captured as a Portuguese vessel under the Portuguese flag, and with
Portuguese papers, she was sent up to Sierra Leone, and was almost
certain to be condemned either as a Brazilian or a Spaniard.
5060. That decision was come to in 1838?—Yes.
5061. Before that time the impression had prevailed that the slave
trade from the Portuguese settlements was protected?—There was
no seizure to the south of the Line to render a decision necessary;
vessels were seized immediately close to the Line, in several cases,
and it was never thought of; that was before the Portuguese flag was
so much used, and the cause of the Portuguese flag being so much
used by slavers, was the Spanish treaty having given the right to
seize, on the ground of equipment; that did not take place till 1836.
I was at home in that year, and on my return in December 1837, I
found that almost every vessel on the coast was sailing under Portuguese
colours, and then we met this new circumstance by an
alteration in the interpretation of the treaty.
5062. Mr. Aldam.] If the owner had been a bonâ fide Portuguese,
would the vessel have been still condemned?—If the owner had been
a Portuguese, resident in Havannah, we should have treated the
vessel as a Spanish vessel; and if at Rio Janeiro, we should have
treated it as a Brazilian vessel.
5063. But in the case of a Portuguese merchant resident in a
Portuguese possession, and carrying on his business there?—We
should have looked at the course of trade in which the vessel was
engaged, and the Portuguese having no colonies would not require
slaves.
5064. Mr. Forster.] Do you consider the Spanish and Portuguese
settlements to the south of the Line the places at which the slave
trade will be last overcome?—The part of the coast at which the
slave trade is carried on depends entirely on the cruizers; you may
knock up the slave trade on any part of the coast you please, if the
cruizing is properly conducted. The largest slave trade on the coast
was the slave trade at the Gallinas; by the system of blockade that
Captain Denman adopted there, he completely destroyed it.
5065. That blockade must be continued to make it permanent in
its results?—Yes; and he never went away for water or provisions,
without leaving a vessel to supply his place. He could always regulate
the time that he should remain, knowing of course, to a day, how
long his water and provisions would last him.
5066. But to render that remedy effectual and permanent, vessels
of war must continue at the Gallinas?—Yes; but if you blockade
the rivers, where the slave trade has been carried on for a number of
years, and completely shut up the slave trade for a year or two, you
destroy the system of slave trade in that part.
5067. Chairman.] You think the machinery cannot be re-established
in that part?—It may be re-established, but in the meantime
there is no mart for the slaves; they are brought down and lodged in
the barracoons, and the feeding of the slaves completely ruins the
slave owner.
5068. Mr. Forster.] What is there to prevent the system being
resumed there unless you continue the blockade of the place?—There
is nothing.
5069. Then it is upon the blockade of the settlements that the
success of the cruizers depends, and not upon the destruction of the
barracoons?—Exactly; by blockade, I do not mean shutting out
legitimate trade, but preventing any vessel fitted for the slave trade
going in, and preventing any vessel with slaves coming out.
5070. Chairman.] Do you believe that if you blockade a port,
materially interfering with the slave trade for a considerable period,
you obstruct it even for some time afterwards?—I think you do; and
I think the people are so accustomed to the goods which they procure
from slave dealers that they will get them if they can by other
means.
5071. Then you think, that if you can blockade for a certain time,
and put an end to the power of procuring what the natives desire by
the slave trade, that their taste will have to be gratified by lawful
traffic, and that that will make it less necessary for them afterwards
to have recourse to the slave trade?—Certainly.
5072. Mr. Forster.] By such destruction as took place in the case
of Gallinas, do you not interfere with the course of the legitimate
trade, as well as with the course of the slave trade?—I am not
speaking of the destruction of a settlement.
5073. Had not the operations of Captain Denman the effect of
destroying the stores, and in fact the whole settlement?—He destroyed
the barracoons; but no one ever kept in barracoons any thing
but slaves.
5074. Was not also a considerable property in merchandize destroyed?—Yes,
so it appears by the Parliamentary papers. At that
time there was no trade whatever carried on at Gallinas except in
slaves; there was no legitimate trade at all, I believe.
5075. Do you mean that there was no legitimate trade carried on
at the Gallinas previous to the destruction of that place by Captain
Denman?—I believe, none whatever; there was certainly none with
its nearest large port, which was Sierra Leone; the only trade carried
on between the two places was of a very questionable character.
5076. Were not Hamburg vessels and other foreign vessels constantly
in the habit of visiting Gallinas for the purpose of legitimate
trade previous to the destruction of the settlement?—I am not aware
that they did.
5077. I thought you told the Committee in a late answer, that
there was no legitimate trade carried on there?—From Sierra Leone;
but whether Hamburg vessels went direct to Gallinas, I do not know;
from Sierra Leone, I do not believe that any legitimate trade was
carried on with the Gallinas.
5078. What opportunities had you at Sierra Leone of knowing
the course of trade to Gallinas?—I was in Sierra Leone, where there
were a large number of small coasting vessels employed, and those
who brought back produce did not go to Gallinas for it.
5079. But had you any opportunity of knowing the nature and
extent of the legitimate trade there by foreign vessels, independently
of Sierra Leone?—No; but I have always understood, (it is only
from hearsay I mention this,) from the men-of-war on the coast, that
every vessel they have found lying in the harbour there, has been
engaged in the slave trade in some way or other, as American vessels
bringing over goods from the Havannah for the supply of factories,
or bringing out equipments to be carried away by slavers when they
were full.
5080. You have stated that previously to the destruction of Gallinas
by Captain Denman, no trade had been carried on between the
Gallinas and Sierra Leone, except such as was of a very questionable
nature?—I have.
5081. Was that questionable trade to a considerable extent?—No,
not with Sierra Leone; but trading vessels that came along the
coast have called at Sierra Leone, and gone down the coast afterwards,
and probably put into Gallinas amongst other ports; but
directly with Sierra Leone the trade was very little indeed.
5082. Up to what period did this questionable trade between
Sierra Leone and Gallinas continue?—It continued as long as I was
connected with the colony, that is, to the 31st of December, 1839;
but we always looked with suspicion upon any merchant there that
was connected with that place.
5083. Is it within your knowledge that up to that time the slave
dealers, by themselves, or their agents, were in the habit of frequenting
Sierra Leone, and making purchases there for the supply of
Gallinas?—They generally made their purchases, I believe, through
some merchant resident at Sierra Leone; one in particular; they generally
had one merchant at a time, I believe, who was employed by them.
5084. Chairman.] Making purchases of prize goods?—Yes, and
sometimes of vessels; a vessel that might be put up to auction there
he would bid for, and have it sent down to Gallinas; and I have no
doubt goods also.
5085. Was he a white merchant, or a black, who was so employed?—He
was a white merchant, an English merchant.
5086. Who was he?—The name is mentioned in the Parliamentary
Papers, as being connected with the purchase of a slave vessel,
Mr. Kidd; and it is mentioned in connection with that of Mr. Zulueta,
of London.
5087. Can you refer to the passage?—It appears at the 38th page
of the class (B.) of the papers on the subject of the slave trade, presented
to Parliament 1839-40. Zulueta, the gentleman in London
to whom the vessel was sent, and who sold her again to her former
Spanish owner, is a name well known on the coast in connexion with
the slave trade; any man ought to have been careful of being connected
with such a person as that. I have seen the same vessels
over and over again in the slave trade; you can detect them when
you get accustomed to the form and build of the vessels.
5088. Mr. Forster.] Were not those vessels sold to the best
bidder?—Yes.
5089. Do not you think that the fault was with those who sold
them originally, and not those who bought them?—No; you are not
bound to suppose that a man will make a bad use of that which he
purchases.
5090. Mr. W. Patten.] Are those vessels generally bought by the
same person?—Mr. Kidd purchased vessels only during the latter
part of the time I was there, for he was not in the colony when I
first went there; he was looked upon as the person employed
by the Gallinas slave dealers to transact their business at Sierra
Leone.
5091. Chairman.] To purchase vessels and goods?—Yes.
5092. Mr. W. Patten.] Is Mr. Kidd the person you alluded to
just now, who generally purchased the vessels at auction?—No,
they were generally purchased by various people; he purchased a
few of them.
5093. Mr. Forster.] Would Mr. Zulueta, if he had entered the
auction-room, have been at liberty to bid for the purchase of that
vessel?—Certainly; by the treaty it is required that the goods
seized shall be exposed to public auction for the benefit of the two
governments.
5094. How do you make it out to be criminal in Mr. Kidd to do
that which it was innocent for the auctioneer on the part of the
British Government to do?—The auctioneer is required to do it by
his duty, he is appointed for that purpose under the Act of Parliament;
he sells to any body who will purchase; of course, the responsibility
of the employment of the purchase rests with the purchaser.
5095. Then it is the fault of the Government, not of the auctioneer?—It
is not the fault of the auctioneer; nor do I consider it any fault
of the British Government; it is no fault to purchase goods, but to
use them unlawfully is wrong; it is the use which he makes of the
vessel after purchasing it that is wrong.
5096. How could it be criminal in Mr. Kidd to sell the vessel to
Mr. Zulueta when you see no fault in the British Government doing
the same thing?—The British Government is obliged to do it under
the treaty; there is no compulsion on Mr. Kidd to sell his vessel to a
slave dealer, he may sell it to any body.
5097. According to that doctrine, the British Government is
obliged to act criminally?—No, certainly not; I do not think it
follows. The treaty requires that goods and vessels shall be exposed
at auction; the responsibility of the employment of those goods or
vessels which are sold, I think, rests with the purchaser; he may employ
them lawfully, and I have purchased a vessel at auction myself,
in former days, when I was engaged in business; but if I had taken
that vessel and sold her to a slave dealer, I should think that I did
wrong.
5098. But you admit that the public auctioneer would have sold
the same vessel to the same party whom Mr. Kidd sold her to?—Certainly.
5099. Chairman.] You meant to say that the auctioneer had no
choice to whom he should sell her, and Mr. Kidd had?—The
auctioneer had no choice; the Act is imperative, and requires him to
sell to the highest bidder, for the benefit of the two governments.
5100. Mr. Aldam.] Did Mr. Kidd sell his vessel to a slave dealer
or to a Spanish house, who subsequently sold it to a slave dealer?—It
appears in some of the records that in some cases he sold vessels
direct to the slave dealers.
5101 Are those vessels worth more to a slave dealer than if used
for any other purpose?—Certainly.
5102. How then is it possible to prevent the ships being applied to
that purpose for which they are worth more than for any other?—Spanish
ships are prevented from being used for the trade by being
cut up when they are condemned.
5103. Mr. Evans.] But you have no power of doing so with the
Portuguese ships?—No.
5104. Mr. Aldam.] Those vessels, from their small size, are not
worth much for other trades?—There are some trades that they are
adapted for, the fruit trade for instance, and they are employed in the
smuggling of opium and such trades as those; they are not capable of
carrying large burdens.
5105. In all cases it will answer the purpose of the merchant to
give a larger price for those ships to be employed in the slave trade
than for any other purpose?—Yes, probably.
5106. Viscount Ebrington.] Have you ever considered what the
result would be of the British Government buying those ships in?—It
would be impossible to buy them all in.
5107. All that are not liable to be broken up?—No. During last
year, for instance, the number condemned was so large, that the
Government, if they had bought them, could not have found a use
for them.
5108. Mr. Forster.] Have you any doubt that those vessels have
been sometimes knocked down by the auctioneer to agents of the
slave traders on the coast?—It may have been so, and I have no
doubt it has; I do not recollect a case at present, but I would have
insisted upon it, as head of the court, that it should have been knocked
down to any one who made the highest bid.
5109. It is your opinion also, that the prize goods have been frequently
sold in the like manner?—Some portion of them, but certainly
not the bulk of them.
5110. Was there any thing to prevent the whole of them being sold
to the slave dealers, or the agent of the slave dealers?—Nothing
whatever.
5111. Had you opportunities of observing, up to the time you left
Sierra Leone, whether the agents of the slave dealers on the neighbouring
coast frequently appeared in the market of Sierra Leone as
purchasers of goods or vessels?—Not often; if the goods came into
their hands it was through a third person generally. I have heard of
Spaniards going down, and bidding for the vessels, but it was not an
ordinary occurrence.
5112. Then you are of opinion that usually slave dealers at Gallinas
did not visit Sierra Leone for the purpose of making purchases of
goods or vessels?—Not in their own persons, they may have done it
through a third party; but, perhaps, it would shorten the questions
to state that the greater portion of the goods sold at the auctions
captured from vessels in the slave trade were purchased by liberated
Africans, by the hawkers there, and they made the best use of them.
That a certain portion of the goods so purchased at auctions may get
into the hands of slave dealers afterwards, is very possible; but I am
convinced, from the description of goods which are sold, which may
be used in lawful trade, and from the different appearance of the whole
colony since goods were sold so extensively, that the greater portion
of them are consumed in the colony, and are made use of in the lawful
trade, by liberated Africans in the neighbourhood. I consider that
the colony has been very much benefited indeed by those sales; that
the condition of the liberated Africans has been very much improved
by them, as has been very evident from the great wealth that has been
stirring among them; and the liberated Africans have now not only
completely bought out the Maroons and settlers, who were the
original settlers of the place, but are gradually driving out the white
merchants; and I think it a very great advantage, for they are able
to live much more cheaply than the white men can do; they carry on
their business at one hundredth part of the expense, and turn their
money over very much more quickly.
5113. Are any precautions taken by the authorities at Sierra Leone
to prevent slave dealers obtaining goods at Sierra Leone, either by
public auction or in any other manner?—Certainly not.
5114. Mr. W. Patten.] You have stated that there was an illicit
trade going on between Sierra Leone and Gallinas; are there any
other circumstances than those you have mentioned, that you can
adduce in proof of that?—None; in the trade that has been just
referred to, of Spaniards and Portuguese at Gallinas sending up to
purchase goods at auctions, they have done so, and they have been
sent down to them through a third party, but it is seldom they appear
themselves.
5115. You do not, of your own knowledge, know what is the connection
between Mr. Kidd and any individuals at Gallinas?—No.
5116. Nor of any other merchant at Sierra Leone?—No.
5117. Do you believe that they act as commission merchants to
purchase goods?—Yes; I suppose on commission.
5118. Is there any trade carried on by any merchant on his own
account with the Gallinas?—I should think that very likely too; but
it is impossible to know, for after vessels have gone outside the Cape
they may carry their goods any where: you do not know what
becomes of them.
5119. Mr. Forster.] Do you think it would be desirable to impose
any restriction upon legitimate trade to Gallinas?—I think not; I
think no restriction upon trade should be imposed, even on the intercourse
between the two places.
5120. Mr. W. Patten.] How would you distinguish the legitimate
from the illegitimate trade?—You cannot distinguish it; and there I
think the danger lies of attempting to interfere with intercourse.
5121. Mr. Forster.] And therefore, in attempting to check or impede
the one, you would do more harm than good in repressing and
discouraging the other?—I think it very probable; I think it would
be quite impossible to draw the line.
5122. But supposing it to be possible, do you think it would be, in
fact, desirable to take any measures which would have the effect of
checking the progress of legitimate trade?—Certainly not.
5123. Were there any Hamburgh vessels condemned at Sierra
Leone?—Not in my time.
5124. Mr. Hamilton.] Do you think that the establishing such a
blockade on the coast as you have alluded to just now, would have
the effect of interfering with legitimate trade?—No, not such a
blockade as I alluded to; I think the natives are well aware of the
design for which the cruizers are on the coast, they would consider
their presence rather as a protection, than otherwise, to the legitimate
trade.
5125. Mr. Forster.] Were not large quantities of tobacco and rum
sold at Sierra Leone from the prize vessels conveyed there leeward for
sale to the Sierra Leone merchants?—Yes; I believe there were
several cargoes of Brazilian tobacco and of spirits sent down the
coast: I believe, principally to Badagry and that neighbourhood.
5126. That tobacco was, of course, especially imported on the
coast for the purpose of the slave trade?—It was taken out of slave
vessels; therefore, of course, it was.
5127. When it arrived at Badagry, it would consequently be very
acceptable to slave dealers there?—Yes; but they had to pay for it.
5128. Mr. W. Patten.] Did you find when you were at Sierra
Leone that the price paid for goods at auctions exceeded or was below
the price of goods imported in other ways?—The necessary effect
of such large quantities of goods being thrown on the market, and
compelled to be sold at any rate to the highest bidder, was of course
to lower the price; and I consider that the very cheap rate at which
the liberated Africans were able to procure those goods, which, in
former times, they could only obtain at a high price, was what
formed the advantage which they derived from those sales.
5129. How do you account for it, that the merchants at Sierra
Leone do not themselves purchase those goods?—They have not the
money; in fact, they have no money at all. There are only one or
two men that have any money in the place; they are almost all men
who receive their goods from houses in England; they are generally
very much in debt to the persons who send goods to them; and
the only parties who have money in the colony, with the exception
of two gentlemen, are liberated Africans, and many of the latter have
very large sums.
5130. Mr. Forster.] Has the trade at Sierra Leone not, in your
opinion, been a successful trade for some years?—It has been a successful
trade for the liberated Africans.
5131. The question applied to British traders?—I cannot say; I
have not been engaged in trade myself during that time; but I should
think that the English traders must have suffered by the goods
which were thrown on the market from slave vessels, whilst they
had goods which were purchased at a much dearer rate to dispose
of, and had not the money to purchase the low-priced goods
there. But one case I can mention, where a white merchant at
Sierra Leone had the funds to go into the market and compete with
the liberated Africans; he has made a great deal of money by it, and
the more in consequence of his means being so superior to those of
the Africans; but that was because he had money: the losses of the
others were because they had none.
5132. You have spoken of the advantages to the black population
from the sale of those goods, which have led them to become
hawkers and pedlars in the neighbouring country; it is the fact that
the natives of Africa are very much disposed to that species of employment
in preference to agricultural labour?—It certainly is so at
Sierra Leone.
5133. Then the advantages derived from the encouragement thus
given to them to embark in that species of employment in preference
to the fixed pursuits of agriculture may be questionable on that
ground?—I think not; I think if the liberated African can get
money and can educate his family well, and procure all that he
wants by trade, it is just as well as if he procured it by agriculture.
5134. Have you found them practically carrying on any regular
system of agriculture voluntarily?—Not for export: there have been
some articles cultivated, but to no very great extent: ginger, and
pepper, and cassada, but cultivation has not been carried to any
great extent for export at Sierra Leone.
5135. How do you account for cultivation and improvement having
made so little progress in Sierra Leone after all the efforts of the
party in this country, and all the money which has been expended
upon it?—I doubt the proposition contained in the question; I think
that they have made progress.
5136. Planting and cultivation is carried on there to a great extent?—No,
it is not; but the people have other means of procuring
what they require.
5137. Have any means been taken, or if taken, have they been
successful, for promoting any regular system of agriculture or planting
in the neighbourhood of Sierra Leone?—No, I think not, and I am
very sorry for it; I think more might have been done in the way of
premiums upon produce, and giving prizes for successful cultivation.
5138. In fact, has any thing been done in that way?—Nothing
whatever, I believe, of late years. There was an agricultural society
that existed many years before I went to the colony, which offered
premiums, but the members of it died, and the scheme fell to the
ground.
5139. The attempts of that society, in fact, were not successful?—No;
it was before my time; I cannot speak positively to the efforts
that were made; it is a great many years ago now.
5140. Can you distinguish the amount of captures to the south
and north of the Line?—Yes; in 1838, 15 out of 30 vessels, either
were captured, or took on board their slaves to the westward of Cape
Palmas, or one-third of the vessels which were detained with full cargoes
of slaves on board, or four out of seven, if we only look to the
vessels detained in the West Indies. The whole, or very nearly, of
the slave trade carried on in the north, or rather west of Cape Palmas,
is for the supply of the island of Cuba, and generally on
account of the Havannah merchants. In the following year, “of the
61 vessels which passed through the courts during the year 1839,
three were captured in the West Indies, the remainder on this coast,
eight to the southward of the Line, but none below the latitude of
4 deg. 58 min. south, and of 50 vessels captured north of the Line,
30 were met with to the eastward and 20 to the westward of Cape
Palmas.”
5141. Mr. W. Patten.] Does not the return distinguish from what
part of the coast those vessels came?—Yes; it goes into all the particulars
of the places from which they came, and the places to which
they went, and to which they took their cargoes; 18 of the whole
number had slaves on board, 11 having shipped their slaves in parts
to the eastward of Cape Palmas, and seven to the westward of the
same point, and the river where they shipped them is mentioned.
5142. Mr. Forster.] Supposing that the time should arrive when
the greatest number of prize vessels should be brought from the
southward, would you in that case consider Sierra Leone to be the
place best adapted for the mixed commission?—If that arose from
the slave trade being permanently at an end in the north, I should
say, that the commission should certainly follow the course of the
slave trade.
5143. Mr. W. Patten.] From the position you held, had you any
information, officially or otherwise, of knowing the state of the slave
trade to the south of the Line?—No, except what I got from papers
found on board detained vessels, and from conversation with naval
officers.
5144. From information so obtained, were you led to believe that
the slave trade on the coast of Africa, taking both the east and west
coast, had increased or decreased during the period you were there?—It
had decreased in the bights, so as to be almost entirely destroyed
at one time.
5145. The question refers to the coast on the south of the Line?—When
it was suppressed to a great extent in the bights, it was driven
both north and south of the bights; the old slave trade rivers in the
bights were the principal places frequented by slave vessels, but the
whole efforts of the cruizers were directed to that point, and the
trade was almost entirely suppressed in those rivers, the Bonny and
many others.
5146. You had no information which could enable you to judge
whether the slave trade on the whole had increased or decreased
during your residence at Sierra Leone?—I should say, that it decreased
during the last two years I was there, from the immense
number of captures that were made.
5147. It has been stated by a witness on the Committee, Captain
Bosanquet, that in his belief, the slave trade south of the line, has
increased materially during the last 10 years?—I think Captain
Bosanquet refers to the eastern coast.
5148. Captain Bosanquet stated that he was, at two periods, on
the coast, and that at the last period he found the slave trade going
on with much more violence than at the first?—The effect of the
suppression of the slave trade in the bights was to drive the slave
trade both north and south, and it increased in the north and south,
but I should say that the whole extent of the slave trade had decidedly
decreased during the last two years.
5149. Do you think that it is a very material decrease?—I do.
5150. Do you know any particular places on the coast to which
slavers have resorted, more especially since it has been so much
checked on the west coast north of the Line?—It increased to the
south; there have been many more Brazilian captures made in the rivers
immediately south of the Line, of late years, than there were before;
but the great diminution in the bights has not been made up by the
increased slave trade either north or south.
5151. Mr. Stuart Wortley.] Will you explain what period you refer
to when you use the expression, “of late years”?—In the years
1835 and 1836, it began to diminish, and in 1837 there was hardly
any slave trade at all in the bights.
5152. Then, I understand you to say that there has been an increase
of captures south of the Line since the years 1835 and 1836?—Yes,
there has been.
5153. Could the capture of vessels under Portuguese colours have
taken place till 1836?—It could have taken place if the same rule
had been applied then as was applied in 1838.
5154. But in fact were there any captures made?—No, the rule
was not applied till 1838.
5155. Then when you speak of the increase of captures since 1835,
you mean that the practice of making captures south of the Line has
been introduced since that period?—Yes; and I would observe with
respect to that, that the Act of Parliament for the suppression of the
Portuguese slave trade really did very little good. I am alluding to
the Act which was passed in order to catch vessels south of the Line,
because we already dealt with them in the way I have mentioned, and
the only trade the Act could possibly affect, was the trade carried on
between the Portuguese islands off the coast and the main-land.
5156. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you mean Prince’s Island?—Prince’s
Island and St. Thomas.
5157. Mr. W. Patten.] Seeing that the sale of those goods at
auctions conduces in some degree to the continuance of the slave
trade on that coast, can you point out any other means by which
those goods can be disposed of without contributing to the encouragement
of that trade?—I do not see how it is possible to form regulations
which shall follow the goods through all the hands into
which they pass.
5158. Sir T. D. Acland.] Could they be sold elsewhere?—Yes,
there is trade on the coast; but I think it would be very injurious to
interfere with trade.
5159. Mr. Patten.] Do you think that if the captors of the slave
vessel were allowed to take the vessels and cargoes, they having been
condemned, and sell them in any other country, they might not make
greater gains than they do by selling them on the spot?—It is possible
that they might make greater gains, but it would be impossible
for the court to allow goods that have been once submitted to their
jurisdiction regularly to pass into other hands for disposal. When
the goods are condemned, they are placed under the authority of the
marshal, to be dealt with according to the decision of the court; it
cannot allow that decree to be carried into effect by any other than
its own officers.
5160. According to the present law, it cannot; but do not you
think that arrangements might be made by which the parties making
the capture might derive greater benefit from the capture, by being
enabled after the condemnation to dispose of the goods in another
country?—I think the captors would not benefit by such a regulation;
it would take them away from their cruizing stations, where
they have an opportunity of making other captures.
5161. Have you not heard complaints made by the captors of the
very little benefit they obtain from it?—Yes; but I think without
good grounds.
5162. Can you state what is the highest amount that you have
heard of paid to a cruizer for the capture of a slaver?—I do not know
any thing of the reward given in England; it does not come before
us in any way whatever; that is an affair between the captor and
the Government. But it is not the captor, strictly speaking, that is
injured in this case; for the captor, as far as the court is concerned,
has no interest whatever; the goods are not condemned as a prize to
the captor, but as a prize to the British and foreign Governments,
and the British Government may pay or withhold its moiety, if it
pleases. It generally gives it to the captor, but it is in its power to
pay any smaller sum. The captor has no claim, except upon the
bounty of Government, with respect to the goods sold at auctions.
5163. But does it not come to this, that the remuneration paid to
the captor depends upon the value of the cargo which he captures?—Where
a captor has seized a cargo, it does; but cases vary very
much; for instance, many vessels are seized quite empty, without
any cargo; many vessels come over without any cargo, I should say
the great proportion. Where a vessel is full of slaves, the interest of
the captor is not affected, because the bulk of his remuneration depends
upon the head-money he gets for the slaves.
5164. Can you account for this circumstance, that in a return
made to Parliament, in the list of vessels that have been sold, it appears
that the proceeds or effects of one vessel have amounted to
1,108l., and the charges on the sale have amounted to 585l. out of
the 1,108l.?—It seems very enormous, but I must know the circumstances
of the case.
5165. This is the passage, “On the following cases of slave trade
vessels sent in for adjudication to the commission courts of Sierra
Leone by Captain Tucker of Her Majesty’s ship Wolverine, the
charges here detailed were made: The San Antonia Victirioso, a
Brazilian vessel, the proceeds and effects of that sale were 1,108l.,
and the charges on the sale were 585l.”?—I cannot account for it;
it did not happen in my time; I should know the name of the vessel
if it had.
5166. Chairman.] Can you, from your knowledge of the usual
course of proceeding, explain the circumstances under which such a
charge could have arisen?—No; I know what the expenses are likely
to be, and I might account for a portion of it in that way.
5167. Mr. W. Patten.] Will you state the expenses in detail?—The
expenses on Brazilian vessels were enormous, owing to the duty
that was levied at Sierra Leone by the customs, on spirits and tobacco.
The spirits and tobacco that are sent in Brazilian slave vessels
are of a very inferior quality indeed, and the duty levied is very
high; in many cases exceeding the value of the goods; so much so,
that I took it upon myself a short time before I gave up my situation,
to abandon the whole of several cargoes of spirits and tobacco to
the custom-house, because the goods would not sell at the auction
for the amount of the duty. I thought that the captors had great reason
to complain; but subsequently to that, an Act was passed by the
Governor in Council there, which was brought in by myself, to meet
this exigency, and since that time I do not think that the captors
have any reason to complain about the duty levied on those goods.
5168. Chairman.] What was the nature of the Act you allude
to?—It put on an ad valorem duty instead of a fixed duty; the value
of the articles alluded to was so small, that when you put a fixed
duty upon them, a duty that was framed to meet tobacco and spirits
from England, which were of a very different quality, they were
hardly worth any thing beyond the duty; and I should suppose that
was the principal cause of the heavy charges now referred to; but I
know nothing of the case.
5169. Mr. W. Patten.] To take another case: the Palmira, a
Spanish vessel was captured, the effects produced 1,824l., and 582l.
were the charges?—That is not in my time.
5170. Chairman.] Do you explain that by the same circumstance?—No;
not knowing any thing of the circumstances of the case, I
cannot explain it; the vessel may have been detained for several
months at the desire of the captor; but I am quite sure that, with
the exception of one or two items, and heavy items, of which the
captors, I think, had a right to complain, and over which the court
had no control, the expenses were not unreasonably heavy.
5171. What other items had they reason to complain of besides the
one you have mentioned, of the heavy duty upon the article?—With
regard to translating documents. I pressed this evil very strongly
upon the Government at home, and they have remedied that since.
It was found that very great benefit arose to the court from translating
all documents almost that were found on board detained
slavers, because, in consequence of those translations, we were able
to condemn many vessels which would have escaped if it had not
been for the translation of papers found on board former vessels,
which gave a full history of the transactions in which those vessels
subsequently taken were engaged. The translations were made at a
heavy expense, and were included in the captor’s expenses, and it
could not be avoided; it fell very heavily, indeed, upon the captors;
and I recommended that the translator should be adopted by the
court, and paid in the same way as other officers of the court, and
that his remuneration should be charged in the contingent expenses,
which are borne equally by the British Government and the foreign
Government, so as to relieve the captors altogether. The court felt a
delicacy when they would have wished to have a translation of particular
papers, in having it done, because the expense fell so very
heavily upon the captors.
5172. Mr. W. Patten.] Doctor Madden recommends that “the
captors should be allowed to furnish their own interpretation of the
documents that require to be translated, subject to the approval and
revision of the British Commissioners?”—That is impossible, you
can never allow a man to interpret in his own cause. If you left it
to the captor to decide upon what papers he would have translated,
he would have none translated, if the condemnation of his vessel was
secure without it; but now there is no inducement to captors to withhold
papers, because the whole expense of the translation is at present
borne by the Government.
5173. Chairman.] In consequence of suggestions made to the
Government here?—Yes; in consequence of suggestions made in
1839.
5174. Mr. W. Patten.] Doctor Madden also says, “in many
cases more than half the prize-money that the captors had reason to
expect is swallowed up in the charges made by the various officers at
Sierra Leone employed in taking care, and ultimately disposing of
the effects of the captured vessel.” Do you know what are the
charges that would come under the other charge?—Yes.
5175. Can you distinguish those from the charges you have mentioned?—In
the case of an empty Spanish vessel, it is not at all
likely that the captor will receive much from the sale of the vessel
or effects, because the vessel is cut up into a number of different
parts, and those are sold for fire-wood in a country where fire-wood
is tolerably plentiful; and, therefore, the expenses that are incurred
previously to cutting up, will absorb any thing that can be derived
from the old vessel cut up and sold as fire-wood. As far as the
goods are concerned, the only charge, besides the duty, is the commission
of the commissioner of appraisement and sale, which the
captor would have to pay whoever sold the vessel, without having
the security which he possesses now of having a good man, or the
richest merchant in the place as the person answerable for the money,
because in appointing the commissioner of appraisement and sale,
the Court takes bond to a very large amount, that he shall account
properly for the proceeds of the goods sold; he charges the ordinary
commission, 5 per cent., and 21⁄2 per cent. for expenses; and I believe
that there is no other charge except the pay of the Kroomen, employed
as labourers, and the marshal.
5176. Mr. Forster.] Do you think Dr. Madden’s complaint upon
the subject correct?—“The intervention of the whole present establishment
of marshals, collectors, surveyors, interpreters, harbour-masters,
agents, storekeepers, canoe-hirers, and victuallers of captured
ships’ crews might be dispensed with.” I do not know what he
means by “marshals;” we have only one marshal for the court.
There is only one collector of customs, and with him we have nothing
to do; he is the officer of the Crown, who collects the same duties
from these vessels as he would do from any other vessels; we have
no control over him; he is independent of the court; the surveyor is
not employed by the court, but subsequently to the condemnation of
the vessel, he is employed by the captor to survey, in order to enable
him to make a claim according to the tonnage, through his agent in
England; that is a question with which we have nothing to do. The
interpreter is paid by the court; he gets 5s. for each examination, or
something of that kind; he is a poor man; they could not get it
cheaper done, and there is no hardship in that. The harbour-master
charges exactly the same for a prize-vessel as he does for an English
vessel; there is a regular fee, under an Act of the Governor and
Council; we do not collect it. I do not know who are meant by
“agents,” or “storekeepers,” or “canoe-hirers;” I do not know
whom he refers to there.
5177. Mr. W. Patten.] You do not know of any charges connected
with those departments that you have read over?—I know nothing
about “agents” and “storekeepers.” There may be a charge where
goods are kept, but I do not recollect a cargo ever having been kept,
for it is landed and sold immediately; the auctioneer is obliged to
sell it under the regulations within a certain time. There are canoes
employed to land the cargo by the marshal and by “victuallers of
captured ships’ crews.” I do not know whom he means.
5178. Is there any expense thrown upon captured vessels in case
of slaves being brought on shore, for the maintenance of the slaves
after they are put on shore?—I mentioned in the early part of my
evidence that on their being landed they were handed over to the
liberated African department, to be kept as slaves until adjudication.
They are fed by the liberated African department at the ordinary
rate at which the other liberated Africans in the yard are fed; and
when the vessel is condemned, the liberated African department
brings to the marshal his account for feeding them, at the same rate
which is charged for other liberated Africans; I think it is 11⁄2d. per
head per day, or something of that kind; and there is a further
charge, I think, of 4d. or 6d. per day in the hospital; those are
expenses over which the court has no control.
5179. Is any of that charge made upon the share which goes to
the captors?—Yes; it comes out of the proceeds of the vessel; they
pay half, as it were; it goes in diminution of the moiety which goes
to the British Government.
5180. Mr. Evans.] The captor has no claim upon that?—The
captor has no claim upon it, except from the bounty of Government.
5181. Chairman.] But the Government does generally hand over
its moiety to the captor?—Yes.
5182. Then by whatever amount that moiety is diminished, the
captor’s share is diminished?—Yes.
5183. Mr. W. Patten.] If any means could be discovered of doing
away with those great expenses on the sale of captured vessels, do
not you think that it would give great stimulus to cruizers on the
coast?—I do not think they require a stimulus; but I do not think
it is possible to diminish the charges materially in the shape of
duties, which is the heavy item. In translating the papers, they
have been already relieved, and also in a great measure from the
duties; and I really do not think that there is any change that can
materially diminish the expenses, so as to have the services properly
performed.
5184. Chairman.] Those are services which must be performed by
somebody, which can hardly be performed at less expense than they
are now performed, and if the expenses are to be defrayed, they must
be defrayed by the Government or by the captors?—Yes: certainly.
5185. And the Government gets the moiety of the proceeds, but
out of its bounty habitually makes over that portion to the captor?—Yes.
5186. You do not think it unfair that the bounty should be diminished
by those expenses, not being extravagant expenses, in your
opinion?—The bounty granted by Act of Parliament is not diminished.
Cases do happen sometimes, as the case of the Passos,
where the expenses exceed the proceeds, and in those cases the
Government pays the difference, leaving the bounty perfectly free to
the captor. None of the expenses go in diminution of the bounty
given by Act of Parliament.
5187. But this is a sort of premium given beyond the bounty?—I
suppose it was given to enable them to pay the expenses, but they
get something beyond the expenses, and the bounty comes to them
entire, not suffering any diminution from the general expenses, and
the proceeds go in payment of the expenses.
5188. Mr. W. Patten.] Do they get the bounty in all cases?—Yes,
in all cases captured under the treaties.
5189. If the vessel has no slaves on board, do they receive the
bounty?—Then they get the bounty on the tonnage of the captured
vessel.
5190. Mr. Stuart Wortley.] You have been speaking of cases in
which there are slavers captured on board the prizes; in cases where
there are no slavers captured on board the prizes, is there any charge
made on the proceeds of the vessel on account of the crew?—The
crew of a slaver brought into Sierra Leone never consists of more
than three, therefore the expense cannot be very great; the adjudication
generally takes place on the eighth day after arrival, and there
is a regular sum which is given day by day in money to each man;
as far as I recollect it, the captain and mate get 3s. a day, and the
other man 2s.
5191. Whatever the amount of that charge is, it is made against
the proceeds of the vessel?—Yes.
5192. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you recollect sending a despatch
home in December 1838, giving your opinion upon the state of the
slave trade?—There is a despatch here upon the subject.
5193. Does that despatch refer to the subject of this country
retiring from the contest which it has so long carried on?—Yes, I
think it does, but I can find the passage.
5194. Can you state what the opinion was?—The opinion expressed
was, that unless more effectual means were taken for the suppression
of the traffic, that perhaps more harm than good was done by the
exertions that we had made previously; but since that time a very
great alteration has taken place; I expressed my opinion with regard
to an increase of the force on the coast, and the occupation of British
territory that belonged to us, where we were supplanted by the slave
traders, at Bulama especially, and also as to the punishment of the
crews engaged in the slave trade.
5195. Have any of those measures which you recommended been
carried into effect?—The Portuguese have been driven from Bulama,
and a much more effectual method of cruizing has been followed;
very superior vessels have been employed.
5196. Have you now any doubt of the propriety of continuing our
policy?—Certainly not: with regard to cruizing under the present
system, I would propose increasing the force still, and employing a
certain number of steam-vessels; indeed, there are several measures
that I might propose. The occupation of Bulama was referred to;
I think that would be an important measure; it was urged very
strongly in that despatch to which I have been referred, and the
commander of the Brisk, Captain Kellett, then for the first time
visited the place, and drove the Portuguese slave traders from it, and
carried away the slaves who were kept in the barracoons there.
Another proposition was, sending home foreign crews, and perhaps
I may be allowed to read the passage containing it:—“The only
other suggestion which we shall at present offer is, the adoption of
means to secure the punishment of persons implicated in slave trade
adventures. As things are now managed, the confiscation of a slave
vessel affects only the owner or the underwriters; and the parties
who navigate the condemned vessel are constantly seen to embark
again, on a second illegal voyage, a few days after the termination of
the first. The complete personal impunity which attends the agents
by whom illegal slave trade is carried on, combined with the high
wages by which their services are secured, renders the slave trade,
notwithstanding all its inconveniences, the most desirable employment
for the Spanish and Portuguese sailor. On this subject we beg
leave to refer your Lordship to Class A., 1824-1825, pages 142 and
143; and to Class A., 1836, pages 217 and 218. The plan which
we now propose for adoption, with regard to slave vessels captured
on this coast, and condemned at Sierra Leone, is applicable, with
some modifications, to similar seizures in other parts of the world;
but its effect may be tried here in the first instance. Both the
Portuguese and Spanish treaties require that the captain, and a part,
at least, of the crew, of a captured slave ship should be left on
board; and this clause, whilst it sanctions the present almost invariable
practice of sending up only the master, and one or two of the
seamen, of a detained vessel, as witnesses before the mixed courts,
and landing the remainder of the crew, as soon as possible, at the
nearest or most convenient port, equally permits the detention of the
whole of the crew, if it should be thought necessary, and we now
beg leave to recommend the latter course, with a view to ulterior
proceedings against all the guilty parties. The hulk already fixed
at Sierra Leone may be used as a temporary receptacle for such
prisoners; and one small steamer, or vessel of war, might be constantly
employed in conveying the prisoners from this place to
England, to obtain the orders of Her Majesty’s Government as to
their delivery, at Lisbon (if Portuguese), or at Cadiz or some other
port (if Spanish). Portugal and Spain are both bound by treaty, as
well as by their own law, to punish their respective subjects, ‘who
may participate in an illicit traffic in slaves,’ and ‘to assimilate, as
much as possible, their legislation in this respect to that of Great
Britain;’ and those powers will thus enjoy the opportunity of fulfilling
their obligations. The punishment of the guilty persons might
be strongly urged by the British ambassadors; but whether punished
or not, we are persuaded that a more severe blow would be given by
this proceeding to foreign slave trade than it has ever yet received.
No less than 687 Spanish and Portuguese sailors were engaged in
navigating the 30 vessels which came before us last year. All these
men have long since returned to their former occupation; but had
they been withdrawn, as we propose, from their old haunts and
pursuits, carried to Europe far from their slave trading connexions,
fined, imprisoned, and otherwise punished, and left to find their way
back as best they could to Cuba and Brazil, the alarm which would
have been thereby caused amongst the many thousands of seamen
engaged in the same manner, would have done more to check and
injure the illegal traffic than any means that have been adopted for
the last twenty years.”
5197. Mr. Forster.] In the paper you have just read, the necessity
of increased measures for the punishment of the crews of slave vessels
is alluded to; you are not aware, probably, that it is in evidence
before this Committee, that those crews, being landed on the coast
at the nearest point to that at which the capture took place, not
above one in ten of them escape death from destitution and want, in
which case you would probably think the punishment sufficient?—I
was not aware of the fact; but still I would have that one sent
home.
5198. Chairman.] You would rather have the regular punishment
of the sailors?—A total withdrawal of the men from the place where
their slave trading occupation leads them, even if they are not
punished in Portugal and Spain, would have a good effect; they
would be withdrawn so completely from the line of their ordinary
business, that the expense of their finding their way to the Havannah
or the Brazils would deter them from engaging in such voyages,
except at extravagantly high wages.
5199. Mr. Aldam.] Why could not they work their way back?—But
they still would be losing the enormous wages that they would
obtain on board a slave ship.
5200. Mr. W. Patten.] Do you happen to know the wages given
on board the slave ships?—They vary a little; but the wages of a
common sailor I have known to be 5l. a month. I should say a
common seaman on board one of those vessels would obtain, taking
the value which the slaves fetch, 7l. or 8l. a month on a successful
voyage.
5201. Of course, those sailors undertake those voyages, and obtain
that enormous remuneration on account of the danger they run to life
and limb, from coming into the hands of our cruizers?—Yes; English
sailors would, until lately, have been hung if we caught them on
board a slave vessel, and, therefore, we see no English sailors in that
trade; but you would have men of all nations volunteer into it, if it
were not for the danger they ran.
5202. There is nothing in the trade itself, except the danger that
they run from our cruizers, which would lead to such enormous
wages?—Nothing whatever; they may be exposed to very great
inconveniences, and if you increase the inconveniences in the way I
proposed, the wages would double, probably; the rate of wages
depends upon the danger and inconvenience.
5203. Do you think that all the parties usually engaged in the
slave trade are perfectly aware that they run the risk of being put on
shore in case of capture, and of having to undergo great peril of their
lives before they can return to their homes?—It is known in all the
slaving ports; it has been the universal practice ever since the
cruizers were on the station to land the crews; indeed it cannot be
otherwise with the small vessels that we have on the coast. To
venture to take fifty or sixty scoundrels like the crews of those
vessels, on board such a ship, would be madness.
5204. Have you had your attention called to the very great hardship
which some of those crews have sustained when put on shore?—It
has not come before me in any way whatever; I have no knowledge
of it at all; I attended this Committee some time ago, and I
heard of one case, where it was mentioned that they were starved,
but that is the only case I have heard of.
5205. Can you suggest any alteration by which they could be put
on shore and subjected to very great personal inconvenience, without
the dreadful loss of life that we have heard of?—I think they were
as badly off when they were landed at Prince’s, which is a Portuguese
settlement, as they are at any other place.
5206. Would it increase the expenses very materially, or be a very
material inconvenience, to fix upon certain points of the coast at which
the crews could be landed before the vessels were sent to Sierra
Leone for judgment?—I do not think it could be done; it would
take the cruizer out of his ground, and would inconvenience him
greatly; the object is to keep the vessel efficient for the cruize, and
keep him on the ground; an empty vessel might run out, in order to
be taken, while the full slaver got away.
5207. If the regulation were adopted, that a cruizer taking a
slaver in certain districts, which should be detained, should be
obliged to land the crew at particular places; would that be practicable?—I
do not think it is possible.
5208. Mr. Forster.] Independently of the feeling of humanity towards
the crews themselves, do you not think that the example of
such treatment must have a very bad effect in the eyes of the natives
of the coast of Africa, as showing them an example of inhumanity on
the part of those who profess to be acting solely in that way from
motives of humanity?—I have never known a cruizer act inhumanly;
I heard of one case the other day, where they were starved, but it
was stated in that case that it was owing to the refusal of the Portuguese
factories to support them.
5209. Mr. Stuart Wortley.] In the paper you have read, it was
stated that there were 687 sailors engaged in navigating 30 slave
vessels; a short time since you stated that with respect to ships condemned
at Sierra Leone, there were seldom more than three or four
connected with the navigation of a vessel; will you reconcile those
two statements?—They only leave those three or four on board;
they land all but those who are required as witnesses at Sierra
Leone.
5210. There are no individuals belonging to the slave crew retained
on board?—None, but those who are required as witnesses.
5211. Then those individuals of whom you spoke, as being
charges against the vessel, were individuals retained as witnesses?—Yes.
5212. Chairman.] Do you think that the price paid to the Spanish
or Portuguese Governments, as the case might be, would suffice for
the maintenance of the crews of those vessels?—Yes, it would be
only rationing them for the voyage across.
5213. And paying for their passage?—Now we pay continually
out of the foreign moiety for the passage; at least the commissariat
does.
5214. That is for the captain and mate; but here you are supposing
several hundred instead of 20 or 30?—The rationing of the commissariat
commences the moment we cease to have any thing to do
with the vessel; the day the vessel is condemned, there is given to
the commissary a list of the men who will come upon him for rations,
and as long as they remain in the colony they will come upon him
daily; when a number of vessels have been captured, and at one time
we had 37 vessels lying in the harbour at the same time, they would
cause a great drain upon the provisions, which are sent out only to
meet ordinary contingencies; in that case the commissary went to
the expense of hiring vessels to send those men away, and charged
those expenses, in the same way as he would have done the rations,
against the share of the foreign government.
5215. If you brought the crew to Sierra Leone you would increase
the expense of maintenance very considerably?—Yes.
5216. You still consider that the moiety given to the foreign government
would cover such expenses?—Yes, if vessels continued to
be taken as they have been in the last few years, they would do so
certainly. The only case in which I should conceive that the expense
would exceed the moiety, is where very few vessels are condemned,
and where you would have to run across with a very few
passengers.
5217. This could be done by the existing treaty, without the necessity
for any fresh negotiation?—Yes.
5218. Captain Fitzroy.] What becomes of the remainder of that
moiety which goes to the foreign government, the part which is not
used in paying for the maintenance of those men?—I believe there
are always accounts going on between the governments at home, and
it is used in England in some way that I am not aware of; the Treasury
disposes of it either by paying it over to the agent of the foreign
government here, or in some other way.
5219. Is the foreign moiety paid to our Government?—The whole
of it is paid to the commissary at Sierra Leone; he has accounts with
the Treasury; there are regular accounts which are made up as between
the British Government and the foreign government, showing
the exact sum that is due by the English Government to the foreign
Government for their moiety.
5220. Mr. W. Patten.] Looking to the general nature of the vessels
that are sold at Sierra Leone, do you think that they would bring
by auction as large a price if sold in the West Indies, as they would
sold at Sierra Leone?—Yes, I think they would.
5221. Do you think they would bring a larger price?—There have
been vessels sold at the West Indies, but there was not any material
difference in price; it would depend a good deal upon the island to
which they went; in some islands there might be no great demand.
5222. Chairman.] There is a good deal of small traffic, is there
not, along the coasts of the West India islands?—Yes; I should
think the chances are, that the prices vessels would fetch in the West
Indies would be higher than at Sierra Leone.
5223. Mr. W. Patten.] Suppose the station was established at the
West Indies, would there not be the security that they would be sold
without being made use of again for the slave trade?—There might
be. I have strongly recommended that vessels should be sent to the
West Indies, when they have cargoes on board; that the slaves
should be landed in the West Indies, and the vessels, of course,
might be sold there when sent over.
5224. Chairman.] You would bring them to Sierra Leone for adjudication?—Yes;
there could not be a mixed commission established
under the present system in the West Indies; because the
treaty requires that there shall be one mixed commission on the
coast of Africa, and another in the West Indies, and we have one
there already at Havannah.
5225. You would think it a very material advantage, looking to
the slave trade, if those sales could take place at the West Indies instead
of on the coast of Africa?—No; the advantage that I was alluding
to, is an advantage for the supply of labour in the West Indies,
but not with regard to the supply of vessels, because the vessel
might soon run across the Atlantic, and get into the hands of the
slavers, as at present.
5226. If a person wished to obtain those vessels bought in the
West Indies, for the encouragement of the slave trade, he would buy
them at a great disadvantage as compared with the price which he
now pays at Sierra Leone?—Yes; but notwithstanding the higher
price in the West Indies, it is not likely to be such a price that the
owner would not be able to get much more from the slave dealers than
anybody else.
5227. If the sales of the prize vessels and the prize goods were
made in the West Indies rather than at Sierra Leone, would they be
less serviceable in the encouraging the slave trade?—Those particular
goods would.
5228. Would the absence of that mode of supply be in any way an
obstruction to the slave trader?—Certainly not.
5229. Are they got at those prize sales at a cheaper rate than they
are directly from the merchants?—The price goods obtained at
public auctions is much lower than you would buy them for in one of
the shops.
5230. Then by so far as the prize sales in Sierra Leone do furnish a
cheaper article to the slaver than the regular sale would do, so far
they are an assistance to his trade?—The cheapness of goods sold at
Sierra Leone is useful to all trades as well as to that.
5231. But if those sales did not take place at Sierra Leone, they
would not be supplied so cheaply as they are?—It is a very
small portion of assistance they receive; but so far as it goes it is an
assistance.
5232. A vessel sold at Sierra Leone, is more easily convertible to
the purposes of the slave trade, than if it were sold in the West Indies?—More
easily, but not much more so, because the vessel might
be run across at once.
5233. Is there not more demand for vessels in the West Indies
than at Sierra Leone?—Certainly, and therefore the price would be
higher.
5234. Captain Fitzroy.] Is there not also an advantage in having
men disposable, ready to man those ships when purchased?—Yes.
5235. Mr. Forster.] Are not the cases very few in which they
would man the vessels at once again?—I have known cases of that
kind.
5236. But are not the cases comparatively rare?—Yes.
5237. Chairman.] Who generally are purchasers of prize vessels?—The
greater portion are purchased on speculation; the number sold
now is not at all, in proportion to the number taken, what it was before
the Spanish treaty, under which most of the vessels are condemned,
require that the vessels should be cut up, but some are
bought on speculation, and come into the fruit trade, and others go
into the Mediterranean trade; others are bought by slavers.
5238. Mr. Evans.] Do you know any thing of the slave ship Almirante,
for which vessel the sum of 600l. was offered by an officer
of Government, to be used as a tender, which offer was not accepted,
and the vessel was sold at 1,500l., and immediately went down to
the Bonny and took away 600 slaves from that port?—The Almirante
was captured before my time at Sierra Leone, but I think it is very
likely, because such things were taking place continually.
5239. Mr. W. Patten.] When you were at Sierra Leone, you have
stated in your evidence already, that the liberated Africans were carrying
on the trade with much greater advantage than the white merchants,
in consequence of the price at which they obtained goods at
public auctions?—Not entirely in consequence of that, but that has
been one great means to assist them. For many years past, before those
prize goods were sold at Sierra Leone, the liberated Africans had
gradually been working themselves into notoriety; most of them are
very much addicted to trading, and the persons whom they have
supplanted are a lazy, indolent, worthless set, who cannot compete
with them at all, and having completely driven out of the market the
Maroons and settlers, they are now gradually driving out the white
merchants.
5240. There is then this additional disadvantage in those auctions
at Sierra Leone, that they are destroying the trade of the white
merchants of the place, by the other merchants being able to purchase
goods at a price which is not remunerating to the British merchant?—I
consider it a great advantage.
5241. Is it not a great disadvantage in one respect, that it is discouraging
the trade between England and the coast of Africa at that
particular point?—No, I think quite the reverse; the supply of
goods will be the same whoever are the receivers, and the extent of
our export to Sierra Leone will not be diminished by altering the
colour of the merchants there.
5242. But if it should be desirable to establish a general trade
with that part of the coast in a legitimate way, does not the sale of
goods at those public auctions, at materially reduced prices, offer a
great impediment to English merchants conducting trade upon that
part of the coast?—I think its first effect might be that; but its
ultimate effect, I think, would be far different. I think the great
point is to encourage the use of such articles, and to increase the
desire for them; and the British goods will always, in competition,
beat out the foreign goods from the market.
5243. Has it not pretty much the same effect there that a very
large sale, under a bankruptcy in England, has upon the trade in
this country?—I think not, to the same degree there; because what
you require there, in order to create a demand for goods of good
quality is, to allow the people to have the use of something superior
to what they would have without those sales.
5244. Chairman.] But the goods sold at those prize sales are articles
of an inferior kind, are they not?—The goods that are sold
there are very much the same as those that are used by the natives
in their own trade, and probably many of them are British manufacture.
5245. You think that it is an advantage to the trade ultimately,
that those forced sales, at unnaturally low prices, should be made
within the colony, producing a taste which will be gratified by a
more regular trade?—Yes.
5246. Though they may interfere with the regular trade in the
colony?—That is only for a time.
5247. Mr. Aldam.] Are the goods English goods?—The principal
part of them are.
5248. Chairman.] Those forced sales have had a very injurious
effect upon the regular trade of the place, have they not?—Yes,
upon the shops; at the same time they have raised into wealth, and
brought forward still more prominently than before, the liberated
African hawkers.
5249. Have they created a class of native traders who have
extended commerce inland further than British trade by itself, in its
natural course, would have done?—Yes, certainly; the trade between
Sierra Leone and the Sherboro’, and the rivers in the neighbourhood
of Sierra Leone, has been very much more brisk in the large canoes
that are employed by the liberated African traders, since goods have
come in so cheaply.
5250. Therefore you think, incidentally to the regular trade, advantage
has been given by these forced sales, which have created tastes
which would not have existed under other circumstances?—Yes.
5251. Mr. Forster.] The brisk trade which you have spoken of
between Sherboro’ and Sierra Leone would be with those goods; a
trade chiefly with the slave dealers in that quarter?—All are slave
dealers, if they can be, beyond British jurisdiction; but what the
Sierra Leone traders receive in exchange for goods are rice, and
other articles of produce, which are consumed in the colony; for
though rice is the principal food of all who can afford to pay for it,
there is no rice raised in the colony; and therefore a trade of some kind
is required to be carried on, in order to procure the means of subsistence.
5252. Chairman.] The colony has not the means of supporting
itself?—No.
5253. Mr. Forster.] Though those goods may be sold to slave
dealers in those districts, you think that it is a legitimate and desirable
trade for the English merchant?—Yes.
5254. Mr. Evans.] Have you not stated that the black merchants
at Sierra Leone have more capital than the English?—There are
hardly any English merchants; there are agents of English houses.
The black merchants have twice as much capital as the resident
English agents, but there is one merchant, Mr. William Cole, who
is carrying on business on his own account, and he went into the
market, he did not hold back and oppose the thing, as was done by
the other English traders, but he entered into competition with the
black traders, and made a good deal of money by it.
5255. In Sierra Leone merchants who had capital to employ
would have considerable advantage over the agents or merchants who
had not the money to lay down?—Yes.
5256. Mr. Forster.] Was not the want of money you have alluded
to on the part of the English merchants, mainly owing to having
their stores filled with English merchandize, which was rendered
completely unsaleable by the quantity of prize goods thrown into the
market in the way you have mentioned?—I think not, because
Mr. Cole was in just the same circumstances; he had the largest store
in the town; but he had more money than the others; he had money
in his pocket instead of being in debt in England, and instead of
sending home money as others were obliged to do to pay their
accounts in England, he reserved his money to purchase cheap goods
in the colony.
5257. Had he a large stock?—Yes, he had; but he took advantage
of the circumstances that occurred, and made his profit by them.
5258. Would it answer the purpose of the trader at Sierra Leone
to keep a large quantity of goods and money on his hands?—If Mr.
Cole had known of those prize goods coming in such large quantities
he would not have purchased goods from England, but he happened
to have those goods in store as the other merchants had, and he happened
to have money also, and he took advantage of the prize goods
coming in, but there were very few merchants in that position.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Viscount Courtenay.
Mr. Denison.
Mr. W. Evans.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Milnes.
Mr. W. Patten.
LORD VISCOUNT SANDON, IN THE CHAIR.
Henry William Macaulay, Esq. called in, and further examined.
5261. Chairman.] Do you wish to make some remarks upon Dr.
Madden’s Report, page 14?—I do. He states that liberated Africans
at the prize sales at Sierra Leone “buy up the coppers, guns, and
ship’s stores of vessels for the British agents of the slave traders of
the Sherboro’ and Gallinas residing at Freetown, and thus they acquire
a taste for this illegal traffic.” Now he might have known, if he had
made any inquiry at Sierra Leone, that coppers are never sold at
public auction, or any kind of equipment for the slave trade. The
subject is referred to by Colonel Doherty in his reply to Dr. Madden’s
Report. He gives a positive contradiction to that statement, and I
can confirm the contradiction.
5262. To what are the sales confined?—To the vessels and the
goods found on board, and to the tackle, apparel, and furniture; that
is the term used in the condemnation; but coppers, irons, and any
other articles that may be used again in the slave trade are always
brought up to the commission-office or warehouses. It is the interest
of the Mixed Commissions to gain every single copper they can; for,
when broken up, the coppers are sold, and supply funds from which
the repairs of the boat used in the service of the Mixed Commission
are paid; that is, the boat used to carry about the officers of
the court in the harbour.
5263. Do you mean that the accommodation which the officers derive
is dependent upon that?—No; but they are constantly afloat.
During the time that a vessel is there the marshal is required to visit
her three times a day.
5264. But is the accommodation dependent upon its being derived
from this source?—No; whenever that copper fund is insufficient,
the repairs of the boat are paid out of the funds of which the foreign
governments pay a portion; but the money derived from the sale of
the coppers is appropriated to that purpose, and there is a regular
account kept of the sale of those coppers that are broken up. There
never was an instance of a copper being sold at public auction, or any
equipment.
5265. Have you any reason to believe that this practice does lead
to the encouragement of the slave trade?—I have none whatever.
5266. Have you reason to believe that any of the parties, either
British or native, living at Freetown, are in any way sharers in the
proceeds of slave transactions?—They may sell goods to the slave
traders.
5267. Are they sharers in the proceeds of slave goods?—I believe
not; I cannot say for certain, because we have a shifting population
of Spaniards and Portuguese passing through the colony; but I
should say no resident whatever shares in such proceeds. It is a thing
which one cannot know, because of course such a transaction would
be concealed if it existed.
5268. Are you not aware of any British agents of the slave traders;
are you aware of the existence of agents of the Sherboro’ and of
Gallinas residing in Freetown?—Yes, of persons purchasing vessels
on account of slave traders, and I have no doubt purchasing goods also.
5269. What is the interest in the transaction which such persons
have?—A commission, I presume.
5270. Mr. Forster.] In your former evidence, you have mentioned
a merchant, of the name of Kidd, as acting as agent for the purchase
of prize vessels on behalf of the slave traders at the Gallinas; in your
opinion, was Mr. Kidd singular in that respect?—I do not recollect
any other person employed in that way during my time.
5271. Is it within your knowledge that merchants, who were
members of the Council of Government at Sierra Leone, have been
engaged in similar transactions?—Never, to my knowledge; but I
would also mention, as Mr. Kidd’s name has been spoken of, that,
since the last meeting of the Committee, I have met with his name
accidentally, in connexion with another transaction of the same kind,
in the printed Parliamentary Papers, and therefore I may refer to it.
It is the case of a vessel sold to a slave trader, a vessel called the
Ligeira, which was captured a second time, and brought into Sierra
Leone a very short time after she left the port; it appeared that in the
meantime Mr. Kidd had carried her from the colony and sold her to
a slave trader, and she was captured almost immediately afterwards.
The case is reported at page 101 of Class (A.) of the Slave Trade
Papers, for 1839-40.
5272. Chairman.] Would it not be desirable, if possible, that all the
vessels taken in the slave trade should be broken up?—Certainly, it
would be the best thing that could possibly be done; and in those
cases where it appeared to the court, during the latter part of the time
that I administered the mixed courts there, that a vessel could have
been condemned either as a Portuguese or a Spaniard, in all these
cases we condemned her as a Spaniard, in order that she might be cut
up after her condemnation; for the slave traders were seriously
injured by being deprived of the means of getting off the coast and
getting slaves again.
5273. Mr. W. Patten.] In the case of the breaking up of a vessel,
do the captors get any prize money?—Yes, they get a bounty on the
tonnage of that vessel; she is measured by the surveyors before being
broken up, in order to ascertain her tonnage by the new mode of measurement,
and upon that measurement the captors are paid the bounty
in England.
5274. It is immaterial to the captors whether the vessel is broken
up or sold again, so far as their private interests are concerned?—Except
that the vessel sells whole for much more than she does when
she is broken up for fire-wood.
5275. Is the vessel valued only as fire-wood when broken up?—They
get only a moiety of the proceeds of the broken parts, in the
other case they get a moiety of a vessel fit for sea, with all the rigging
perfect.
5276. You do not coincide with Dr. Madden, who recommends
that a vessel when captured should be put into the possession of the
capturing officer to be disposed of?—It would be quite impossible;
the foreigners would very justly complain of us if we left the vessel in
charge of the officer when once brought before the court. It appears
by a paper, which I have seen this morning only, that already they
complain of irons and other things, to condemn the vessel, being put
on board after the arrival of the vessel at Sierra Leone. Now, if during
the time the vessel was passing through the court, and during the
time when the marshal now has charge of her, in order to prevent
any thing of that kind happening, you left the vessel to the officer,
who is interested in putting three or four shackles on board, which is
quite sufficient to condemn the vessel, I think they would have just
cause to complain.
5277. What Dr. Madden recommends is, that when the vessel has
been condemned it should be put at the disposal of the commanding
officer on the post, for the exclusive use of the service of the navy?—A
small number of the vessels condemned might perhaps be beneficially
made use of, and the new Act authorises the purchase of
vessels when the commanding officer may think it right to purchase
them; but having had that option, he of course only purchased such
vessels as were required; we had 60 odd vessels in 1839 before the
court; what would the navy have done with all those vessels?
5278. Mr. Forster.] Had many of those vessels cargoes on board?—Yes.
5279. Chairman.] Should you think it would be advisable to sell
the vessels under bond that they should not be employed in the slave
trade for a certain period?—The law is now almost as stringent as
any bond could be.
5280. In what way?—Dr. Madden seems to suppose that vessels
may be fitted out in Sierra Leone, and may lie in British waters
equipped for the slave trade; but any one at Sierra Leone would
have told him that no vessel could possibly lie there equipped for the
slave trade; the authorities are so particular, that even in many cases
vessels were seized and brought before the court if they were supposed
to have a few gallons too much water in them. There is an
exceeding jealousy on the subject, as indeed appears by some of the
papers which have been presented.
5281. Mr. Forster.] Before what court is a vessel, taken in British
waters, equipped for the slave trade, brought; the Court of
Admiralty or the Court of Mixed Commission?—If she is prosecuted
under the Act of Parliament, she is prosecuted of course in the Vice-Admiralty
Court.
5282. Is there not a rule on that subject, and are not all vessels
taken in British waters on suspicion of being engaged in the slave
trade prosecuted in the Admiralty Court?—No; it remains with the
captor, if there is a treaty which will reach the vessel, to prosecute
her under that treaty before the Mixed Commission Court, if she is
a Spaniard or a Portuguese, or before the Admiralty Court, for a
breach of the municipal law, because she violates both the treaty and
the municipal law, and therefore he has the choice of the one court
or the other.
5283. In your last evidence you spoke of a vessel captured of the
name of Jack Wilding, at Accra, upon that ground; in which court
was she prosecuted?—Before the Mixed Commission Court, but the
captor had the option of prosecuting her before the Admiralty Court;
the expenses are so much less in our court, and the proceedings so
much more rapid, that he preferred bringing her before ours.
5284. Is not the evidence taken before the Mixed Commission
Court transmitted to England?—Yes; and it is published by the
Foreign Office.
5285. But the evidence in trials before the Vice-Admiralty Court
is never made public?—It is not, and a very great disadvantage it is,
for this reason: our ability to condemn many of the vessels that were
condemned in 1839 depended very much upon evidence found on
board vessels brought before the court; this evidence conclusively
proved the employment in the slave trade of other vessels not then
before us, which were afterwards captured. Now, all evidence of
that kind, which might be made use of subsequently in the condemnation
of other vessels, is completely shut up from the public or from
general knowledge, by the proceedings before the Vice-Admiralty
Court being never made public. In the Mixed Commission Court
papers can be invoked by the proctor which have been filed in a
particular case against another vessel that is subsequently prosecuted.
5286. Chairman.] Is there no advantage in the secrecy of such
papers?—None whatever.
5287. The proceedings before the Mixed Commission Court are
public in themselves, and are published afterwards?—The examinations
are not public, but strictly private in the first instance, but they
are read in open court at the trial of the vessel, and they are sent
home to the Foreign Office; an abstract of the evidence of every
witness is given.
5288. The evidence taken before the Vice-Admiralty Court is not
published in any way?—No.
5289. Is it communicated to the Mixed Commission?—No.
5290. Mr. Aldam.] Are the proceedings of the Vice-Admiralty
Court there carried on in the same form as the proceedings of the
Admiralty Court here?—Yes, very much the same.
5291. With any greater degree of secrecy?—No, but here the
public papers publish them; we have no newspapers there to publish
accounts of the proceedings.
5292. Chairman.] Would there be an advantage if the proceedings
of the Vice-Admiralty Court were always communicated to the
Mixed Commission?—Yes; and I recommended at the time when
vessels began to go so frequently to the Vice-Admiralty Court, in
1839, that we should be informed of the papers filed in that court.
5293. Would there be any difficulty or objection to that?—There
is no establishment of clerks connected with the Vice-Admiralty
Court to supply copies at all, and it is not the custom of the judge of
the Vice-Admiralty Court to report his proceedings home.
5294. Mr. Evans.] Do you think that the Mixed Commission Court
has sufficient power for the objects for which it is instituted?—I think
that they have. They have been rather shy of exercising it sometimes,
but I believe that they do possess much more power than they
ever exercised.
5295. You have no improvement in the court to suggest?—No.
There seemed to be a deficiency of authority in the marshal a short
time ago; but that was supplied by a local Act, which gave him all
the power which the marshal of the Vice-Admiralty Court possesses.
5296. Chairman.] It is stated by Dr. Madden, in page 14, that the
new interests which he supposes to be created in the minds of the British
residents, especially in the minds of the liberated negroes, “have
a very unfavourable influence upon them when employed in public
situations, or called upon to act as petty juries in our courts.” He
states, “if the case is one which involves the interest of a slave
dealer, no matter what his nation, the disposition of a jury thus
composed is invariably to give a verdict in favour of the slave trader,
unless the chief justice should take extraordinary pains to make them
do their duty honestly and impartially.” Do you know instances in
which this has operated?—No; I believe it never operated in any
case.
5297. What are the cases in which slave dealers come before juries
in Sierra Leone?—Slave dealers have come before them, and been
convicted and executed; I never knew an instance of a man who
ought to have been convicted escaping.
5298. He mentions here an instance of a vessel, the Gollupchik,
being captured and being sold, and becoming the property of certain
London merchants, and being again sent out with a cargo of goods
for the slave trade factories of Gallinas, under British colours, and
commanded by a British subject. “The vessel,” he says, “was
condemned by the Mixed Court of Justice at Sierra Leone, and the
English captain was committed for trial at the ensuing assizes. The
grand jury found a true bill against this man on the clearest evidence,
but the petty jury, all of whom were persons of colour, returned
an unanimous verdict of acquittal, which was received by the
coloured persons in the court, and by some others of similar sentiments,
with decided tokens of approbation.” Are you acquainted
with that case?—Not at all; without knowing the case it would be
impossible to say whether the jury were right or wrong; I have known
cases where they have discharged persons accused of slave dealing,
and where they were right. In the case referred to by Mr. Hartung
of the Echo, the jury thought that the prisoner was not liable to
conviction; but I never knew in my time any man who ought to
have been convicted of slave dealing escape.
5299. Generally speaking, did you find the coloured juries do their
duty in all cases?—Certainly; they do their duty very well.
5300. Mr. W. Patten.] Is it from any particular class that juries
are selected?—The grand juries are selected from the most respectable
inhabitants of Freetown, and the petty juries from shopkeepers
and the reputable class of traders.
5301. Viscount Courtenay.] Who selects them?—The sheriff.
5302. Chairman.]—Has the office of chief justice been frequently
vacant?—It has been vacant several times since I was in the colony,
and an acting chief justice has been appointed.
5303. Who has acted in the interval?—During one interval, Mr.
Melville, who was Queen’s advocate at the time, and Mr. Carr, who
was also Queen’s advocate, and who is now chief justice, officiated
on another occasion.
5304. Were they gentlemen who had a legal education?—Both of
those persons had; but there were two other instances in which the
office was held by men who had no legal education; once by a merchant,
and a second time by the collector of customs.
5305. Was that under the necessity of the case?—Yes.
5306. Mr. Forster.] How long did the collector of customs hold
that office?—A very long time; he held it from the death of Chief
Justice Rankin until the appointment of Mr. Carr as chief justice,
which was probably a year and a half after.
5307. Mr. W. Patten.] Do you know what year it was in?—From
August 1839 till, I think, the end of 1840, or the beginning of 1841.
5308. Mr. Forster.] It is a part of the duty of the chief justice to
deliver the gaol at the Gambia, is it not?—Yes.
5309. Are you aware whether the acting chief justice visited the
Gambia for that purpose during the 18 months in question?—Certainly;
while I was there Mr. Hook visited it.
5310. Do you know how frequently, in each year, it is the duty of
the chief justice to deliver the gaol of the Gambia?—There is no time
appointed; but I consider it a great disadvantage both to the Gambia
and Sierra Leone, having only one chief justice for the two places.
5311. You are not aware whether the Gambia has not been left for
a period of 12 months without a gaol delivery?—No; I think it is
possible that it might be the case between the early part of 1838 and
1839, or between the beginning of 1839 and the beginning of 1840.
There is very great difficulty in getting any person in a colony like
that to fill the situation of chief justice, I mean from among the
residents in the colony.
5312. Are you aware of the cause of the office having been vacant
for the period of 18 months?—No, not at all; I suppose that the
Colonial Government could not find a proper person to send out.
One barrister who was appointed was drowned before he reached
Sierra Leone.
5313. You are not aware that the applications have generally been
extremely numerous for that office whenever it has become vacant?—No.
5314. Mr. Aldam.] What is the system of criminal law in force in
the colonies?—The law of England.
5315. Is it modified at all?—Very little; if it is modified, it is modified
by local Acts passed by the Governor and Council.
5316. Mr. Evans.] Do you think it a good thing to appoint men
of colour to such high offices as those of chief justice or Governor,
in any colony where many English gentlemen reside?—Certainly, if
they are fit for the situations; but at Sierra Leone there is no feeling
whatever except amongst one or two individuals, on the subject of
colour; indeed I believe that the most popular man at the present
time, and almost during the whole time when I was there, was a man
of colour, and who was afterwards Lieutenant-governor; that was
Dr. Ferguson, a man, I believe, universally beloved there.
5317. Mr. Forster.] Do you think that the natives have the same
confidence and respect for a person of that description, as for a white
officer?—I think so; at Sierra Leone, certainly.
5318. Mr. Aldam.] Practically, do you find a great number of
men of colour who are fit to fill high situations in the colony?—There
are not so many men of colour as white men fit to fill the high
situations; but some of the highest situations have been filled in my
time by men of colour, and well filled.
5319. Mr. W. Patten.] Have you any other observation which
you wish to make upon Dr. Madden’s Report?—At page 28, on
“The result of the efforts at present in use for the suppression of the
slave trade,” Dr. Madden mentions “The disappointment the captors
experience at seeing all their arduous efforts for hindering the slave
trade factories from receiving their supplies from the foreign vessels
engaged in this trade completely nullified by the proceedings of our
own merchants and commanders of merchant-vessels, who supply
them with the identical goods and stores which they capture the
foreign vessels for conveying to the coast.” Now I wish particularly,
with reference to that statement, to say, that foreign vessels are
never captured for having goods of any description on board of
them. There appears to have been some error entertained as to the
grounds on which the vessel called the Dos Amigos, which has been
mentioned before, was condemned. That vessel was condemned at
Sierra Leone, and in the report which the Commissioners made to
Government, they stated that the Dos Amigos had been allowed to
lie in Cape Coast Roads fully equipped for the slave trade. It
seems to have been supposed that our complaint was, that she
was carrying goods for the supply of the slave trade; but no
vessel, either British or foreign, has ever been condemned at Sierra
Leone on account of the description of goods that she was carrying.
5320. What is the object which you have in calling the attention
of the Committee to that statement; is it to deny that statement?—There
is a good deal of evidence in the papers before the Committee
on the case of the Dos Amigos. The impression seems to have been,
that the complaint of the mixed commission court at Sierra Leone
against the Governor of Cape Coast Castle, was, that he allowed a
vessel to trade at Cape Coast, which was afterwards captured there
as a slave trader. Now the ground of complaint was quite distinct,
namely, that he allowed a vessel with equipments on board for the
slave trade to be in a British harbour with impunity; it had nothing
to do with the goods whatever.
5321. Chairman.] You do not believe that it would be lawful to
seize and condemn a foreign vessel for conveying to a slave trader
goods and stores that are not included in the equipment article?—I
do not.
5322. Therefore the expression is incorrect that our commanders
of British cruizers must “experience disappointment at seeing all
their arduous efforts for hindering the slave trade factories from
receiving their supplies from the foreign vessels engaged in this trade
completely nullified by the proceedings of our own merchants and
commanders of merchant vessels who supply them with the identical
goods and stores, which they capture the foreign vessels for conveying
to the coast”?—It is impossible that they can feel disappointment
about what never happened.
5323. Mr. W. Patten.] Is it your opinion that the law can be
altered upon this subject for the better?—I think not; any alteration
would, I think, be for the worse. In the next paragraph Dr.
Madden states, that he considers it would be desirable that the men-of-war
vessels on the coast should only be employed two years. I
do not think that any naval officer would agree with him in that
respect; it is not till they have been two years on the coast that they
become acquainted with the arts of the slave dealers, and thoroughly
efficient in the suppression of the slave trade.
5324. In short, it requires considerable experience to ascertain the
best means of capturing the slavers?—Certainly; but on all questions
relating to service on the coast I would recommend that a naval
officer should be examined.
5325. Chairman.] Dr. Madden suggests, “that instead of head-money,
or the bounty of 5l. paid for the capture of each slave, the
pay of men and officers should be doubled, and the promotion of the
former advanced in proportion to the time of service required for it
on any other station in a double ratio.” Are you of opinion that any
inconvenience arises from the present system of head-money?—I do
not think any inconvenience has been found to arise; it was supposed
at one time, and stated rather positively in the House of Lords, that
such an effect had been produced, but a refutation of the statement
was given the same year, for instead of full vessels being taken, there
was not one out of 20 that was taken with slaves on board.
5326. You think that the remuneration to the officers is put upon
the best and fairest footing now?—I would not say that, because I
think the officers are not remunerated sufficiently for empty vessels at
present; the sum received for the capture of an empty vessel is so very
small, and the sum received for the capture of a full vessel so much
larger, that there is no comparison whatever between the two cases;
and there is more good done by the capture of an empty vessel, and
the service is just as arduous.
5327. Have you ever thought of any other system that could be
adopted?—I have suggested an alteration of the bounties on this
scale. It appeared that about three times as many vessels were
captured under the equipment treaties, as were formerly taken, when
only vessels full of slaves were allowed to be captured; and I thought
that the remuneration for an empty vessel should be so calculated,
that it should amount to about one-third of what the officer would
receive if he took a full vessel with the average number of slaves on
board. There would be no difficulty in making the calculation, and
it would be only fair to the officers to give them that advantage.
5328. No such alteration has been made?—No.
5329. Mr. W. Patten.] You would not diminish the head-money
to officers when they captured a vessel full of slaves?—No; it
has been diminished very greatly the last 12 years, from 10l. to 5l.
a head.
5330. What would be the effect of putting all vessels on the same
footing, whether having slaves on board or being empty?—There
would be no difficulty.
5331. Chairman.] Would it not be fairer to make the remuneration
independent of the casual circumstance of whether the vessel was
full or empty?—Yes; it would be taking away the advantage which
the officers now enjoy with full vessels, but I think it would be a fair
thing.
5332. Mr. Forster.] Are officers entitled to the head-money on
slaves taken on shore?—No; the difficulty in that case is, that when
taken on shore they are British subjects, if they are taken in British
territory, and the British law will not acknowledge that they could
be slaves. The difficulty was found some time ago, when a naval
officer went to Bulama and captured several hundred slaves who
were detained there by the Portuguese; he proceeded in the Admiralty
Court, but the judge said, These men are not slaves, they are
taken on British territory. The British law will not allow that any
person can be a slave on British soil; so that the captor was deprived
of his head-money.
5333. A considerable number was taken at the Gallinas by Captain
Denman?—Yes.
5334. Will Captain Denman be entitled to head-money upon those
persons so captured?—He has never received any thing for them, but
I hope he may; if there is any fund from which remuneration on the
ordinary scale can be granted, it would be desirable that such cases
should be dealt with in the same manner as they would be if brought
under the terms of the Act.
5335. Mr. Evans.] If the remuneration was on the tonnage of the
vessel, supposing it was on the same scale as it is now, would that be
a just way of taking it?—Yes; a remuneration on the tonnage,
whether full or empty, would be fair, but the scale should be very
much raised; at present it is miserably low.
5336. I am supposing that it was raised to the average of the present
remuneration for capturing full and empty vessels?—That would
be an improvement.
5337. Mr. W. Patten.] Is there not more difficulty in capturing a
vessel with slaves on board than in capturing an empty vessel?—There
is much less difficulty in capturing a vessel with slaves on board.
5338. Are not more exertions used when a vessel has slaves on
board?—They run away in both cases; but the vessel is impeded
greatly whilst she has her cargo of slaves on board, and there is
more chance of capture, and the chase is less likely to be long, than
with an empty vessel.
5339. Chairman.] The security of condemnation is greater?—Yes.
5340. You stated that there was a difficulty in remunerating the
officers when slaves were taken on shore, on the ground of their
being considered as British subjects; does that apply to Gallinas?—No;
the question did not apply there, but to Bulama, because we
claimed the sovereignty of that island. There is no remuneration,
under any Act of Parliament, for slaves released under those circumstances
which occurred at the Gallinas.
5341. Might there not be some question altogether, whether the
release of slaves on shore was within the proper functions of a
cruizer?—There might, under some circumstances; but in the case
referred to it was a voluntary act on the part of the chief of the
country releasing those slaves; they were detained there by persons
whom the chief considered as his enemies, by whom he was kept in
control, and he was relieved from their control by the Wanderer.
There was a positive application made by the chief of the country.
5342. Then it was not, properly speaking, a duty imposed upon
the commander engaged upon that station?—No, it would be only a
duty under peculiar circumstances.
5343. Therefore such a practice would naturally not be contemplated
by any Act of Parliament?—No.
5344. Mr. Forster.] Do you consider the chiefs of the Gallinas
opposed to the slave trade?—No.
5345. How did they happen to apply for relief against the slave
dealers?—An illegal act had been committed by those chiefs on the
subjects of Sierra Leone, and when redress was demanded the excuse
offered by the chiefs was, that they were held in subjection by the
resident Spaniards there, and that they could not afford the relief
which was required by British subjects, or even prevent British
subjects being carried into slavery, in consequence of the control
which was exercised over them by the Spanish and Portuguese
slave traders.
5346. Do you yourself believe that excuse to be true?—I believe
that it was stated; I have no means of judging of its truth.
5347. Chairman.] It was a justification for the interference of
Captain Denman?—Exactly. By the papers presented to Parliament
it appeared that some women and children at Sierra Leone, as far as I
recollect the case, were taken down to the Gallinas, and were known to
be there, and Captain Denman was instructed by the Governor of Sierra
Leone to go in and demand their liberation, and also to remonstrate
with the chiefs for the offence which had been committed; and also
to inquire how it was that British men-of-war boats going into the
river were refused all supplies, were not allowed to water, and were
even prevented having intercourse with American and other vessels
lying in the river. The principal chief then complained of the treatment
which he received from the Spaniards and Portuguese, and he
requested to be released from their control, and Captain Denman
complied with his request.
5348. Mr. Aldam.] Were there any British subjects found
among the slaves captured at the Gallinas?—None that I am aware
of, except those particular ones that Captain Denman demanded,
and whom he recovered.
5349. Chairman.] Do you believe that there are any instances
of kidnapping out of the territory of Sierra Leone?—Very
few.
At page 34 of Dr. Madden’s Report, there is this passage: “The
charges made for the disposal of these effects,” that is, goods sold
by public auction, “the captors state, and I believe with truth, are
extremely heavy; and in many cases more than half the prize money
that the captors had reason to expect, is swallowed up in the charges
made by the various officers at Sierra Leone, employed in taking
care, and ultimately disposing of, the effects of the captured vessel.
On the following cases of slave-trade vessels sent in for adjudication
to the Commission Courts at Sierra Leone, by Captain Tucker, of
Her Majesty’s ship Wolverine, the charges here detailed were made.”
Then follows the schedule; five out of the nine vessels mentioned in
that schedule were sold, while I was in the court, and with respect to
those five I obtained the heads of the charges yesterday from the
Foreign Office. The Vigilante is the first; the charges were
99l. 1s. 4d., and in that case the sum paid to the collector of customs
for duty was 18l. In the Pampeiro, the charges were 63l., the
duty was 12l. In the Passos, the charges were 22l. 8s., and the
proceeds very small; but in that case the vessel was destroyed at
Prince’s Island, and there were also slaves on board, and the whole
of those charges, for the vessel was only in port a few days, consisted
of the feeding of the slaves, and the duty on the goods which
were found on board, and the marshal’s expenses. The reason of the
small amount of proceeds was, that there was no vessel, and only a few
goods that were brought up in the man-of-war; only a few pieces of
cloth, and such things. In the case of the Firmeza, the charges
were 1,014l. 7s. 5d., but of that sum the duty paid to the customs
was 775l., and the translations were 18l.; so that about 800l. was paid
by the marshal on those accounts out of 1,014l.
5350. Mr. W. Patten.] The translations do not then appear to be
of that onerous nature to the captor, which Dr. Madden, in
the previous part of his statement, says that they are?—They are
very heavy in some cases: I have known them as high as 60l. and
70l. In the Emprendador the expenses are 351l. 19s. 1d.; of that
sum 172l. was paid in duty, and 33l. in translations, making 205l.
out of 351l. Then the other expenses are the five per cent. to the
auctioneer, the marshal’s charges for taking charge of the vessel, and
boats and labourers landing cargo, and also a premium of about six
or six and-one-eighth per cent. difference between the English
money and the currency.
5351. Viscount Courtenay.] Are those fees fixed by a scale settled
by the court?—The fees were fixed by a regular scale, that has been
drawn up on the model of the schedule of fees paid in the Vice-Admiralty
Courts, which was approved of by Dr. Lushington and two
other gentlemen connected with the Admiralty Court in England,
and which schedule was sent out to all the Vice-Admiralty Courts
of our colonies, as the rule by which they were to be guided. In
many cases our charges were less; but in no case, I believe, were
they more than directed in that schedule.
5352. Chairman.] Since those heavy charges which are alluded to
by Dr. Madden have been incurred, the duties, which are one principal
source of expense, have been modified according to your recommendation?—They
have.
5353. What would have been the result of the reduction in that
case of the Firmeza, where the duties appear to have been 775l.?—The
reduction would have been very great indeed. Without
knowing on what articles the duty was imposed, I cannot say; but
the duty was changed from a fixed to an ad valorem duty; and in
the case of the tobacco and spirits of that vessel, the reduction would
have been very great; probably it would have struck off 500l. at
least of the 775l.
5354. That evil, therefore, is met to a considerable degree?—The
evil is met as much as can be expected; indeed, I do not think that
there is any thing whatever now that the captors have to complain of.
5355. It cannot be expected that the goods should be sold for the
benefit of the captor, free of duty, in a colony where other articles
imported pay duty?—No, certainly not.
5356. Viscount Courtenay.] Is it in the power of the proctors to
make additional charges upon those parties?—The arrangement between
the proctor and the captor is left to themselves; the court attempted
once to interfere with the charges of the proctors, but they
were instructed that it was a matter which they had no control over.
5357. Is that settled by a certain rule of etiquette?—It is settled
by practice; there is a certain charge that is made for every vessel
now, whether she is troublesome or not; but it is a matter over which
the court can have no control whatever.
5358. Are the proctors Europeans?—There have seldom been more
than three or four at one time practising.
5359. Chairman.] Are they men of education?—Yes; the Queen’s
advocate is generally one, and the one who gets the most practice;
and there are others who are practising attornies in the other courts,
who act as proctors in the Mixed Commission Court.
5360. Are they universally Europeans, educated in England?—I
believe every one has been educated in England, and is an European;
there is one of them that was born in the West Indies, I believe, but
educated in England.
5361. Mr. Forster.] Have the officers of the Mixed Commission
the patronage of any of the appointments on the spot?—Of
all.
5362. Chairman.] Do they appoint the proctor?—The proctor petitions
to be admitted; and latterly, for the last year or two that I
was there, I made them undergo an examination, for I found that one
or two were applying to be admitted as proctors of the court in order
to escape serving on juries, and I therefore made them submit to an
examination on the treaties, and on the decisions of the Mixed Courts,
and it checked the practice.
5363. At what time were those charges made which are specified
in Dr. Madden’s Report?—The five cases out of the nine that I have
referred to occurred in 1839, the others subsequently to my leaving
the colony.
5364. When were those modifications made which would affect
the statement which Dr. Madden has made?—They came into effect
after the five cases occurred on which there are those high charges;
they came into effect in December, 1839.
5365. Previously to Dr. Madden’s visit to Sierra Leone?—Yes,
some time previously.
5366. Have you any further observations to make upon Dr. Madden’s
Report?—In page 35 is a passage to which I was referred at
the last examination: “The intervention of the whole present establishment
of marshals, collectors, surveyors, interpreters, harbour-masters,
agents, storekeepers, canoe-hirers, and victuallers of captured
ships’ crews, might be dispensed with without inconvenience
to the public, and with some advantage to the individuals who are
interested in the disposal of the effects.” A great many of those
persons do not exist in connexion with our court at all.
5367. Can you state what is the real establishment connected with
the adjudication of slave vessels?—There is one marshal; he is paid
by fees, on the principle of the schedule that was drawn up in England
for the regulation of the Vice-Admiralty Courts in the colonies,
and which are very low, I think almost too low; the collector we
have nothing to do with; he is the Queen’s officer: as regards the
surveyors, we have two surveyors in cases of vessels which are prosecuted
for equipment to examine the equipment of the vessel, and
to report, and they get a fee for that examination; in cases of vessels
taken full of slaves no surveyors are required; it is only in cases of
vessels seized for equipment.
5368. That is an officer absolutely necessary for the ascertainment
of the facts?—Yes, because we could not allow a man to give evidence
in his own case upon such a point as that.
5369. What is the fee?—I think the fee is two guineas a day
during his employment; and in order to obtain the services of a respectable
man who will go through the disagreeable duty which is
imposed upon him in examining a vessel equipped for the slave
trade, overhauling her in every part, and whose testimony can be
positively relied upon, I do not think that a smaller fee ought to be
paid.
5370. Does the survey occupy more than one day?—If it occupies
more than a day, he gets another two guineas, but I do not recollect
any case of that kind.
5371. What is the interpreter?—There is one interpreter, who interprets
between the witness and the registrar when the witness speaks
in a foreign language, and I believe he gets 5s. on an examination;
he is a poor man; it is very trifling.
5372. Is the harbour-master an officer of the court?—No. Agents
we have none. There is no storekeeper; the marshal lands the goods,
and under some peculiar circumstances, where they have to be held
over for sale, they may be stored, but I think such a thing has hardly
occurred in my time.
5373. Canoe-hirers, who are those?—There are canoes employed to
land the cargo.
5374. That is a duty which must be discharged and paid for at the
ordinary rate in the colony?—Yes.
5375. “Victuallers of captured ships’ crews,” who are those?—We
have no such men; the marshal victuals the ship’s crew at the
regular rate laid down, 3s. for the officers and 2s. for the men; there
are generally only three persons in each case thus provided for.
5376. Is that any thing beyond the absolute expense necessary for
the object?—You cannot in a colony where food is so dear lodge and
feed an European in a respectable line of life for less than 3s. a day.
5377. Mr. W. Patten.] Would you recommend the uniting of any
of those offices together?—The only three officers we have are the
marshal, the surveyor, and the commissioner of appraisement and
sale, who is not mentioned here, and their offices cannot be united.
5378. Chairman.] Dr. Madden recommended that “the effects of
the captured vessel, prior to adjudication should remain in them
under the charge of the captors”?—They always do remain in the
vessel; Dr. Madden mentions this as a change that ought to take
place, but nobody ever thought of landing a vessel’s goods before
condemnation, because if the vessel is restored she goes out with all
the goods in her. He then says, “On condemnation they should be
delivered over by the captors to the collector of the customs, and this
part of his service be included in the remuneration of his general
duties.” The court could have no control over the collector of the
customs, and how he would perform the duty more cheaply than the
marshal I do not know; those goods must be landed under the
control of the court, and kept under the control of the court till they
are sold.
5379. What are the charges on the sale which are alluded to?—The
custom-house duties and the auction duty, and those already
mentioned.
5380. The custom-house duties are the duties which you alluded
to as having been subsequently reduced?—Yes.
5381. Which did press upon the goods in proportion to their
quality?—Yes; Dr. Madden says in the last sentence, “I beg to be
understood as not meaning to attribute, in the slightest degree, to
these gentlemen the disadvantages of the system that is adopted for
the disposal of the effects of the condemned vessel. This system
has grown up to its present amount of abuse, I believe, without
their sanction, and I should think, from what I have seen of these
gentlemen, it exists without their approval.” It does not; if there
had been any abuse I should have been responsible for it, of course,
during the time that I was there; but I believe no abuse whatever
existed which the court could control. In the case of translations,
we had no translator till we applied to the Government, and
indeed the necessity did not arise till lately, because when you could
only capture vessels full of slaves, you did not require any translations;
I believe there is no abuse whatever, and it certainly is not
without the sanction of the court, if it exists.
5382. Viscount Courtenay.] Is there any storehouse belonging to
the Vice-Admiralty Court, where goods, supposing them to be of a
suspicious character, if landed, are kept?—There is a storehouse
connected with the mixed commissions, where the coppers and
shackles, and the iron fittings for the open hatchways, are lodged.
5383. Under whose charge is that?—It is in the residence of the
registrar; the registrar is required to be a resident officer, on account
not only of the books and papers which he has constantly under his
charge, but on account of the equipments of condemned vessels, which
are also kept by him.
5384. It would be, therefore, very irregular that any of those
equipments should be kept in any place but under the custody of the
registrar?—Certainly.
5385. Supposing this to have been stated, that a number of leg-irons
and other things, which had been landed from a slave vessel
condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court, had been deposited in a
public shed on the wharf, and that they had been neglected by the
officer of the Vice-Admiralty Court, whose duty it was to have put
them in a place of safety; if that was so, should you say that that
was irregular and unusual?—It cannot happen in our court; if such
a thing were to happen, the marshal would be immediately dismissed;
but the thing never happens, because there is a regular system of
duty; but the Vice-Admiralty Court has no office, it has no storekeeper,
and no means of carrying on its duty efficiently.
5386. What would have been the regular course in such a case as
that mentioned in this paper?—I do not know what course the Vice-Admiralty
Court would pursue, but with us, equipment articles are
landed and carried up to the registrar. There were several rooms,
when I left, completely filled with these things, and occasionally,
when the Government requires coppers for the use of the Liberated
African Department, we hand them over to them, and they are supplied
to vessels carrying over recruits to the West Indies; but in no
case do the coppers from the condemned vessels go to anybody that
we do not know will make a good use of them.
5387. Is the same person that is marshal of the Mixed Commission
Court marshal of the Vice-Admiralty Court?—No; it is a rule that is
laid down very strictly, not to allow any sort of connexion between
the two courts, as it would only produce irregularity and confusion.
5388. Chairman.] Have you any other observation to make upon
Dr. Madden’s Report?—In the last sentence of his Report he says,
that parties should not be allowed to become purchasers of slave
ships, or the equipments of condemned slavers, unless they “enter
into a bond that such ships or equipments shall not be employed in
slave trade objects, on pain of incurring the penalty of fine to the
amount of double the value of the property thus employed.” Now
the Act of Parliament positively requires, that if any equipments are
on board a vessel, a bond shall be given, and that no vessel shall be
cleared out by the custom-house unless a bond is given.
5389. Is there any thing in the present state of the law which makes
it illegal to sell a vessel bought at Sierra Leone immediately into the
hands of a person who shall employ her in the slave trade?—Nothing
whatever.
5390. Mr. W. Patten.] Is there not an Act of Parliament which
does prevent any body knowingly dealing with a slave dealer?—Yes,
there is; but the difficulty would be to prove the guilty knowledge
of the fact, that the man to whom the vessel is sold intended to
employ that vessel in the slave trade.
5391. Mr. Forster.] What Act of Parliament do you allude to when
you say that there is an Act which forbids persons selling a vessel or
goods to slave dealers?—The 5 Geo. 4, c. 113.
5392. Mr. W. Patten.] In that Act of Parliament, does the word
“knowingly” apply to knowledge of the fact that the parties are
slave dealers, or of the fact that the goods so sold are to be employed
in the slave trade?—To the latter. The second clause of that Act
declares that it shall not be lawful to ship, tranship, and so on, or to
contract for the shipping or transhipping to be employed in accomplishing
any of the objects or the contracts in relation to the objects,
which objects and contracts have hereinbefore been declared unlawful;
but by the 7th and 10th clauses penalties are imposed only upon a
party upon its being shown that he “knowingly and wilfully” shipped
and laded goods to be employed in the slave trade.
5393. It does not apply to his knowledge of the fact of the man
being a dealer in slaves?—I am not aware that it does; a great deal
may come under the general term of “aiding and abetting” the slave
trade; but in all the penal clauses of that Act the words “knowingly
and wilfully” are introduced.
5394. How do you account for the governor of a British colony
commencing his proclamation with these words: “Whereas by the
laws of Great Britain, and more particularly by the provisions of the
Act of Parliament passed in the fifth year of the reign of his late
Majesty George the Fourth, all British subjects are prohibited in the
most express and positive terms, and under the most severe penalties,
from aiding, abetting, or trading with, directly or indirectly, all or any
vessels or vessel engaged, or about to be engaged, in the slave trade,
or fitted with that view and purpose”?—The prohibitory clauses of the
Act are very strong indeed; they would seem to comprehend every
kind of dealing with slave traders; but it is the penal clauses which
would prevent convictions.
5395. Chairman.] If you could convict the party selling the vessel
to the slave dealer with a guilty knowledge of the purpose to which
the vessel was to be appropriated, you have in the Act of Parliament
all that can be required?—Yes.
5396. Mr. W. Patten.] Does the same observation apply to goods?—To
every part of the Act. I believe in every instance where prohibitions
are given in the Act the penal clauses referring to the prohibition
contain the words “knowingly and wilfully.”
5397. Chairman.] Therefore those acts are all of them unlawful,
but the difficulty is in proving the guilt?—Yes. You may possibly
prove the guilty knowledge by letters found on board the vessel.
5398. If you could ascertain that any merchant at Sierra Leone sold
vessels or goods to a party, knowing that such vessel was to be
employed in the slave trade, he might be convicted under the Act of
Parliament?—Yes; he would be prosecuted and convicted under the
5th of Geo. 4.
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.
5410. Chairman.] But it may exist?—Yes, it may exist; but unless
you can prove it, the penalties of the Act would not reach him.
5411. Do you conceive that the act of selling a vessel or goods
that may be hereafter employed, or that shall be, to the knowledge
of the person selling them, employed in the slave trade, falls within
the meaning of the Act, unless that person is to have a share in the
profits of the transaction?—Yes, I believe it does include that; I
think that it forbids aiding and assisting in every way, even as servants,
or employed in boats.
5412. Mr. Forster.] Then you think that a British subject selling
goods to Pedro Blanco, or any other slave dealer, with the impression
on his mind, or, in fact, the conviction on his mind, that those
goods would be employed in the slave trade, would come within the
meaning of that Act?—Yes certainly; but the difficulty would be in the
proof of the guilty knowledge. Such an act as that is certainly intended
to come within the Act; not that I would recommend that those words,
“knowingly and wilfully,” should be taken out entirely; I think it
might be a dangerous thing to do so; but I am speaking of what, in
my opinion, the meaning of the Act is, namely, that it is absolutely
necessary in every case to prove the guilty knowledge, in order to
bring the party accused within the penalties of the Act.
5413. In what way would you prove the mental impression upon
the man’s mind?—There is the difficulty.
5414. Do you think that any British Act of Parliament would
impose penalties for the mental impression upon a man’s mind?—I
have stated that I am not prepared to say whether or not the words
“knowingly and wilfully” might be advantageously omitted from
the Act, but a guilty knowledge may be inferred from particular
circumstances.
5415. Then you consider that that Act of Parliament is an Act
against constructive slave trading?—No.
5416. Chairman.] You consider it to be an Act against aiding and
abetting the slave trade in as many ways as the Act of Parliament
can reach it?—Yes; there is no Act that I ever read that is so general
and comprehensive in its terms; but unfortunately it is limited, as
it must be limited, in its application.
5417. Mr. Forster.] Can you quote the authority of any British
lawyer for the opinions you have expressed with respect to the construction
of that Act?—Yes, I have heard opinions expressed on the
subject from the Bench at Sierra Leone repeatedly, and by educated
lawyers.
5418. In the case of a British merchant selling goods to a person
who was known to have no other means of gaining his livelihood,
except by the slave trade, the party selling the goods would in your
opinion be liable to the penalties of that Act?—It is the same thing
in that case; you must prove guilty knowledge, direct or implied.
5419. In selling goods to a man who has no other means of gaining
his livelihood than by applying those goods for the purposes of
the slave trade, there can be no doubt of the guilty knowledge?—I
should think not; but if I were a juror I should have to satisfy my
own conscience that there was a guilty knowledge. I am no lawyer;
this is only the opinion of a private person.
5420. Can you conceive a stronger proof of guilty knowledge than
such a transaction as that would furnish?—I think I should decide
that there was a guilty knowledge, taking the case supposed, that
the seller knew there was no other way in which the purchaser would
employ the goods sold to him than in the slave trade; if I were a
juror I think I should find him guilty in that case under the Act of
Parliament; I should consider the guilty knowledge to be proved.
5421. Chairman.] You appear to be in favour of the proposal for
taking bond from the person selling the vessel, that such vessel
shall not be employed within a certain period in the slave trade?—That
they should take bond that the vessel should not be immediately
sold to a slave dealer; but the difficulty would be in following
the vessel through successive transfers.
5422. Can you suggest any means of so framing that bond as
to escape the difficulty which pervades the enforcing the provisions
of the existing Act of Parliament, on account of the necessity of
establishing guilty knowledge?—I think I could to a certain extent.
The case once came before me at Sierra Leone; I was consulted by
one of the officers of the Mixed Commission Court on the subject of
the sale of a vessel of his; he knew perfectly well that if he had sold
that vessel to a slave dealer, we should immediately dismiss him
from his situation, and he came to consult me respecting the person
who had offered to buy the vessel. He had inquired about him, and
there was some sort of suspicion, and I told him that I could not
allow him, as an officer of the court, to sell this vessel to that person,
unless he took bond to a sufficient amount that the vessel should not
be sold again to a slave dealer, so that if the vessel, whilst in the
possession of the person to whom he sold her, should be captured,
the bond should be considered as violated, and he should be liable
to the penalty. But I do not think you can carry the restriction
beyond the first purchaser: but if the vessel, whilst in the hands of
the first purchaser, should be seized for slave dealing, the penalty of
the bond might be enforced.
5423. But would you not find it difficult to make that effective,
from the facility that exists for the transfer of the vessel to other
parties?—Yes; I do not think the restriction could be carried beyond
the first purchaser.
5424. Would reaching the first purchaser be any great additional
difficulty in the way of employing the prize vessels in the slave
trade?—It would in Sierra Leone be a difficulty to some small extent;
because, where only one or two persons are engaged in purchasing
vessels to be afterwards sold to slave dealers, it is not likely
that there would be any intermediate person between the seller and
the Spanish or Portuguese purchaser at Gallinas, or any slave station
in the neighbourhood.
5425. Would it not be very easy to establish a system of third
persons acting as a medium between the slave dealer and the purchaser,
who should protect the purchaser at the prize sale from the
penalties of such a bond?—It might be done; but the difficulty
would in that case be, to get two men to endure the odium of such
employment; the difficulty would be doubled.
5426. Could not a vessel be sold to a subordinate party at Sherboro’
or Gallinas, not the slave dealer, but the agent of the slave
dealer, who might be compelled immediately to hand over the vessel
to the slave dealer?—It might be done.
5427. Mr. Forster.] Would you propose, by bond or otherwise, to
make it illegal that the purchaser of a prize vessel at Sierra Leone
should sell that vessel, on her arrival in London, to the Spanish merchants
Messrs. Zulueta & Co.?—No; I would not certainly render
it illegal.
5428. Then that being your opinion, in what way can you imagine
any restriction to be devised for the purpose of regulating the sales
of the vessels after they may be purchased at Sierra Leone?—I have
mentioned that the restriction could only last, in my opinion, whilst
the vessel remained in the hands of the second purchaser; that is,
the person who purchases her from the highest bidder at the auction;
I do not think you could follow her beyond that.
5429. Then you would prevent the actual purchaser at Sierra
Leone from selling the vessel to Messrs. Zulueta & Co. in London?—No,
I would not.
5430. Then where is the value of the restriction you would impose?—The
value is this, and it is not of great value, that if that
vessel, whilst sailing under the name of Zulueta & Co. is captured
and condemned as being engaged in the slave trade, you will come
upon the person who sold that vessel to Zulueta & Co. for the
amount of the bond.
5431. You think it would be just to make the first purchaser of the
vessel responsible for the subsequent employment of that vessel,
after he had sold her to Messrs. Zulueta & Co.?—Yes, as long as it
remained in the hands of Zulueta & Co.; and I would mention further,
that an advantage which I did not perceive before would result
from it, that the man who sells the vessel in the case supposed to
Zulueta, would not be very happy under such a sale, unless he got
a security from Zulueta for the amount of the bond, and in such a
case, whenever doubtful characters came forward as purchasers, the
amount of the bond would be an addition to the price paid for the
vessel.
5432. When a prize vessel is brought into the public market in
London, why should this vessel be subject to regulations different
from any other vessel in the London market?—Because the vessel
being purchased at Sierra Leone, at one of our sales, would be likely
to be a vessel fitted for the slave trade, and for nothing else.
5433. But is it not well known that there are many vessels in the
London market equally well adapted for that purpose as many of
those vessels?—I think not.
5434. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you not think that if a bond were
given under penalty of forfeiture, if in the course of a certain time,
say one, two, or three years, that vessel were detected as being
engaged in the slave trade, the party giving the bond would take
very good care to keep her out of that mischief?—Yes, I think he
would.
5435. Would he not take very good care that the vessel should not
get into hands through which that risk could be brought upon
himself?—He would be interested in doing so.
5436. Chairman.] Other parties would secure themselves upon
each successive transfer by successive bonds to the amount of their
own liability?—The amount of the bond might be more than the
value of the vessel considerably.
5437. Mr. Forster.] Then the result of that would be that there
must be a series of bonds running through all the subsequent sales of
the vessel?—Yes.
5438. Mr. W. Patten.] You have stated that in your opinion the
breaking up of all the vessels would be far preferable?—Yes, the
breaking up of all the vessels would be one of the best things that
could possibly be done.
5439. Chairman.] What proportion of the vessels that have been
taken within your knowledge have been so broken up?—It is only
since the Spanish treaty came into operation in 1836 that they have
been broken up at all; since that time more than two-thirds of the
vessels condemned have been broken up.
5440. Sir T. D. Acland.] Would it be possible to fix the bond
upon the vessel itself?—No; I do not think it would.
5441. Chairman.] You have seen a good deal of the effects of
British trade upon the coast of Africa, especially as connected with
Sierra Leone?—I cannot say that I have seen very much, but I have
seen something.
5442. You have seen that British manufactures are, to some
extent at least, employed as instruments of barter for slaves?—Yes.
5443. Indirectly through Brazil and Cuba, and from England,
goods are sold to persons who would use them in barter for slaves?—Yes.
5444. Therefore, to a certain extent, British trade gives facilities
for the slave trade?—Yes.
5445. Do you conceive that it would be possible, with advantage
to the cause of putting down the slave trade, to have any further
restrictions upon British trade on the coast of Africa: do you believe
that it would be advisable to prohibit absolutely dealing in lawful
articles with slavers or with slave factories?—I consider it to be
undesirable to impose any restrictions.
5446. Will you state your reasons?—I think that no restrictions
whatever could be drawn up applying to any description of goods
that might not materially interfere with the legitimate trade.
5447. And you believe that it would be a serious injury to the
people of Africa, and to the cause of civilization in Africa, if lawful
trade were interfered with and impeded?—I do; I would not have
any restrictions whatever upon the commercial intercourse of our
vessels, to which only of course our law would apply, with any port
on the coast, whatever her character was with regard to slave
trading.
5448. You conceive that although some additional facility to the
slave trade may arise from the lawful traffic, on the balance much
more good accrues?—I think so. I think there are positive advantages
in gaining an entrance for our vessels to those ports where the
slave trade is carried on: that information of the character of the
people and of their mode of trade is obtained, and facilities offered to
the squadron cruizing on the coast and visiting those rivers; and
also that at any time, if, from the checks given to the slave trade by
more stringent cruizing in that part, the natives should be desirous
of turning their attention to lawful commerce, there are the means of
doing it at once ready to their hands. It might happen anywhere
that legitimate trade, from strict cruizing, would become a desirable
one for the natives; but they would not have the means of carrying
it on if British vessels were forbidden to enter those ports.
5449. Is it desirable that the natives should see a lawful trade
offered to them by the parties and nations who are now connected
with the unlawful traffic themselves?—I think it is.
5450. If you prohibited the access of English vessels and English
trade to the suspected ports, should you be able under any existing
treaties, or should you be likely to be able under any future treaties,
to prohibit the access to those ports of foreign vessels engaged in the
supply off lawful articles?—I do not think it could be done.
5451. Unless you could so prohibit the access of foreign vessels,
you could not in any way prevent the supply of those articles which
are requisite to be used in barter for slaves?—No.
5452. Then, on the whole, you would gain nothing in the way of
interruption to the slave trade, and you would lose many advantages
for the obstruction of the slave trade which you now possess by the
free access of English vessels even to the suspected ports?—That is
my opinion.
5453. Sir T. D. Acland.] May not the carrying on of legitimate
commerce, even with slave-dealing natives, be used as a means of
inducing them by negotiation to give up dealing in slaves?—It may
be so, certainly.
5454. Mr. Forster.] How did this merchant at Sierra Leone come
to be regarded with suspicion and mistrust who traded to the Gallinas,
if, in your opinion, such trade is beneficial for the civilization of
Africa, and the suppression of the slave trade?—I have not stated
that exactly; I would not impose any restrictions by law on the
entrance of any vessel, whether for lawful or unlawful purposes; but
such freedom does not release the merchant who sells his goods,
knowing that they will be employed for the slave trade, from the
responsibility of doing so.
5455. You would prevent merchants and vessels frequenting such
places as the Gallinas, if it was to be inferred that they could not go
there and dispose of their goods without being subject to the charge
of being aiders and abettors in the slave trade?—I think that it is
very desirable that some regulations should be drawn up for the
guidance of the men-of-war on the coast, with regard to vessels
engaged in traffic; there appears to be a sort of impression now, that
it is their duty to interfere with all vessels trading with slave-trading
ports, and it is quite a misunderstanding on their part.
5456. Mr. Aldam.] If there is an establishment formed, where
both the lawful and the unlawful traffic is carried on in goods, do
you think it is desirable to prevent English vessels from trading to
that establishment?—I think it is undesirable.
5457. Chairman.] It is suggested in Dr. Madden’s Report, that
there should be some further acts of treaty, with a view of developing
the resources of the colony?—I quite agree with Dr. Madden in that.
In the year 1836 I was before a Committee of the House of Commons,
when my evidence went particularly to that point. I thought that
the policy of the British Government in rejecting territory, when
they had legally and properly acquired it, and confining themselves
entirely to the peninsula of Sierra Leone, was very injurious.
5458. The peninsula of Sierra Leone does not afford adequate
employment and resources?—I think the employment and resources
are sufficient for the population at present, but the land is not so
fertile as the land that we then possessed, and which the Government
at home required the Government there to give up, and restore to the
natives; also the destruction of our sovereignty and property in
that country will not allow us to take cognizance of slave-dealing
transactions occurring in that territory.
5459. Mr. Forster.] Do you think it desirable to extend the limits
of the colony at Sierra Leone?—I do.
5460. Do you think that there would be any difficulty in effecting
that extension?—None whatever.
5461. Do you think that it would impose upon the British Government
any great expense or responsibility to carry that out?—I do not
think it would.
5462. Chairman.] Would it be desirable for the trade of the
colony, if possible, to extend the limits of it, so as to give to a larger
portion of the produce of the soil the advantage of British growth in
the English markets?—I do not think advantage would be derived
in that way; because no produce that is now brought down to Sierra
Leone, and passes through Sierra Leone to England, is considered
as foreign produce, either teak wood, palm-oil, rice, or any thing
else.
5463. Does teak, for instance, take its character from the port of
Sierra Leone?—Yes.
5464. Is it landed there?—Teak that is embarked in the river
Sierra Leone is put on board the vessel in British waters.
5465. Where?—At Banee Island Roads.
5466. What distance from Freetown is that?—About fifteen
miles.
5467. Is it floated down so far, and then put on board at that
place?—Yes.
5468. Have you considered the question of emigration from the
coast of Africa to the West Indies?—I have.
5469. Will you state generally what opinion you have formed on
it?—I have formed a very favourable opinion of it. On the 15th of
February 1841, at the desire of Lord John Russell, I expressed my
views fully upon this subject, in a communication which I then made
to the Colonial Office; I stated the classes from whom emigration
might be expected, and though this was before any scheme of emigration
was carried into effect, nothing has occurred since which has
at all altered my opinion; and indeed just what I then expected has
happened. It was supposed that there was a considerable desire on
the part of the inhabitants to emigrate; such a desire I stated did
not exist; that a few liberated Africans had been anxious to go to
the country from which they had been taken as slaves, to join their
friends, and that many Maroons had been anxious to go back to the
West Indies, from which they had been taken, and where they had
friends; but that beyond that, there was no general desire for emigration;
that if such desire was requisite, it would be necessary to
create it. That there was no difficulty at any time thrown in the
way of persons anxious to leave the colony by the Governor and
Council there; that on the contrary, just before I left, an application
had been made by a party of liberated Africans to the Governor asking
him to send them back to Badagry, on the coast, and the Governor
and Council replied, that they might go if they pleased; but that the
Government would not be at any expense in sending them. A few
did go and returned, and since that time emigration has been going
on to a considerable extent to Badagry, and at present there are a
large number of liberated Africans there, who are finding their way
across to the Niger; and in a letter I received a few days ago from a
gentleman at Sierra Leone, he mentions that liberated Africans are
still going to Badagry, and that it is likely to become an important
place. There were a few Maroons, before emigration was encouraged
by any agents from the West Indies, who purchased a vessel at
Sierra Leone and went over to Jamaica, and their arrival was mentioned
by Sir Charles Metcalfe, in one of the despatches which was
received before my letter was written. I recommended that two
persons should be selected from each of the principal tribes of liberated
Africans, and sent over to the West Indies to report upon the
prospects that were held out to emigrants by the colonies there, and
that their wives and families should be supported during their absence,
and also themselves paid a certain monthly allowance until
their return; and I have no doubt that if that plan had been followed,
a very large emigration from Sierra Leone would have taken
place, and I regret much that it was not done.
5470. Are there at Sierra Leone chiefs who exercise a considerable
influence over the liberated Africans?—Every tribe of liberated
Africans has some chief man who represents its interests on all occasions,
and who, in case of any difference with the Governor or other
persons, stands forward to represent it.
5471. Do they generally fall into location according to the tribes
from which they come?—No, they are mixed in the villages; the
Governor pays no attention to that; he locates successive importations
of negroes according to the wants of the place, and the land
which is to be given away, without reference to nation.
5472. But subsequently those belonging to the same tribe co-operate?—They
keep very much to their own nation.
5473. So that there are in the colony of Sierra Leone persons who
exercise an influence over different portions of the population,
according to the tribe that they come from?—Yes; I recommended
that two persons should be chosen from each of the principal tribes,
and sent over. And it appears from evidence that I heard given here
the other day, that it was the non-return of such persons from Trinidad
which prevented any further importation into that colony. I
may perhaps be allowed to read a part of the letter which I wrote to
the Colonial Office: “Evils of a serious nature may be anticipated
if the collection and embarkation of African emigrants be left in the
hands of private speculators, or even of the salaried agents of the
different West India colonies, some of whom, at least, would be more
anxious to signalize their zeal and success by the number of passengers
whom they might ship, than cautious and scrupulous as to the
means by which they are procured. Persons like the Maroons and
liberated Africans mentioned above, who purchase or hire their own
vessel, and pay their own passage, may of course go where they
please, without question or obstruction, and they are little likely to go
wrong. But with regard to negroes from the western coast of Africa,
for whom a free passage will be found to the West Indies, in order
that they may help to supply the deficiency of labourers so seriously
felt there at present, I beg respectfully to recommend that the shipment
of all such emigrants be positively restricted to the British
settlements on the coast; that it there take place only with the
sanction of Government, under the direct control and superintendence
of the British emigration agent, and in exact conformity with
the regulations issued for the guidance of that officer, and that it be
confined to negroes who have been resident not less than 12 months in
a British colony. Beyond the limits of British jurisdiction there
is no part of this coast, except Liberia and the Kroo country, where
the West India agents could obtain emigrant labourers from any
other class than either the domestic slaves or the slaves prepared for
sale to the slave traders; and when it is considered that, from causes
which I need not now stop to explain, the price of a slave at the Gallinas,
the largest slave mart in Africa, and close to Sierra Leone, has latterly
been only 10 dollars a head, the necessity of confining the shipment of
emigrants to British territory will be sufficiently evident. I cannot
understand the reasons set forth by the Commissioners of Emigration
as the ground on which they recommend that the emigrants should
have been resident upwards of a twelvemonth in the colonies previous
to their embarkation.” The precaution is nevertheless highly important;
it will prevent the possibility of slaves from the territories
which surround our small colonies being brought into our
settlements, by their masters, merely for the purpose of being offered
as emigrants to the West India agents. A chief, or the representative
of a chief, from the Bullom shore, or from the Timany country,
may very well supply the West Indian agent at Sierra Leone with 40 or
50 emigrants, on receiving a bonus of 10 dollars for each. This would
probably be looked upon as a bounty, well bestowed for the advantage
of procuring so many labourers and as a small addition to the
expenses attending their collection and transport; but the supposed
bounty would actually be the price and purchase-money of so many
slaves; the slaves would be presented to the Government superintendent
as free emigrants, and the payment of their purchase-money
would be an affair known only to the parties concerned in it. With
regard to liberated Africans (as long as they continue to be located
at Sierra Leone) and Kroomen, there would appear to be less necessity
for requiring that they should have been resident for a year
previous to embarkation; but I would still apply the same strict rule
to all, making however a year’s service on board a British man-of-war
(in the case of the Kroomen) equal to a year’s residence in a
British colony. Such strictness in this case can hardly be regarded
as needless scrupulosity. In dealing with this delicate question, I
presume it will be desired not only to satisfy ourselves that we have
taken every precaution for the prevention of abuse, and for the protection
of the negro emigrants, but to preserve our proceedings from
the possibility of exception, or even suspicion on the part of other
powers; and cautiously to avoid every practice, however innocent in itself,
which may be dexterously accepted as a sanction of abuses which
we have been forward to censure and oppose. I may here refer to the
long correspondence which took place between the Foreign Department
and the Netherlands Government on the subject of the African
recruits enlisted at Elmina for service in the Dutch East India possessions;
and to the recent capture, by a British man-of-war, of a
French vessel employed, under the sanction of her Government, in
collecting negroes on the coast to form black troops in the French
colonies on the coast of Africa and in the West Indies. In the first
case it was evident that the bounty which was paid by the Dutch
Government for each recruit, to the person who produced him, was
actually the purchase-money of a slave, and our senior naval officer
in the Bights very properly gave notice to the Governor of Elmina,
that any vessel with such recruits on board, if fallen in with by our
cruizers, would be captured and sent to Sierra Leone for condemnation;
and if brought there I should certainly have condemned her;
and in the second case, the collection of recruits for the French Government,
owing to its being entrusted to private speculators and contractors,
immediately degenerated into open and undeniable slave dealing.
“In the papers which I have received, little reference is made to any
other emigrants than agricultural labourers, which is of course the
class chiefly, if not exclusively wanted; I allude to this circumstance,
because there are some classes at Sierra Leone which would supply
no agricultural labourers, but only mechanics, schoolmasters, traders,
boatmen, &c. The population of Sierra Leone, which in round numbers
I take to be about 60,000, consists of about 1,200 Nova
Scotia settlers, 1,200 Maroons, 50,000 liberated Africans, 7,600
Kroomen and strangers: 60,000. The Nova Scotians, or settlers,
as we generally term them, would yield no field labourers, nor do
I think that you would obtain any from the Maroons, though
a large number of the latter would be very glad to be re-conveyed
to their friends and relations at Jamaica, free of expense; a fair
supply of mechanics, &c., might however be obtained from both
classes. Of the liberated Africans, none of the more prosperous
would, in my opinion, be inclined to emigrate, and at any rate they
would not add to the number of the field labourers in the colonies.
The people to whom I refer are hawkers, traders, and mechanics, and
are generally drawn together and settled in Freetown and its neighbourhood,
where they live in comfort and even luxury. It is to the
remaining portion of this valuable body that we must principally
look for emigrants, if we are to obtain them at all at Sierra Leone;
and, if prudence and caution be used, I see no reason to doubt that
a large number of them (quite as many as it will be proper for the
colonies where they are now located to lose) may eventually be induced
to remove to the West Indies. I would beg to propose that
the four or five principal tribes of liberated Africans should be called
upon, by means of influential persons of those tribes resident in
Freetown, to select each two men in whom they have confidence;
and those eight or ten delegates should be furnished with a passage
to the West Indies and back, free of expense, in order that they
may examine and ascertain for themselves the prospect which emigration
offers. They should be used well on the voyage, should receive
2l. a month during their short absence, and their wives and families
should be supported (a very trifling expense) during the same period.
Let this plan be adopted and properly carried out, and I have no
doubt whatever that it will be completely successful. The Kroomen,
amongst whom I include the Fishmen, are so peculiar a race that
they must always be considered by themselves. Their national peculiarities
are very remarkable, and distinguish them almost as much
from every other African tribe as they do from the Europeans. But
it will be only necessary to notice those which affect them as emigrants.
In the midst of a slaving district, they are never enslaved,
and they navigate and work on board the Spanish and Portuguese
slavers with perfect confidence and safety. Every man-of-war on
the station ships has a certain number of these people according to her
rating, and there are never less than 400 of them embarked on board
the different vessels of the squadron at any one time. All the timber
vessels, and indeed almost all other vessels on the coast engage
Kroomen to do the heavy work, which Europeans cannot attempt
with safety in that climate. They are to be met with wherever work
is to be had or wages are to be obtained; they labour with astonishing
energy, cheerfulness, and perseverance; and they are distinguished
by frugality and parsimony. At Sierra Leone we have a
shifting Kroo population of several hundreds, who are employed by
the merchant vessels, and at the factories up the rivers, and by the
merchants and other residents in Freetown; and the superior value
of their labour as compared with that of liberated Africans is proved
by the fact, that whilst the wages of a Krooman are from 9d. to 1s.
per day, those of a liberated African are only 4d. a day, and yet the
former is preferred. As agricultural labourers the Kroomen have
never yet been tried either at Sierra Leone or anywhere else that I
am aware of, but there is no doubt that, with their industry and intelligence,
they would easily and rapidly acquire the necessary practical
skill. From this description it may be supposed that the Kroo
country is likely to supply our most valuable emigrants for
the West Indies; but two objections may be made by the Colonial
Governments to receiving Kroomen at all: one is, that they will not
permanently settle anywhere but in their own country; and the other
is, that they never carry their countrywomen away from home with
them. Sierra Leone is the great mart for Kroo labour, and has been
much frequented by that people during the last 30 years, and yet a
Kroo woman has never been seen amongst us. The Krooman who
leaves his own country in search of employment, will always return
home at the end of three or four years, with the goods, the produce
of his labour, which he has collected during his absence; part of the
property thus acquired he presents to the king or head man of the
town or district to which he belongs, and with the remainder he
builds a house, procures a wife, clears a farm, and supports himself
for about a year or 18 months. His holiday being over, he leaves
his house, farm, and property to be attended to by his wife and his
relations, and absents himself from home for another term of three
or four years, at the expiration of which time he again returns with
the fruits of his exertion to make a new present to his chief, to obtain
another wife, and to add to the dimensions of his farm. This
process is repeated several times, until the wanderer has acquired
what is by him considered competent wealth, when he settles
in his own country for the remainder of his life. The Kroomen
are too valuable a class of labourers to be lightly thrown
out of the scheme of emigration. If means of transport are provided,
their numbers in the West Indies may eventually be kept up
to several thousands. In that case the requirement respecting
women must be dispensed with in their favour, and they must be
assured that at least one opportunity will be afforded to them during
every year of returning to their own country; nor would the people
object to pay a limited sum (say eight to ten dollars) for their passage,
finding themselves in provisions, as they do with us. Should
it be deemed advisable to secure the services of these people, I would
beg to propose that the same plan should be pursued with respect to
them as I have recommended in the case of the liberated Africans,
and that two head Kroomen and two head Fishmen should be
selected to accompany the other African delegates from Sierra Leone,
enjoying all the advantages of free passage and monthly pay conceded
to their fellow-passengers. The Kroomen, however, unlike their
companions, would leave behind them in the colony no wives and
families to be supported during their absence. In Liberia there are
several thousands of black American emigrants, some of whom are
very poorly off, and might be disposed to remove to the West Indies;
but it would be matter for consideration, whether it would be advisable,
for the sake of the small supply which could be thus obtained,
to depart from the rule of confining the shipment of negro emigrants
to the British settlements on the coast, more especially as the
distance between Sierra Leone and Liberia is so short, that many of
the disappointed colonists from the latter have lately established
themselves at Freetown. But the number of emigrants which can
be obtained from all these sources, indeed the number of free labourers
on the western coast of Africa compared with the great demand for
labour in Trinidad or Demerara is so insignificant, that I would
earnestly recommend a plan for the location and settlement in the
West Indies of all slaves hereafter embarked by decrees of the various
courts of mixed commission and mixed courts of justice, established
under treaties between Great Britain and foreign powers for the
suppression of the slave trade. This, however, is a subject not
embraced in the papers which have been submitted for my perusal.”
Then follow the rules for the emigration agent.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at One o’clock.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Viscount Courtenay.
Mr. Denison.
Mr. Evans.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Sir R. H. Inglis.
Mr. W. Patten.
Mr. G. Wood.
Mr. Wortley.
Lord Viscount Sandon, in the chair.
Henry William Macaulay, Esq., called in; and further examined.
5474. Chairman.] Do you wish to correct any portion of your
previous evidence?—I do. In reply to question 5176, in reference
to Dr. Madden’s statement about the surveyors, I said, “The surveyor
is not employed by the court, but subsequently to the condemnation
of the vessel he is employed by the captor to survey, in order to enable
him to make a claim, according to the tonnage, through his agent in
England.” There are two classes of surveyors; the one referred to in
this reply: the other, which I ought to have mentioned also, are the
surveyors employed by the court to see to the equipment of the vessel,
and this survey takes place before condemnation. I referred to the
latter surveyors yesterday in my evidence; but I mentioned only the
surveyor employed by the captor to measure the vessel for the tonnage
in my former examination, and it would appear as though I had on
the first occasion understated the officers of the court. We have two
surveyors employed by the court in equipment cases, not in the case
of vessels laden with slaves. There is another correction I wish to
make: in the answer to question 5087, I stated that “It appears
that it is a regular thing, sending vessels to him, that is to Mr.
Zulueta: if they come to England to him, he sends them to Cadiz,
and they get out again to the Havannah, and come again into the
trade.” My answer was intended to describe only the course of
that particular transaction, and not to apply to any other case.
5475. I observe in answer to 5087, to which you refer, you state
that Zulueta “is a name well known on the coast in connexion with
the slave trade, and any man ought to have been careful of being
connected with such a person as that.” Will you state distinctly
what charge it is you intended to make against Mr. Zulueta in those
expressions?—Zulueta was known at Sierra Leone as the correspondent
of the largest slave dealer on the coast, Pedro Blanco; all
the bills which Pedro Blanco drew upon England were drawn upon
Zulueta, and passed current in the colony of Sierra Leone with Pedro
Blanco’s name on them, and Zulueta’s as the drawee. Zulueta was
also subsequently found to be engaged in connexion with a slave
vessel called the Gollupchik.
5476. Will you state who Pedro Blanco is?—He is a merchant who
has now retired to the Havannah, but who was engaged for a long
series of years in the Gallinas, as the principal person carrying on the
slave trade there; his name occurs, for years together, in the case of
very nearly every slave vessel captured off the Gallinas.
5477. Have you reason to know whether he was solely engaged in
the slave trade?—His sole occupation was the slave trade.
5478. You think, therefore, that Zulueta’s known connexion with
Pedro Blanco should have deterred any person who was unwilling to
have aided or abetted the slave trade from having any transaction with
him?—Certainly.
5479. Mr. Forster.] Are you aware that the house of Zulueta &
Company is one of the first Spanish houses in this country, and
perhaps in Spain?—I am aware that it is a very large house.
5480. You are consequently aware that it has commercial correspondence
and transactions with most of the principal houses at
Havannah and in the south of Spain?—I think it is very likely; I
am not aware of it; but I know it to be a large mercantile house.
5481. That being the case, do you not think that bills might be
drawn by Pedro Blanco on Messrs. Zulueta & Company without any
direct correspondence between that house and Pedro Blanco himself,
but accepted by order and on account of houses residing in Spain or in
the Havannah?—It is quite impossible that Mr. Zulueta should have
been ignorant of the only trade in which Pedro Blanco was engaged.
5482. But might not those bills be drawn without Messrs.
Zulueta & Company having any direct account with Mr. Pedro
Blanco?—Yes, it is possible.
5483. Then supposing a slave vessel were purchased at Sierra
Leone and sent to this market for public sale, do you see any thing
extraordinary in the party to whom the sale of that vessel is intrusted
in London selling her to one of the first Spanish houses in this
country?—If it was an Englishman who sold the vessel to the party
to whom Mr. Zulueta sold her, I should think it very extraordinary
indeed, because it was perfectly well known that Pedro Martinez, to
whom she was sold, was a slave dealer.
5484. Then you think a London merchant who is intrusted with the
sale of a vessel on the part of his correspondent in Africa, and whose
duty it is to take that vessel to the best market, would be justified in
refusing an offer for the vessel from Messrs. Zulueta & Company?—I
think it would be his duty to do so, because the chances would be
ten to one that she very soon afterwards would be employed in the
slave trade.
5485. Then what justification, in your opinion, would that agent in
London be able to make to his correspondent for refusing to sell the
vessel to the highest bidder?—If the correspondent was an honest
man, I think he would be perfectly well satisfied with the representation
of his agent that the acceptance of such an offer would necessarily
involve the introduction of the vessel immediately afterwards into the
slave trade.
5486. But supposing the agent to act in that manner, would that
prevent Messrs. Zulueta & Company buying the same vessel in a
circuitous manner in this market?—No, it might not.
5487. Chairman.] Have you any thing further to say with regard
to the connexion of Zulueta with the slave trade?—I would refer to
his connexion with the Gollupchik, which was lately captured. In
that case, it appeared that the vessel went out direct to the Gallinas
from London.
5488. But you would not object to a British vessel trading lawfully
with a slave trade factory?—No.
5489. What is there then in this transaction which gives it a
guilty character?—Mr. Zulueta’s former connexion with the Gallinas
slave traders shows, that his course of trade with the Gallinas was
one liable to exception.
5490. But what is there to prove that he dealt with the slave
traders in other than lawful goods?—They would be lawful goods,
certainly.
5491. Do you consider it to be unlawful or improper to deal in
lawful goods with a man who is engaged in the slave trade?—I do
not consider it unlawful, but I do consider it improper; I say not
unlawful, because you cannot prove guilty knowledge, but highly
improper to sell goods to persons who, the seller must be aware, will
employ them in the slave trade afterwards.
5492. Do you hold it to be against the purport of the Act to deal in
lawful goods with persons engaged in the slave trade?—It is not
against the purport of the Act for a merchant to deal with any one,
unless he is aware that that person is engaged in the slave trade,
and that the goods that he sells will be employed for slave trade
purposes.
5493. Then that which is against the purport of the Act in your
opinion, is to deal in goods, which goods will be used for unlawful
purposes?—Yes.
5494. The mere trading in lawful goods, in itself you would not
consider unlawful, or against the purport of the Act?—No.
5495. What evidence have we that Zulueta knew that in dealing
with Pedro Blanco the goods he sold would be used for the barter of
slaves?—Any body engaged in the Spanish trade would be aware that
Pedro Blanco was the largest slave trader in the world.
5496. How would Messrs. Zulueta be paid for those lawful goods by
Pedro Blanco?—I am not aware that he ever sold any goods to Pedro
Blanco; the Gollupchik did not arrive off the Gallinas till after Pedro
Blanco had left; he left I think in the latter part of 1838.
5497. It was a slave trade factory at the Gallinas with which
Zulueta was dealing?—It was with the Gallinas.
5498. In the case of dealing with a person who had no other
business than that of the slave trade, how would the payment be
made?—In gold; in doubloons generally.
5499. There would be no payment in produce?—No; and that is
the way in which all trade of that description is paid; there have
been vessels going down from Sierra Leone and trading with the
Gallinas and other slave ports, and the returns which they bring for
their goods are doubloons.
5500. And you would infer from the circumstance of bringing
doubloons, and not the produce of the country, that there was at
least strong suspicion that it was an unlawful traffic?—A strong
suspicion; I would not say more than that.
5501. Mr. Forster.] Suppose Messrs. Zulueta & Co. to receive an
order from their correspondent at Havannah to supply a cargo of
British merchandise to Pedro Blanco at the Gallinas, and these
goods are shipped and are regularly cleared at the custom-house in
England, do you consider that an illegal shipment?—The illegality
depends upon the guilty knowledge. I consider it an improper
transaction, because he must know the character of the person to
whom he sends the goods.
5502. Do you think that Messrs. Zulueta & Co. would have been
justified as merchants in refusing to obey the instructions of their
foreign correspondent in a case of that kind?—I think that a man
who viewed the slave trade in a proper light would have considered
it improper to be so engaged.
5503. How could Messrs. Zulueta consider that illegal which was
publicly allowed to be done by the custom-house authorities in this
country?—The criminality depends upon the guilty knowledge, as to
which the custom-house cannot decide.
5504. Then it is upon those grounds that you designate Messrs.
Zulueta & Co. as connected with the slave trade?—Upon the
grounds that I have stated altogether.
5505. Chairman.] Do you consider a merchant trading with King
Peppel, a notorious slave trader in the Bonny, and receiving the
produce of the country in exchange, to be acting against the purport
of the Act of Parliament?—No, certainly not; because there there
is a legitimate trade carried on alongside of the slave trade.
5506. Then you do not look merely at the person dealt with, but
at the object for which the traffic is carried on?—Just so: I would
designate as improper any trade carried on by a person who knew
that the goods he sold would be employed in the slave trade.
5507. Mr. Forster.] If you consider it lawful for a British merchant
to sell goods to so notorious a slave dealer as King Peppel, on
what ground do you consider it illegal for Messrs. Zulueta & Company
to ship a cargo of goods to Pedro Blanco or to Gallinas?—In the
one case the trader receives his return in produce, and in the other
case he sells goods which he knows will be employed in the slave
trade, and for which he receives a return in money.
5508. How do you know that he is paid in money?—I do not know
that Zulueta ever shipped goods to Pedro Blanco.
5509. Would you consider it legal if he did?—I think I have
answered that question before, that the illegality depends upon the
guilty knowledge of the party concerned, and that is a question for
a jury to decide, if he is put upon his trial.
5510. Then that depends upon your construction of the Act of the
5th of George the Fourth?—Yes; no one can read the Act without
understanding its purport.
5511. And you think the same principle applies in the case of
slave vessels?—Yes.
5512. Mr. Wortley.] You stated just now that you were not aware
that Messrs. Zulueta ever shipped any goods to Pedro Blanco; did
you not previously state that that was one of your reasons for believing
Messrs. Zulueta to be connected with the slave trade?—No; the
ground I stated was the bills which Pedro Blanco drew upon them,
which bills were current all along the coast, and I have seen some
of them at Sierra Leone; they were drawn by Pedro Blanco on
Zulueta; the transactions which gave rise to those bills I do not
know.
5513. Mr. Forster.] Do you consider the shipment of goods
referred to in the case of the Gollupchik an illegal shipment?—It was
after my time; but I presume that it was illegal, because the vessel
appears to have been condemned.
5514. Chairman.] The legality or illegality will depend upon circumstances,
which are not before you?—Yes; all that I know of it
is from this report. There is a gentleman here to-day who seized the
vessel, Captain Hill; he will explain all the circumstances.
5515. Mr. Forster.] Do you consider that any vessel laden in this
country, and legally cleared at the custom-house for a slave factory
on the coast of Africa, is seizable as being engaged in an illegal
transaction?—She is seizable, but if the captor seizes her wrongfully,
the person seized would have a claim for damages. She is certainly
seizable by any man-of-war, but her condemnation would depend
upon the fact whether or not the captor made out a case.
5516. Chairman.] The mere fact of conveying goods to a slave
factory would not be ground of condemnation, would it?—Certainly
not.
5517. Mr. Forster.] Upon what ground can a vessel conveying a
cargo of legal merchandise to the Gallinas be condemned?—On the
ground of guilty knowledge, if it can be proved.
5518. Mr. W. Patten.] And that guilty knowledge would have to
be left to the jury?—Yes.
5519. Chairman.] You have been asked upon the case of the
Almirante, in question 5238; can you in any way state what the
transaction was, and are you able to give any explanation of it?—All
I remember respecting that transaction is, that a merchant at
Sierra Leone, of the name of Benjamin Campbell, on my arrival in
Sierra Leone, in 1830, spoke to me about a sum of 500l., not 600l.,
that was due by him to Mr. Kenneth Macaulay, who was at that
time dead—he died in 1829—for a vessel that Mr. Campbell had
purchased from him. I did not know of that vessel having gone into
the slave trade till it was mentioned just now.
5520. The sale was made by Mr. Kenneth Macauley to Mr. Campbell?—Yes.
5521. Mr. Forster.] Was not Mr. Campbell an agent of the house
of Macaulay & Babington?—No, not at that time; he had been one
of the clerks in the house, but many years previously; he had long
ceased to have any connexion with the house, I suppose about five
years. He was in business for himself at the time, and in rather a
large way of business.
5522. Mr. W. Patten.] At Sierra Leone?—Yes.
5523. Chairman.] You have spoken in your despatch, which you
read at the last meeting of the Committee, of an extended scheme
for promoting emigration from the coast of Africa to the West
Indies; will you explain that more fully?—I would propose that the
negroes should be sent to the West Indies after emancipation, in the
same way as they have been of late years sent to the different colonies
there from Havannah. Dr. Madden, who has made this Report, was
the person appointed by Government, and specially sent out for the
purpose of superintending the emigration of the emancipated negroes
from Havannah to the different West India islands, and he would be
able to give to the Committee all the details of the regulations which
were adopted and sanctioned by the Government. I am not aware of
the rules that were laid down for his guidance; but it appears in the
slave trade papers of former years, during the time that the Duke of
Wellington was Foreign Secretary, that he required a certain proportion
to be observed between males and females, and also that negroes
should be examined by a medical man, and no unhealthy ones sent;
there were other regulations also by which he was bound; all the
negroes that he could get he sent to Trinidad in the first instance,
and I believe he sent some afterwards to Honduras and other places.
5524. Should you propose that they should remain a certain time
in the colony before they were removed to the West Indies?—No,
certainly not; I would have the removal take place immediately after
emancipation. There is an emigration agent established at Sierra
Leone, so that the whole machinery is ready at hand at once.
5525. How would you propose that the expense of transport
across the Atlantic should be defrayed?—There would be no difficulty
whatever about the expense, because the colonies to which
they are sent would gladly pay any expenses of removal. The difficulty
that the Government would experience would be, in distributing
the negroes among the different colonies; but any West India
colony would gladly pay the expense of removal of any number to
their own shores.
5526. What is usually the expense incurred on account of each
liberated African under the existing system at Sierra Leone?—The
commissariat issues notice of tenders; when recruits are sent across
from Sierra Leone to the West Indies, which they are continually to
supply the West India regiments, it is open to any persons who have
vessels unemployed to tender for their removal; and if the Government
undertook to remove the negroes, I suppose it would be done
in the same way.
5527. What is the expense now incurred for the maintenance of a
liberated African at Sierra Leone?—He is maintained for six months;
the allowance has been varied from 1d. to 2d. a day; but I believe
now it is 11⁄2d.
5528. Are you aware of the expense of transporting them across
the Atlantic?—I am not aware what has been charged; but whatever
the expense was, the colony receiving the negroes would be very
happy to pay it.
5529. You conceive that it would be a material advantage to the
liberated Africans to be placed in a West India colony, rather than
maintained for six months by Government, and afterwards thrown
upon their own resources in Sierra Leone?—It would be an advantage
in every way; an advantage first to the British Government in
saving the expense of their maintenance; it would next be an advantage
to the negroes, who are removed to a West India colony;
and it would be a very great advantage to the colony of Sierra Leone,
because, though it may be well able to support its present population,
yet I think that further importations at any rate, unless the
colony is extended, should be stopped. The advancement of the
people who are now located there, is also considerably retarded, by
having fresh importations of savages thrown amongst them from
time to time, as they are, when slave ships are condemned.
5530. Is it possible to have a society of the extent of Sierra Leone
otherwise than materially disturbed in all its moral and social relations
by 4,000 or 5,000 uncultivated negroes from various quarters
being thrown upon them at certain periods?—I think it is greatly
injured by it.
5531. Is there any amount of capital in Sierra Leone ready to
take up and give adequate employment to that influx of population?—No,
not immediate employment; the people would themselves find
employment to a certain extent, and I will not say how many more
could be introduced safely so as to find employment; but all who are
there can find employment, and can provide themselves with all the
necessaries and conveniences of life if they choose.
5532. Are there the means, except in trade, of providing for more
than the mere necessaries of life?—Agriculture is open to them to
follow, if they have sufficient inducement.
5533. Is there sufficient opportunity afforded, from the state
of agriculture in the colony, for raising more than is necessary
for the sustenance and common maintenance of the labourer?—No,
not at present; agriculture is not followed at all there for export;
there are a few articles that are not worth mentioning that are raised,
but there is no such system of agriculture for export followed that
they could embark in agriculture at once.
5534. Then you conceive that both the social and moral condition
of the negroes there would be improved, as they are now constituted,
if they were placed in the West Indies instead of in Sierra Leone?—I
think so; both for those who are left at Sierra Leone, and for those
who are removed, it would be better.
5535. Do you think that it would be desirable to give the negro the
option whether he would go to the West Indies or not?—Certainly
not; it is never done now, and the Act of Parliament does not even contemplate
such an option being given; the negro is taken to Sierra
Leone, and located there, without his opinion or wishes being consulted,
and in the same way he might be transported to the West
Indies.
5536. Mr. W. Patten.] Is it obligatory in some of the treaties to
take them to Sierra Leone?—The new Spanish treaty requires that
they shall be established in a territory of the country to which the
cruizer that has made the capture belongs.
5537. Chairman.] But must not the adjudication be on the coast
of Africa?—Not necessarily; Spanish vessels may be condemned at
Havannah; and in some cases when Portuguese vessels have been
captured in the West Indies, the slaves have been sent to Jamaica,
and various other islands in the West Indies; and when the vessel is
sent over to Sierra Leone, she comes over to us without the slaves;
the slaves having been landed in the first instance, so as to save them
a second voyage across the Atlantic; but with regard to vessels seized
in the West Indies, which are liable to condemnation under the
Spanish treaty, the Havannah court would condemn them, and the
slaves would then be sent as Dr. Madden has sent them, to one of
our West India colonies.
5538. Do you conceive that foreign powers would entertain, or be
justified in entertaining, any objection to such a distribution?—No,
they would not entertain it, and I do not think that they would be
justified in entertaining it; on the contrary, it was the case in former
days that the vessels that were condemned by the court at Havannah
had their slaves located in the island of Cuba; but the planters
cried out against it very loudly; and it was at their suggestion and
their request that we sent away the negroes to our own West India
colonies.
5539. By the treaties it is arranged that the captured negroes should
be planted within the colonies of the capturing party?—It is stipulated
in the seventh Article of the Portuguese treaty and the old
Spanish treaty: “As to the slaves, they shall receive from the mixed
commission a certificate of emancipation, and shall be delivered over to
the government on whose territory the commission which shall have
so judged them shall be established to be employed as servants or
free labourers.” The Act never contemplates any option whatever
being exercised by the persons seized, because it allows of their being
drafted into the army or navy, without any reference to their own
will.
5540. Would the possible objection of foreign nations be stronger
if we engaged in a system of colonial emigration from the coast of
Africa, from other points than Sierra Leone?—I mentioned yesterday
that we could not go beyond the limits of British jurisdiction in
procuring emigrants, without appearing to give a sanction to those
practices for which we have been complaining against other nations
of late years, both the French and Dutch.
5541. In placing the emancipated slaves in islands where they
would be engaged in cultivating sugar, you would be in fact compelling
the slave trader to put down the slave trade itself in a great
degree?—Yes; I think that a great advantage, causing our efforts
for the suppression of the slave trade to operate in encouraging the
cultivation of sugar in our own colonies.
5542. In as far as it went, it would cheapen the very produce, the
dearness of which now constitutes the great inducement for carrying
on the slave trade?—Yes; the best way of putting down the slave
trade is our cultivating that produce in such a manner that it can
compete with slave-grown produce; and every thing that we do in
adding to the difficulty of carrying slaves across the Atlantic, adds
to the price of labour and the price of sugar in the slave-growing
colonies.
5543. Every thing that we do with a view to encourage the lawful
produce, and to induce the negroes of Africa to get what they require
in a lawful way, diminishes the temptation to carry on the slave
trade, and co-operates with the cruizers in putting it down?—Certainly.
There is a passage with respect to enlisting negroes who are
condemned by the courts, without any reference to their own will; it
occurs in the 22d clause of the Act of 5 Geo. 4, c. 112: “It shall
be lawful for His Majesty, his heirs, and successors, and such officers,
civil or military, as shall, by any general or special order of the King
in Council, be from time to time appointed to receive, protect, and
provide for such persons as shall be so condemned, either to enter and
enlist the same, or any of them, into His Majesty’s land or sea service,
as soldiers, seamen, or marines, or to bind the same or any of
them, whether of full age or not, as apprentices, for any term not
exceeding seven years, to such person or persons, in such place or
places, and upon such terms and conditions, and subject to such
regulations as to His Majesty shall seem meet, and as shall by any
general or special Order of His Majesty in Council be in that behalf
directed and appointed; and any indenture of apprenticeship duly
made and executed by any person or persons to be for that purpose
appointed by any such Order in Council, for any term not exceeding
seven years, shall be of the same force and effect as if the party
thereby bound as an apprentice had himself or herself when of full
age, upon good consideration, duly executed the same.” It leaves
no option whatever with the party bound.
5544. You think vessels could always be taken up to meet the
arrival of emancipated negroes?—The chartering of vessels would, I
think, offer no difficulty at Sierra Leone. There are, I believe, now,
but there certainly would be, in case such a plan was adopted, agents
from the different colonies which are anxious to obtain negroes, who
would be always ready to secure vessels for their transport across the
Atlantic.
5545. Would not this be of advantage in opening a communication
from the West India islands with the coast of Africa, and encouraging
the intercourse between the two countries, and the free interchange
of products, to the advancement of the civilization of Sierra
Leone, and through it, of Africa?—In almost all cases where vessels
have gone across to the West Indies with recruits from Sierra Leone,
the vessels have gone on from the West Indies to England, taking a
cargo from the West Indies to England.
5546. Then it would only have the effect of increasing the advantageous
resort of vessels to Sierra Leone generally?—That would be
one effect.
5547. Would it not have an effect on Sierra Leone, by giving an
advantageous freight to vessels frequenting it?—Yes, it would have
that effect.
5548. If it were considered desirable, would there be any difficulty
in giving to the negroes, after emancipation at Sierra Leone, the
option of remaining in the country or of going over to the West Indies?—I
think it would be undesirable to introduce a new practice
where no option is now given, and where the persons are not qualified
immediately after emancipation, to form any opinion whatever.
5549. Mr. Forster.] Do you think that it would be good policy to
give retired allowances to all public officers who have served a certain
number of years on the coast of Africa?—I think it would.
5550. The officers of the Mixed Commission Court, I believe, are
the only officers who enjoy that advantage?—I think the colonial
chaplain does, but by favour, not by right; there are no officers who
serve under colonial governments who are entitled to pensions; it is
a rule of the service, which is stated positively in their printed regulations.
5551. But considering the danger to health in that climate, you
are of opinion that it would be for the benefit of the service, and also
consistent with justice, that some allowance, in the shape of pension
or otherwise, should be made to officers serving there?—I think so.
There is one other point that I would beg to refer to, and that is
rather personal. It was stated by a witness in evidence on the 24th
of May, that there was a party in the colony of Sierra Leone who
had great influence in the Colonial Office; that this party was an
individual; that the suspicion of the witness, Colonel Findlay, did
not apply to more than one individual, and that that individual was
myself; and that he found, during the time that he was governor of
the colony, that the contents of despatches sent from the Colonial-office
to Sierra Leone were known in the colony by that party before
they came to his hands, and that he was consequently, and owing
to that, impeded in carrying on his government. Now I would only
mention, with regard to this statement, that I never received one
single line all the time I was in the colony, which was 11 years, from
any person connected with the Colonial-office, either directly or indirectly,
on any subject whatever; and that I never wrote one line to
any person in the Colonial-office during that period, except one letter
of introduction, which I gave to an officer of the 31st regiment, who
wanted to travel in Africa; I gave to this gentleman a sort of certificate
that he was a man of mild and conciliatory manners; that was
the only letter that I wrote to the Colonial-office, and I never received
one line upon any subject from any party in the Colonial-office, not
even in reply to the letter of introduction just referred to.
5552. Mr. Forster.] You had no correspondence with the Colonial-office
during your residence in Africa, directly or indirectly?—None
whatever, or with any person connected with the Colonial-office.
5553. Mr. W. Patten.] Colonel Finlay, in his evidence, referred
to a party existing in the colony; are you aware of two distinct parties
existing in the colony?—I am aware of one party that existed in
the colony during the time that he was there, and that is a long
time ago, a party that opposed his government, because they thought
he was a bad Governor. I was one of that party certainly, while I
was a merchant. As soon as I became a government officer I abstained
from any public demonstration of feeling or opinion, but as
a merchant, and before I entered upon my public duties in the Mixed
Commission Court, I certainly took the means that every man is
allowed to take to show that I did not approve of his proceedings.
5554. But was that party a political party, or was the party connected
solely with the circumstances of the colony itself?—It was
merely with relation to the colony; they did not care at all about
Whigs and Tories out there; they had their colonial politics to
attend to.
5555. Mr. G. Wood.] Did the discontent originate in political or
commercial views?—It originated in consequence of measures which
were considered oppressive upon individuals; it was upon local matters
altogether.
5556. Mr. Forster.] Do you consider that it originated in commercial
questions?—Certainly not.
5557. Were you a government officer at the time that the transaction
took place which led to Colonel Finlay’s recal?—I think I was;
I think the imprisonment of Mr. M‘Cormack occurred in 1832; I
entered upon my office in 1832; I think it was after I became a
government officer. After I became a judge I took no public part in
opposition to any government, however bad it might have been.
5558. You took no part in that transaction which led to Colonel
Finlay’s recal?—I took no public part; I may have given advice to
my friends.
5559. Did not a trial arise out of those transactions, in which you
were a witness?—No; no trial at all occurred, and therefore I could
not have been a witness in any.
5560. Chairman.] Have you read the remarks of Colonel Doherty
on the Report of Dr. Madden?—I have.
5560*. Do you concur in the views which he has taken of the
points alluded to?—In almost every particular.
5561. Is there any material point upon which you differ from him?—I
think only two: one, with respect to the Kroomen, whose residence
in the colony Colonel Doherty thought was injurious, and interfered
with the resident liberated Africans; I do not agree with
him in that respect; I think that they should not be interdicted at
all from coming to Sierra Leone, nor should their numbers be
limited.
5562. You believe them to be advantageous to the colony?—Yes.
5563. And, by their example, to the liberated Africans themselves?—Yes,
I think even to them, as setting an example of industry,
which they would do well to imitate.
5564. Do you concur in opinion with Colonel Doherty as to the
character of the Kroomen; he speaks of the Kroomen as men never
to be trusted, never converted to Christianity, and likely, wherever
they may be, to exhibit a bad example in that particular; do you
concur in that?—I agree in opinion with Colonel Doherty, that they
would not be converted to Christianity. I do not think them dishonest
when they are well treated. I never heard of an instance of
any liberated African being converted to the Pagan opinions of the
Kroomen; I believe such a thing was never heard of.
5565. You believe that they are more difficult of conversion than
other Africans?—It is quite impossible, if I may say so of any body;
there never was an instance known of a Krooman being converted.
5566. To what do you attribute that peculiarity?—To their constant
return, as I mentioned yesterday, to their own country. They
never think of settling any where but in their own country. There
is no instance of a Krooman settling any where but in the Kroo
country.
5567. Do they not settle at Fernando Po?—No; no more than
they settle in Sierra Leone.
5568. Mr. G. Wood.] Do they all retire to their own country in
their old age?—Yes. I have known a great many of them; indeed,
I was very partial to them, and had a good many in my employ.
Governor Doherty rather discouraged their employment, which I
thought unwise, but that was one slight point on which I disagreed
with him.
5569. Chairman.] Have you never heard of their being converted
at Cape Palmas by American missionaries?—No.
5570. Mr. G. Wood.] Are you aware of any persevering and
continuous efforts having ever been employed?—No, I cannot say
that I am; but they are thrown into our colony very much under the
same circumstances that the liberated Africans are, who become
Christians, almost universally.
5571. Chairman.] The liberated Africans are more settled?—Yes.
5572. And are therefore more exposed to the influence of those
around them?—Yes; but the Krooman also resides at Sierra Leone,
and is never away more than once in three or four years, but the
periodical return to his own country, and to his old habits, is I think
a great cause why it is so difficult to christianise him.
5573. Mr. Wortley.] Is there any mode of accounting for those
remarkable peculiarities in the Kroomen?—No; I think they are
kept distinct by the habit of the country, never allowing the women
to leave the country, and thus inducing the men constantly to
return.
5574. Is there any distinction of race to be observed between them
and other tribes?—Yes, a most striking difference.
5575. Is there any reason to suppose their origin to have been
different from the origin of the rest of the inhabitants of Africa?—One
would suppose so from their being totally different in colour
and habits.
5576. Mr. G. Wood.] Has their language been analysed with a
view to see whether that affords any indication of their being from a
different stock?—No. An opinion seems to have been expressed by
Governor Doherty against allowing Mahomedans to exercise their
religion. I differ from him there also; but I think, with those two
exceptions, as far as I recollect it, I agree with the remainder of the
Report.
5577. Viscount Courtenay.] Bearing in mind the remarks which
are made in that Report upon the subject of schools, do you concur
with him generally in those remarks, or do you wish to add any thing?—I
quite concur with him, particularly with regard to the pay of the
teachers; I think the pay certainly is on too low a scale at present
to secure the services of good teachers.
5578. What is your opinion as to the practice which seems to exist
of separating the children of liberated Africans from the Creole
children?—I think any separation of that kind is undesirable.
5579. Is it apparently justified by any difference of natural talent
between them as a class?—No; but there is a very great difference
between the colony-born children and those who have been introduced
into the colony at a later age; those who have been born and bred in
the colony are very superior.
5580. Is the result of this separation that liberated African children
make much less progress in education generally than the other children?—Yes;
I should think that is the effect.
5581. Are they taught English?—Yes, they all speak English.
5582. Mr. G. Wood.] Does it give birth to any permanent feelings
of enmity between the two classes of children?—No.
5583. Mr. W. Patten.] I observe in one of the recent slave treaties,
which sets out the duties incumbent upon the master to whom
negroes are apprenticed, the first duty is, that the apprentice shall
be maintained in proportion to the employment done, and shall be
supplied with such clothes as are usual according to the custom of
the colony; during your residence in Sierra Leone was that attended
to by the authorities there?—I think that the whole system of
apprenticeship there was bad; it was required by the indentures,
but the indentures were very imperfectly fulfilled.
5584. There are six different classes to be attended to upon this
point; first, with regard to food; secondly, with regard to instruction
in the Christian religion; and according to that second article
they must be baptized before the expiration of the second year of
apprenticeship; was that at all looked to?—No, I do not think it
was. In many cases you could not carry it out, because the person
who was apprenticed came there not as a child, but grown up, and
the clergyman would then take upon himself to decide whether he
was a fit subject for baptism or not.
5585. But the authorities in the colony did not see in any way
that that was done?—No.
5586. The next is, “that the apprentice should be vaccinated as
soon as possible after being delivered into the charge of the master,
and that in sickness he shall have proper medical advice and be
treated with due care and attention, and that in case of death, he
shall be decently buried at the master’s expense?”—There is no
obligation of that kind with regard to negroes in Sierra Leone; this
is a treaty that does not refer to Sierra Leone.
5587. This is in the treaty that was signed in 1839?—It did not
come into operation at the time I was in Sierra Leone; there is a
treaty somewhat similar; the last treaty with Spain, which requires
that attention shall be paid to emancipated negroes.
5588. You stated that you thought the apprenticeship system was
very bad?—Yes, I think the whole system of apprenticeship at Sierra
Leone is bad, and ought to be done away with.
5589. Mr. G. Wood.] What system would you substitute for it?—I
would not object to apprenticing children to artizans and to master
tradesmen, but I certainly would not apprentice them to other
persons.
5590. Chairman.] Your system of disposing of the liberated
Africans in the West Indies would, of course, get rid of the difficulty
attending upon the future?—Yes.
5591. Mr. G. Wood.] But supposing that system not to take place,
what system should you think preferable to the system of apprenticeship
now prevalent in Sierra Leone?—There can be no system
introduced that would not entail considerable expense upon the
Government.
5592. Chairman.] Would you throw the adults upon their own
resources at an earlier period than at present?—No; I think the
time (six months) for which the Government now support the adults
is as short as it could possibly be, and I do not think they could
shorten that by one day.
5593. Mr. G. Wood.] You stated that no other system could be
substituted but what would be attended with considerable expense; do
you think it would be worth while to incur that expense?—I do not
think the present system should be continued, whatever the expense
might be of substituting another system for it.
5594. What system would you recommend as a substitute for it?—The
system that must be substituted for it, in case of the apprenticeship
being done away with, would be keeping all the children, as
they now do many of them, landed from slave vessels, in the schools
till they are old enough to be thrown upon their own resources.
5595. Chairman.] Making them, in fact, boarding-schools?—There
is a boarding-school in many of the villages; in the villages
the liberated African children are lodged and fed by the manager,
but that is only the children who are not apprenticed.
5596. You would have all the children put into boarding-schools?—I
see no other way at present of disposing of them, if they are not
apprenticed.
5597. Mr. G. Wood.] Had the change of system that you alluded
to reference to an altered system with regard to the adults?—No; I
would not alter the system with regard to the adults, except, perhaps,
by extending the period two months, during which they should be
maintained by Government.
5598. That would be an extension from six months to eight
months?—Yes; at any rate, while the Government continues to use
their services, as they do at present, when they are employed for
three months after their arrival labouring upon Government works,
and are prevented from employing themselves upon farms.
5599. Mr. Forster.] In answer to question 5208, in your former
evidence, with respect to the system of landing the crews of captured
slavers, you said, “I have never known a cruizer act inhumanely.
I heard of one case the other day where people starved, but it was
stated in that case that it was owing to the refusal of the Portuguese
factories to support them.” Had you any opportunity at Sierra
Leone of observing the system pursued in this respect by our
cruizers?—I have mentioned that the only portion of the slave
crews that we saw at Sierra Leone were those who were sent up as
witnesses.
5600. What case is this which you allude to as having heard of?—It
was a case I heard of in this room, mentioned by some gentleman
connected with the Bonny trade.
5601. Are you aware whether there are any Spanish or Portuguese
factories in Bonny?—I am aware that there were some slave factories
there formerly.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Mr. W. Hamilton.
Mr. Milnes.
VISCOUNT SANDON, IN THE CHAIR.
Captain Henry Worsley Hill, R. N., called in; and examined.
7109. Chairman.] What has been your connexion with the coast
of Africa?—I commanded the “Saracen” on the coast of Africa
from October 1837 till January 1841.
7110. What part of the coast have you cruized along?—The first
eight months I was in the Bight of Benin; after that I went to the
Cape of Good Hope and Madagascar, returning to Sierra Leone in
December 1838; and continuing on the coast between Cape Palmas
and Portendique till June 1841.
7111. Has the character of the system of cruizing altered during
that period?—On the Sierra Leone side, certainly. Latterly, we
established a very close blockade.
7112. Have you been engaged in descents on the coast?—Yes, at
Gallinas, and at Sea-bar.
7113. At Gallinas you were engaged with Captain Denman?—Yes.
7114. At Sea-bar, were you by yourself?—The “Ferret” was
there likewise.
7115. What were the circumstances of your operations at Sea-bar?—I
had had a boat blockading Sea-bar, where there was a noted
slave factory, and my boat’s crew had required water, and on landing
to procure water, the king, Harry Tucker, refused water without I
paid for it at a most exorbitant rate, about a dollar a gallon he
demanded; and I was authorized by the Governor of Sierra Leone to
endeavour to effect a treaty, that had been sent out from the Home
Government with the chiefs of that part of the coast. I landed for
the purpose of endeavouring to effect this treaty, and also to inquire
into the cause of the king’s refusing my boat’s crew water. The
slave factory belonging to Mr. François is close to the usual place of
landing, being close to the water; it is at the southernmost entrance
of the Sherboro’ River. On landing I found that every person had
left the factory; after a short time, I succeeded in getting a messenger
to go to the king, who was represented to be in the bush, and
requested that he would come to see me, assuring him that I had
come upon a friendly mission. He refused; I then wrote to him for
the same purpose; after waiting some time, several people appeared
at the borders of the wood, armed, and one man advanced and came
to me, and told me that Mr. François, the slave merchant, and the
king had armed the slaves for the purpose of coming down to attack
us, but that they preferred giving themselves up to us, and going to
Sierra Leone to be made free, and asking if I would receive them on
board; I of course told them yes, as many as would come, and I
think about fifty came down armed with muskets and cane knives.
They procured for themselves a canoe; I had not room in my own
boats for them. They represented that they had been very ill-used
by the slave-factor, Mr. François, flogged and beaten, and kept in
irons, and confined closely in the barracoons; and when they were
in the boat they expressed their delight, by clapping their hands and
singing in their country manner. I had determined upon destroying
the barracoons, but I thought it better if I could induce the slaves
to do it themselves, it would be setting a better example. Upon its
being mentioned to the slave who could speak English (there was only
one who could speak English), he mentioned it to the others, and two
or three immediately volunteered from the troop, to go up and burn
the barracoons and the factory. They went and set fire to it in about
twenty places, and the place was destroyed. I was told afterwards
that this was followed by another slave factory being burnt on the
opposite side of the river the following day, by the slaves themselves.
7116. Who was this Mr. François?—He is a slave factor, who has
resided a long time at Sea-bar; I believe he was once in the French
navy as a foremast man, but I am not certain.
7117. Was he living under the protection of the native chief
there?—He was living in the chief’s territory; therefore, I suppose
he was there with his sanction and knowledge; I had been there
before, and I had seen the chief in Mr. François’ house.
7118. Mr. Forster.] Do not you think it was setting rather a
dangerous example to tell the natives to destroy property under such
circumstances?—No, I thought I was setting a good example, or I
should not have done it.
7119. You think they could fully appreciate the motives and
views with which you acted?—Undoubtedly.
7120. Do the natives condemn the slave trade themselves?—They
carry the slave trade on; if they did not carry it on, there would be
no slave trade.
7121. Then on what ground of moral right could they account for
your destroying this property for the reason that it was with the
view of doing away with the slave trade, a trade which they do not
consider morally wrong?—They can easily, I think, appreciate the
view with which the slaves were armed to come down and attack Her
Majesty’s boats, who went there with friendly intentions.
7122. Chairman.] Those whom you got to destroy the barracoons
were slaves themselves?—They were slaves, who had been armed to
come and attack us, and they came and placed themselves under
British protection, and begged to be taken to Sierra Leone.
7123. You think they would understand why you sent them to
destroy the means of imprisonment;—I think so, certainly.
7124. Mr. Forster.] You carried them to Sierra Leone?—I carried
them to Sierra Leone, and entrusted them to the protection of the
governor.
7125. Chairman.] Do you know any thing of the circumstances
under which those slaves had come there?—They were Mr. François’
slaves, and I imagine they must have been purchased in the way in
which all the slave factors purchase their slaves; they are brought
down from the interior.
7126. Mr. Forster.] Have you given any similar advice to the
native chiefs, or the natives, on any other part of the coast, to destroy
the property of slave dealers?—I have advised the whole of the chiefs
that I have had any communication with to discontinue the slave
trade, the sale or barter of negroes to Europeans.
7127. Chairman.] Was there property in those barracoons that
were destroyed?—There was very little property; I think the goods
must have been removed from the slave factory some time previously.
7128. Sir T. D. Acland.] The use of those barracoons was distinctly
for the purpose of keeping up the traffic in slaves?—The
slaves had been confined there, according to what I learned from
those I received on board, on the previous night, to the number of
between 300 and 400. There were a vast number of shackles and
chains, with which they had been chained, and the slaves had been
removed out of the barracoons on the approach of my boats.
7129. Therefore the property destroyed was only such as was used
for the most criminal purpose?—There was no property destroyed but
what was used for the slave trade. In fact, there was very little
property besides the buildings; every thing had been removed.
7130. Mr. Forster.] You think the natives could draw the distinction
between property of that description and other property which
you yourself might feel inclined to respect?—I think the natives
could draw the distinction between property intended for the slave
trade, belonging to a foreign slave dealer who had settled in the
country for the express purpose of carrying on the slave trade, which
the natives know is contrary to the laws of his own country, and
contrary to the laws of all Europe.
7131. But when they see those persons settle in their own country,
with the sanction and under the protection of their chiefs, do you
think that, under those circumstances, to teach them such a want of
respect for property can have a beneficial tendency in the country
generally, where it must have been witnessed by other natives, and
known to other natives besides those which you have mentioned as
being engaged in this transaction?—I think it must have a beneficial
effect on the natives of the country where it takes place.
7132. Chairman.] In doing this did you act under specific instructions,
or upon your own responsibility?—Upon my own responsibility;
I have received the approbation of the Admiralty.
7133. Did you receive any general instructions to attack slave
factories wherever they were not under an European flag?—Not while
I was on the coast.
7134. Mr. Forster.] Did you visit the Rio Nunez?—Yes.
7135. Do you know two chiefs there of the names of Sallafou and
Sarra?—Sallafou is the chief of the Narrow country, and Sarra is the
chief of the Kikandy country.
7136. Did you advise those chiefs to get possession of the goods of
any slave vessel that might come within their reach, and any property
that might be in them?—I think it is very likely that I advised
those chiefs, while I was in their country, to discontinue the European
slave trade and to prohibit slave vessels from coming to their
country.
7137. But you did not advise them to seize slave vessels or slave
cargoes?—I advised them to prohibit slave vessels coming to their
country, and not to allow the slave trade.
7138. But you did not advise them to use every means in their
power to get possession of any property belonging to a slave dealer
that might come within their reach?—They could not get possession
of any property, or slave vessel, if they followed my advice of not
allowing them to come to their country to trade for slaves. There
was no slave vessel, nor did I see any factories, in the Nunez, or any
signs of the slave trade being carried on there.
7139. But they could not prevent slave vessels coming into their
country without being in contact with them, and therefore having the
means of seizing them?—Their seizing slave vessels and goods would
be an act of their own. I remember no advice being given them by me,
that they were to lie wait, or endeavour to seize vessels that they
supposed to be engaged in the slave trade, or to seize goods on board
those vessels, or to use any fraudulent means of getting those goods
into their possession.
7140. Then if they have made your advice a pretext for seizing
property in vessels belonging to Frenchmen in their rivers, they have
done so falsely?—They never received any advice or recommendation
from me to seize goods or vessels belonging to the French or any
other nation. When I was in the Nunez there were three English
merchants and four French merchants with me. The origin of my
going there was owing to a war existing between King Sarra and the
Nallow chief, which had stopped the trade of the river. There had
also been some outrages committed upon an English vessel; the
captain of one English vessel had been forcibly made to pay between
60 and 70 dollars, and another English vessel had been fired on by
the natives. I entered into treaties with the chiefs that French and
English property should be respected. The merchants were present at
both interviews with those chiefs, a Foolah chief, with about 100 or 120
Foolahs, who had been sent down from the Foolah country, was also
with me, and assisted in making king Sarra refund 64 dollars which
he had taken from this English captain, which money I delivered to
the Governor of Sierra Leone; and on leaving the river both the
English and French merchants expressed themselves very much
satisfied with what I had done. There was no advice given by me
to either of the chiefs but in the presence of those merchants.
7141. Chairman.] Did you find, in the course of your cruize, assistance
given to the slave trade by English merchants?—I detained an
English vessel bound to the Gallinas, freighted through the agency
of Messrs. Zulueta, of London, on behalf of Pedro Martinez, of the
Havannah, consigned to some notorious slaving establishment at the
Gallinas.
7142. What was the result?—I sent the vessel to Sierra Leone;
she was tried in the Vice-Admiralty Court, and condemned; the
master was also tried at the sessions at Sierra Leone. The grand
jury found a true bill against him, and I have every reason to believe
the petty jury would have found him guilty, had the Queen’s advocate,
who conducted the prosecution, represented the master as also
the owner. But upon the trial he was tried merely as the master, and
the jury acquitted him on the supposition that the master of a vessel
might be ignorant of the trade in which she was engaged; but he
being master and owner, and having been to the Gallinas on two previous
voyages, and delivered cargoes, consigned in one instance to
the notorious Pedro Blanco, and in another instance to another
slave merchant; had this appeared, I have every reason to believe he
would have been convicted. It is my opinion the house of Zulueta
have aided and abetted the slave trade for a number of years, by
acting as agents for slave dealers. There is a case on record, very
nearly similar to this, of the brig Arrogante, which was sent out to the
Havannah, and represented to the English Government by the
English consul at the Havannah.
7143. You mean by the same house?—By the same house.
7144. What is the nature of the interest which the house of Zulueta
have in these transactions?—They appear as agents only.
7145. What is the nature of their agency?—I will state the whole
case of the vessel. I have copies of the principal papers with me in
London, if the Committee should wish to see them. The “Augusta”
was originally the “Goluptichick.” The “Goluptichick” was
detained by me off Gallinas under Russian colours, with a crew
composed solely of Spaniards. Her course of trade for two years had
been wholly confined to Spanish ports and the coast of Africa. I
had information of her taking a cargo of slaves from the coast a few
months previously to my capturing her; I sent her to Sierra Leone,
and attempted to try her in the Spanish and British Mixed Commission
Court, under the treaty with Spain. She was refused to be
admitted into the court, being under Russian colours and papers. I
then determined upon sending her to England, being convinced that
this vessel could not be trading lawfully from Russia, Russia having
no colonies to which it was possible she could be carrying slaves.
The vessel was perfectly equipped for the slave trade.
7146. What year was this in?—This was in 1839. The master of
the vessel, rather than be sent to England, told me he would prove
that the vessel was Spanish property, and gave me a certificate to that
effect. I tried a second time to get her into the Mixed Commission
Court, and failed, and then sent her to England. She was detained
in England by the English Government for some time, and I believe
given up to the Russian authorities; but I have received no official
information on the subject. The vessel was sold at Portsmouth to a
Mr. Jennings, but by the papers found on board her this purchase
appears to have been effected by Zulueta & Co. The vessel proceeded
to Liverpool, and shipped a cargo through the agency of
Zulueta, on account of P. Martinez, of Havannah, which cargo was
to be delivered at the Gallinas, to three notorious slave dealers. I
found her at the Gallinas, and immediately seized her, when she was
tried, as I have related, at Sierra Leone. An appeal has been entered
before the Privy Council, and is now pending. In the trial at Sierra
Leone the master and owner, Mr. Jennings, did not defend the vessel,
which is an extraordinary thing, because the master and owner of the
vessel, when she was tried before the Vice-Admiralty Court at Sierra
Leone, ought to have defended her.
7147. Mr. Hamilton.] Was she equipped for the slave trade the
second time?—No, she was not.
7148. Captain Fitzroy.] Who defended her?—She was not defended
at all.
7149. Sir T. D. Acland.] This is the second time that she has
been tried at Sierra Leone?—This is the third time. The case of the
Arrogante is very nearly similar; it is to be seen in the Papers laid
before Parliament in 1839 or 1840.
[Adjourned to Wednesday next, at Half-past Twelve o’clock.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Viscount Courtenay.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Mr. W. Hamilton.
Sir R. H. Inglis.
Mr. Milnes.
Viscount Sandon in the chair.
Captain Henry Worsley Hill, R.N., called in; and further examined.
7150. Chairman.] When you were last examined, you were stating
the cases in which you conceived that British merchants had given
assistance to the slave trade?—Yes; I stated the case of the Augusta
having been detained by me.
7151. Are there other cases which have come to your knowledge?—Not
of vessels being engaged in the slave trade.
7152. Are there any other instances in which you have ascertained
that English merchants had aided or abetted the slave trade?—A
representation in a private way was made to me by the governor of
Liberia, that an English vessel had supplied Mr. Canót at New
Cestos, with goods and arms. He mentioned among other things,
two or three pieces of brass ordnance, with which Mr. Canót was
supposed to be fortifying his slaving establishments.
7153. Was that case investigated?—No, I could not gain sufficient
proof. I went on board the vessel, and the master of the vessel
did not deny having landed goods at Theodore Canót’s establishment,
but I could find nothing amongst her papers or her custom-house
cockets that went to convince me that guns and things had been taken
out from England consigned to Mr. Canót. It did not come to any
thing, it was merely a representation made by the governor of Liberia,
as a set-off to the complaints that were daily made of the American
flag covering the slave trade upon the coast; but I could find
nothing whatever that justified me in supposing that that vessel came
out with her cargo consigned to Mr. Canót.
7154. Do you know of any other case?—No, I know of no other
case.
7155. Have you received assistance in the prosecution of your
duty upon the coast from English vessels engaged in trade, in the
way of information or otherwise?—In one or two instances I have.
7156. Of what nature?—Merely giving information of vessels
which they had seen on the coast, which they suspected of being
engaged in the slave trade.
7157. Have you ever received obstruction from them?—No, I
have not.
7158. Mr. Forster.] You have spoken very strongly of Messrs.
Zulueta & Co. as connected with the slave trade; are you aware that
those gentlemen act very extensively as agents for foreign houses in
Cuba, in Spain, and in Brazil, as Spanish merchants?—I have no
means of ascertaining that.
7159. The cargo of the Augusta, which you seized, was shipped at
Liverpool, where Messrs. Zulueta & Co. have a house?—It was.
7160. Did you find any prohibited goods in that cargo which had
been shipped at Liverpool?—None.
7161. That cargo having been shipped at Liverpool, composed of
lawful goods, and legally cleared by the custom-house officers there,
in what way do you consider Messrs. Zulueta & Co. criminally implicated
in such a transaction?—The custom-house officers at Liverpool
may be totally ignorant of the trade carried on at the Gallinas, and
also totally ignorant of the trade carried on by Pedro Martinez & Co.
at the Havannah.
7162. Suppose Messrs. Zulueta & Co. to have received orders
from their foreign correspondents to ship those goods; in what way
do you consider them bound to know the history and pursuits of the
person to whom they were directed to consign them at the Gallinas?—I
should certainly think they are bound to be cautious that they
did nothing contrary to the laws of the country in which they were
residing.
7163. But unless they knew that those goods were to be applied
for the purchase of slaves on the coast of Africa, in what way do you
consider them bound to exercise any caution, and above all, to refuse
to comply with the orders of their correspondents?—I certainly think
they are bound to use every caution that they do not act contrary to
law.
7164. Who were the parties to whom they were consigned at the
Gallinas?—The goods were consigned to be delivered to Don José
Alvarez, and Don Angel Ximenes, and Don José Perez Rola, all
noted slave dealers.
7165. Chairman.] Have Messrs. Zulueta direct intercourse with
the coast of Africa themselves, as merchants, or are they only agents?—I
have never met a vessel belonging to Messrs. Zulueta & Co. on
the coast of Africa.
7166. They are shipping agents in England, obeying orders given
them by their correspondents abroad?—I have never known Zulueta
& Co. to be employed in any mercantile transactions on the coast of
Africa, except with regard to Spanish slave merchants. I have never
seen their names in any vessels that I have boarded, engaged in
innocent traffic.
7167. Do you conceive that a shipping agent is bound to make
himself acquainted with the pursuits of the parties to whom he ships
lawful goods?—I think, as far as regards the slave trade on the coast
of Africa, it is the duty of a merchant residing in England, to be
cautious that he does not do any thing that will at all be acting
contrary to the Act of Parliament for the Abolition of the Slave
Trade.
7168. Supposing he had consigned goods to the Bight of Benin,
for instance, where many of the greatest dealers in produce have been
till lately dealers in slaves; can you conceive that he would have been
engaging in unlawful traffic in complying with such orders from his
correspondent?—If the goods were to be consigned to a port where
innocent traffic was carried on, and to merchants who carried on that
traffic as well as the slave trade, of course it would admit of great
doubt to what purpose those goods would be applied; but, in this
case, the goods being consigned to those three people at the Gallinas,
a port where no trade but the slave trade has been carried on for a
considerable number of years, I think it materially alters the position
of the parties in the shipping of the goods.
7169. Then the innocence or otherwise of the transaction depends,
in your opinion, upon the knowledge on the part of the shipping agent
in England of the exclusively slave-dealing character, of the trade
carried on from any point of the coast of Africa to which the goods
may be consigned?—I think not exactly.
7170. Supposing the Gallinas had carried on a trade to the extent
of 100 pieces of ivory annually, would that have been an innocent
transaction which you now consider to have been a culpable one?—I
think it might admit of a doubt whether there was a possibility of
the goods shipped being employed in innocent traffic; but I think,
being shipped to a place like the Gallinas, there can be no doubt
whatever to what purpose the goods would be applied.
7171. Is not the nature of the traffic carried on from different
points of the coast of Africa, shifting and varying from time to time;
at one time exclusively in slave dealing, at other times partly in slave
dealing and partly in produce; and at other times wholly in produce;
according as the efforts of the English merchants have prevailed more
or less. Would it not, therefore, according to this view, require constant
reports to the shipper in England of the state for the year of the
different points of trade on the coast of Africa, to enable him to know
whether he could with safety carry on trade with any one place?—I
think the slave trade has been at the point to which the vessel in
question was consigned to deliver her cargo, so fully established, that
it can admit of no doubt whatever as to the trade in which that
vessel was employed. But it may happen, at many places on the
coast, that a doubt might exist. For instance, if a merchant were
established on the coast, carrying on the joint traffic of exchange of
the produce of the country as well as the slave trade, it certainly
would admit of a doubt. But I think it is the business of the merchant
residing in England to make himself acquainted with the
character of the persons on the coast of Africa to whom he makes
consignments, especially seeing the attempts that are making and
have been made for the suppression of the slave trade.
7172. You observe that the case in question is not the case of a
merchant carrying on a direct trade with a slave dealer, but a merchant
obeying the orders of his correspondent, to make consignments
merely as his shipping agent?—I think myself it depends in a great
measure upon the place to which the cargo is to be delivered. I
think at New Cestos, for example, there might be a doubt to what
trade the cargo would be applied; but there are many cases which
will not admit of a doubt. Now if a merchant has been in the habit
of acting as agent to a foreign house for a length of time, I think he
must somehow acquire a knowledge of the trade which this foreign
merchant is embarked in. I think it becomes the duty of the merchant
to endeavour to make some inquiry, because the Act of Parliament
is very decisive; it says, “Or in any other manner to engage or
contract to engage directly or indirectly therein as a partner, agent or
otherwise, or to ship, tranship, lade, receive or put on board, or to
contract for the shipping, transhipping, lading, receiving or putting
on board of any ship, vessel or boat, money, goods or effects to be
employed in accomplishing any of the objects or the contracts in
relation to the objects, which objects and contracts have hereinbefore
been declared unlawful.” The law is very decisive.
7173. Mr. Forster.] What are the objects and contracts which
have been previously declared unlawful?—“For any persons to deal
or trade in, purchase, sell, barter, or transfer, or to contract for the
dealing or trading in, purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of slaves or
persons intended to be dealt with as slaves.”
7174. Do you consider the lawful shipping of goods at Liverpool
a dealing in slaves?—A lawful shipment of goods cannot be unlawful.
7175. But if the shipment had not been lawful, would not the
custom-house officers at Liverpool have seized the goods?—It is possible
that the custom-house officers at Liverpool may be ignorant of
what caused the shipment of the goods to be unlawful.
7176. But the custom-house officers cannot be ignorant whether
the goods which they pass at Liverpool are lawfully shipped?—The
parties and the port to which the goods are to be delivered of course
stamp the character of the trade in which they are sent out.
7177. Chairman.] Would it be convenient if the custom-house
officers were informed from time to time to what ports vessels might
clear with safety, and to what they might not?—I think in the case
of such a port as the Gallinas, it would have been convenient, and
perhaps have been attended with some benefit, had the custom-house
officers in our different ports in England been made acquainted
with the trade that was there carried on, to prevent goods being
shipped direct for that port; but that again would be evaded by
shipping goods, as is frequently done, for the coast of Africa, without
specifying any port.
7178. Do you conceive that the destruction of the barracoons is
very effectual in putting down the slave trade?—I think that in many
cases it would be attended with great benefit to the suppression of
the slave trade, almost in every instance; but great care should be
exercised in doing it.
7179. In what respects?—That the establishments should be
decidedly ascertained to be slaving establishments, so as not to destroy
any establishments that might be erected where innocent traffic was
carried on, but only the slaving establishments that were bonâ fide
for the express purpose of slaving.
7180. Have you found any feeling of irritation created among the
natives upon the coast by that mode of proceeding?—No; I was
frequently at the Gallinas after the barracoons at the Gallinas were
destroyed, and I thought a good feeling was springing up amongst
the chiefs for the establishment of commerce and the cultivation of
their soil. They certainly expressed a wish that the barracoons and
the slaving establishments in the neighbouring states should be
destroyed as well as their own.
7181. Do you conceive that the slave trade is popular with the
natives of all classes, or that its profits are principally confined to
the chiefs?—I think it is popular with the natives of all classes.
7182. Mr. Forster.] If it is popular with all classes, how do you
account for their expressing a wish that the barracoons should be
destroyed?—That followed after their own barracoons had been destroyed;
they wished their neighbours’ barracoons to be destroyed
likewise; they expressed their delight very openly when I went to
the Gallinas after the establishments at Sea-bar had been destroyed.
7183. Supposing them to feel any irritation upon the subject, do
you think it likely that it would be to the officer of a ship of war
that they would communicate those feelings?—Perhaps not, directly;
but I think the officers on being on shore would very easily observe
if their feelings were unfavourable.
7184. Chairman.] Had you any communication with the slave
dealers themselves upon the subject of this method of putting down
the slave trade?—Yes; I saw, I think, the most intelligent of the
slave dealers that were established at the Gallinas, I think it was
Don Angel Ximenes, who told me that it was impossible for him to
carry on the slave trade, if this plan was followed up; that he was
ruined by it; and that he intended immediately going to America,
and that he had recommended the other slave dealers to do the same.
Two or three of them, I know, left Africa immediately, and one
other man left the Gallinas territory and settled in the neighbouring
states, with the intention of trying to carry on the slave trade
again.
7185. Has the introduction of the Equipment Article led, as a
matter of necessity, to carrying on the slave trade by the collection
of slaves in barracoons, ready for the descent of any slaver, who can
no longer now hover in sight, and remain waiting for the collection
of slaves during its stay there?—Yes; slave vessels now come across
from the Havannah in every way ready equipped for embarking their
slaves at an hour’s notice; they appear off the coast, and in one or
two instances, I have heard that in two hours their cargoes have
been put on board them.
7186. Barracoons have now become an essential part of the
existing system of the slave trade?—They have always had barracoons.
7187. Mr. Milnes.] Do you think the slave trade is popular
among the lower classes?—Yes, I think it is in those parts of Africa
where they have known no other trade; that has been the trade by
which they have derived all the principal articles that have almost
become necessary to them.
7188. Chairman.] Have you seen instances where, upon the extinction
of the slave trade, legitimate trade has taken its place?—I
heard various reports of its having done so at the Bonny and at
Benin; at the Bonny particularly. Again, Mr. Spence, in the River
St. George’s, established himself and introduced innocent trade, and
I believe totally expelled the slave dealers; it had a very beneficial
effect in those three places.
7189. Was that a case where lawful traffic had the effect, without
the assistance of cruizers, of expelling the slave trade, or was it in
co-operation with them?—I think in co-operation with the cruizers.
Mr. Spence took a great deal of pains, and if he had known of a
slave vessel coming into St. George’s, he would have immediately
informed the cruizers, and in fact he had so much influence with the
chiefs immediately around him, that he prevented them from carrying
on the slave trade. The slave trade cannot be carried on without
the sanction of the chief, and in fact in almost every case it is done
by the chief of the district himself; he is the principal slave dealer,
receiving a certain emolument from the slave dealers coming to his
place to trade.
7190. When you speak of the co-operation of the cruizers with
Mr. Spence’s efforts, you mean that the cruizers protected Mr. Spence
in his operations, but not that they were preventing the slave trade
at the time by a blockade?—Exactly.
7191. Have you heard since the destruction of the slave factory at
the Gallinas, or at Sea-bar, whether lawful trade has taken the place of
the slave trade?—When I was last at the Gallinas, one of the chiefs
showed me a sample of cotton that he was cultivating, and he promised
that he would collect as much as he could for the purpose of
carrying on innocent trade: he had then, I think, at the time I am
speaking of, six or eight large packages in his house, and he said,
that in the course of time, he could produce any quantity. He seemed
to be honest in his intentions.
7192. Viscount Courtenay.] Was it wild or cultivated cotton?—He
told me that he had cultivated it; and it appeared to me to be
particularly good; it was much finer than any I have seen elsewhere.
7193. Mr. Aldam.] Did you see any cotton cultivated?—No, I did
not see any cultivated; this was up the country, 10 or 12 miles up
the Gallinas River.
7194. Would it be practicable to collect a considerable quantity of
wild cotton?—No; I think the wild cotton is so much scattered, that
without cultivation they could not collect any quantity.
7195. Chairman.] Had you any conversation with the chief upon
the advantage with which the people might be employed in raising
produce rather than their being sold as slaves?—Frequently I endeavoured
to instil into their minds the advantages they would derive
from giving up the slave trade, and employing their own slaves in
tilling the ground, and collecting cam wood, and any thing the
country might produce. I think in many parts of the Gallinas the
country is capable of being cultivated to a great extent. I am now
speaking of King Siacca’s Town, which is 10 or 12 miles up the
river.
7196. Do you think it would be of advantage, either for the suppression
of the slave trade, or for the encouragement of the lawful
trade to have factories or forts planted at particular points?—I think,
decidedly; I think if factories were established along the coast, it
would materially lead to the suppression of the slave trade, and also
to the cultivation and improvement of Africa generally; I think particularly
on the coast from Sierra Leone to Cape Mount, which has
been the chief slavery district on that part of Africa.
7197. Have you had reason to know whether there would be facilities
or otherwise for the purchase of sites for settlements of that
description from the native chiefs?—I think there might be a little
opposition made in the first instance, which might easily be overcome.
I remember one of the chiefs of the Gallinas telling me that
he would have no objection to see the English settle there; but others
again did not seem so desirous of it. Again, at Cape Mount the
chief was very anxious that the English should establish themselves,
and carry on trade there; and when I was last at Cape Mount the
English flag was flying. The American governor of Liberia came up,
and was very desirous that the American flag should be likewise
hoisted, which the chief refused; he showed a decided preference to
the English.
7198. Is there a coasting traffic established along the coast to any
degree from point to point, and is any part of it carried on by the
liberated Africans of Sierra Leone?—I think not; I think the coasting
trade of Sierra Leone to the southward does not extend beyond
one or two towns in the Sherboro’ River, where they go for cam wood,
which is particularly good there. To the northward the canoes trade
to the River Scarcies, and occasionally, I think, as far as the Pongos.
But those boats that go to the Pongos always incur the suspicion
that they are all more or less carrying goods for the slave dealers in the
Pongos; but as far as regards the immediate coasting trade of Sierra
Leone, it is very much confined.
7199. You would be glad to see the services of a steamer secured
for Sierra Leone?—I think it is absolutely necessary.
7200. Sir T. D. Acland.] And also for the Gambia?—And for the
Gambia likewise. I think it is absolutely necessary for the Gambia,
to communicate between St. Mary’s and M‘Carthy’s Island. For
instance, it occurred while I was at the Gambia that information
arrived from M‘Carthy’s Island of the natives having attacked the
island, and before troops could be sent up, or I could get up in a
sailing vessel, many days elapsed, where a steam-boat would have
done it in a day and a half. Steam-boats would also be particularly
useful for the suppression of the slave trade.
7201. Is there any other point besides Sierra Leone and the Gambia
where you think they are particularly wanted?—I would say,
generally along the coast, for the suppression of the slave trade, I
should say that it would require half-a-dozen steamers to protect the
coast between the Gambia and the southernmost slaving ports on the
western coast of Africa.
7202. Where?—Down to Benguela. I think about half-a-dozen
steam-boats would be sufficient.
7203. Sir R. H. Inglis.] What is the average passage by steam and
the average passage by sailing vessels between the Bight of Benin
and Sierra Leone?—It depends a great deal upon the season of the
year. I think from the Bight of Benin to Sierra Leone the average
passage in sailing vessels is about a month.
7204. Have you experience sufficient to enable you to state to the
Committee the average passage by steam-vessels?—No, I have not.
7205. What is the extreme length of passage between the Bight of
Benin and Sierra Leone in a sailing vessel; the question having
reference particularly to a sailing vessel taking slaves on board for
adjudication before the court at Sierra Leone?—I have heard of vessels
being a very long time, three months; I think I remember slave
vessels that have taken between two or three months to get up
from the Bight of Benin to Sierra Leone; but I think that is a
very rare occurrence; usually the passage is made in about a month.
7206. In all seasons?—In all seasons; I think a month is the
average passage.
7207. Sir T. D. Acland.] What is the shortest?—I think I have
heard of its being done in a fortnight.
7208. Sir R. H. Inglis.] What is the average passage across the
Atlantic, from the Bight of Benin to the Havannah?—From five to
six weeks; but I think it is done in less time; I think I remember a
slaver telling me, that he did it in something less than a month, but
I think from five to six weeks is the average passage; the great difficulty
is getting immediately off the coast.
7209. Chairman.] Are the winds mostly on shore?—It depends a
great deal on the season of the year.
7210. Would there be any difficulty in a vessel lying off Cape
Palmas, if it were thought desirable, for the purpose of regulating
any emigration that might proceed from those parts?—I think there
would be no difficulty in a cruizer remaining off Cape Palmas; in
lying at anchor there would be danger, but not in keeping under
weigh.
7211. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you think that it would be possible
for a naval officer to undertake the service of clearing vessels for the
West Indies, having ascertained that the natives embarked on board
came with their free will, without any fraud or compulsion?—I think
the local authorities could do that better than a naval officer.
7212. The question refers to those parts where there are no local
authorities; and it proceeds on the supposition that no vessel could
be received with emigrants in the West Indies without a clearance
from the British officer commanding a certain range of coast: could
a British officer in the first place lie off and on, and in the next place,
could he discharge the duty of ascertaining whether the emigrants
on board any vessel submitted to his examination, were or were not
engaged on that voyage without fraud or compulsion?—I think he
would have no other means of ascertaining, but what he was told by
the natives themselves.
7213. What course would he pursue; would he muster the emigrants
on deck, and be able to ascertain from them the circumstances
under which they were embarked?—Of course he would have to
muster the negroes, and he would question each whether they embarked
with their free will for the purpose of emigration; but to do
that, he would require an interpreter, and perhaps amongst the number,
there might be a great many who spoke different languages;
therefore there would be as many interpreters required, as there were
different languages; and after all, those people might declare that
they had not been asked, and probably place the naval officer in a
very awkward predicament. He would be subject entirely to the
African, who might tell half-a-dozen different stories in the course
of so many months. It would be a very difficult measure to carry
out.
7214. Chairman.] If they were only to embark Kroomen or inhabitants
of the coast, do you think he would have any difficulty in
ascertaining whether they were free agents or otherwise?—With
Kroomen or Fishmen, I think none whatever; because in the Kroo
country and in the Fish country the slave trade is not carried on, or
if it is carried on, it is so slight that we hardly know any thing about it.
7215. Mr. Aldam.] Is there more than one language spoken by
the Kroomen and the Fishmen?—There is some difference of language,
but still they understand one another.
7216. One interpreter would be sufficient with the Kroomen and
the Fishmen?—I think so.
7217. Chairman.] Would the officer on the station be able to distinguish
Kroomen and Fishmen from the natives of the interior?—Decidedly,
any person could.
7218. So that if he were instructed to sanction the emigration
only of Kroomen and Fishmen, he would be in no danger of confounding
them with any other tribes?—No, they are so distinct a
class; they are perfectly different from any other natives. They
differ materially in appearance, and manners, and language, and
every thing.
7219. Then if the emigration were confined to those classes, you
do not apprehend that there would be any difficulty in preventing
that emigration from assuming the character of slave trade?—I
think there would be no difficulty in the Kroo country and in the
Fish country. The difficulty would be on the part of the coast
where the slave trade is known to have been carried on, and where,
from the slave trade having been carried on, the different tribes are
so very much intermixed.
7220. Sir T. D. Acland.] Could it in that case be done by the
commander of a fort on shore, who if he had time, would be able to
ascertain the facts?—I think it would be an undertaking of great
trouble.
7221. Mr. Forster.] Have you made any other seizures on the
coast of Africa than the Augusta?—Several.
7222. Did you seize a vessel called the Sénégambie at St. Mary’s?—Yes,
I seized a vessel called the Sénégambie in the river Gambia.
7223. On what ground was that seizure made?—On account of
being equipped for the slave trade.
7224. Were you aware at the time you seized her that she had
been chartered by the governor of Senegal for the voyage in which
she was engaged?—I do not know whether I knew that at the time
of making the seizure, or whether it was immediately afterwards,
but the impression upon my mind is, that the owner told me in the
custom-house that he was going to Bissao for a cargo of negroes.
7225. Did he not show you his papers and engagements, or rather
did you examine them yourself?—The papers of the vessel when I
seized her were in the custom-house. The vessel had been in the
port of St. Mary’s two or three days.
7226. Did you not examine the papers?—I went to the custom-house
for the purpose of examining the papers, and there I met
Mr. Marbeau, the owner of the vessel, who told me the vessel was
going to Bissao for a cargo of negroes.
7227. Did he not inform you that the negroes were for the service
of the French government?—Afterwards I received copies of an
agreement entered into between Mr. Marbeau and the governor of
Senegal, transmitted to me by the governor of St. Mary’s.
7228. When did you receive them?—While I was at St. Mary’s.
7229. Before or after you had seized the vessel?—I think two or
three days after I had seized the vessel; but those papers are printed
in the correspondence, and they give much better information upon
the subject. I have nothing to guide me but my recollection.
7230. Were there any mechanics or persons on board of her from
the shore, at the time you seized her?—Yes; there were some
mechanics on board of her belonging to St. Mary’s, who were employed
in caulking and fitting the vessel for her intended voyage.
There were also on board of her three small children, who I thought
were under most suspicious circumstances, belonging to St. Mary’s.
7231. Did you think the carpenters and caulkers, who were
engaged on board the vessel from shore, were there under suspicious
circumstances?—No, they were employed on board the vessel, fitting
the vessel for her intended voyage to Bissao for a cargo of slaves.
The Sénégambie was partly equipped for the slave trade; she was
lying in a British port, equipping for a cargo of slaves, where she
had been for two or three days; the equipments were quite sufficient
to condemn her, and she was condemned at Sierra Leone. She was
absolutely lying in a British port equipping; she was to get provisions,
and she had carpenters and men at work upon her belonging
to the colony.
7232. Sir T. D. Acland.] Was she preparing false decks?—The
slave-deck was partly laid, not wholly laid; she was being generally
equipped for the voyage she was going on.
7233. Chairman.] Were the carpenters laying the slave-deck?—I
cannot say exactly what the carpenters were doing; I did not see
them laying the slave-deck; but she was fitting out for her intended
voyage to Bissao. There was a slave-deck partly laid, and part of it
to be laid, and I believe they would have finished it.
7234. Were the planks ready for completing the slave-deck lying
there?—I think they were.
7235. Sir R. H. Inglis.] But you are certain that part of her
slave-deck was laid?—Yes.
7236. Sir T. D. Acland.] Did you seize her upon the ground of
her partial equipment?—Her equipment was the ground upon which
I seized her.
7237. Chairman.] And it was the ground of her subsequent condemnation?—It
was; the equipment was perfectly proved.
7238. Mr. Forster.] Do you wish the Committee to understand
that that vessel was chartered by the governor of Senegal for a voyage
to Bissao, and that she was not fitted out for that voyage at Senegal?—That
I cannot say; I found her partly equipped, and lying in a
British port, equipping for her intended voyage. She was so far
equipped for the slave trade that there were ample grounds for my
seizing her; and she was there caulking, fitting, and preparing for
sea. She was to receive provisions for her intended voyage from the
colony of St. Mary’s; at least, so I was informed by the supercargo.
7239. How do you account for the vessel coming from the neighbouring
French settlement of Senegal to fit out for the purpose of
receiving those negroes at the Gambia?—It is a most extraordinary
thing, in my mind, that a vessel should sail from a French port, only
distant 50 or 60 miles, and come to an English port, and there
remain for two or three days, with people at work upon her, caulking
and repairing her, and fitting her for sea.
7240. Mr. Aldam.] Had she had bad weather?—No, nothing at
all of the sort; by the vessel’s papers she was not out of Goree more
than one day before she arrived at the Gambia; I think less than
one day.
7241. Mr. Forster.] Do you wish the Committee to understand
that the vessel did not arrive at the Gambia with all her fittings for
the voyage?—I have before stated that the vessel was lying in the
Gambia, caulking and equipping for her intended voyage. It is impossible
for me to state whether she brought her slave-deck with her
to the Gambia, or whether she procured her slave-deck at the Gambia;
but if she came to the Gambia with all those equipments on board, I
would ask what can be thought of our custom-house officers at the
Gambia?
7242. Do you think the custom-house officers at the Gambia
would very readily conceive themselves entitled to seize a French
vessel, chartered by the governor of Senegal?—The vessel being
chartered by the governor of Senegal could have nothing to do with
the laws that prevail in a British port. The French governor of
Senegal cannot be regarded in an English port; our own laws are
what are to govern our officers. The custom-house officers’ duty
was to seize a vessel that was acting contrary to the laws of a British port.
7243. Therefore you think it was no excuse for the custom-house
officers that she was employed in the service of the French government?—None
whatever, because the custom-house officers, in all
probability, would be perfectly ignorant of that circumstance, as I
was myself. I seized her, and I was not aware she was employed by
the French government till I had seized her one or two days.
7244. Sir R. H. Inglis.] The last question, and your last answer,
have assumed that the vessel was employed in the service of the
French government; is that what you wish the Committee to understand
in respect of a vessel chartered by the governor of Senegal:
might it not have been a speculation, on the part of the governor, as
an individual, not involving any responsibility on the part of the
government of France?—Undoubtedly it is very possible that it
might have been a speculation on the part of the governor of Senegal
without the knowledge of the French government; but in the case
of a vessel equipped for the slave trade in a British port, whether
she is employed by the governor of Senegal, or the governor of Bissao,
or the governor of any nation, cannot in any way affect our laws.
7245. Mr. Aldam.] Was this vessel, which was fitted up for the
purpose of procuring negroes for the French service, fitted up as an
ordinary slave ship?—As an ordinary slave ship.
7246. There were the same means of restraint?—Precisely; iron
bars across the hatchway, and the usual equipment of a slave vessel.
7247. So that it appeared that men were intended to be kept under
restraint upon the voyage?—Certainly.
7248. Mr. Forster.] Were there any slave-irons on board?—I do
not at this period remember very minutely her equipment, but there
was quite sufficient ground to authorise my seizing the vessel.
7249. What were those carpenters doing on board?—They were at
work upon the vessel.
7250. Can you describe the work they were doing?—I cannot do
that: they were performing their work as carpenters.
7251. Chairman.] Do you recollect whether they were caulking
outside, or performing work inside the vessel?—I saw them at work,
but I do not remember whether they were caulking the outside or the
inside; but I see in my report that she had caulkers on board
belonging to St. Mary’s, who were caulking and equipping her.
7252. Mr. Forster.] When you found that those carpenters
belonged to St. Mary’s, did you send them on shore?—No, most
assuredly not.
7253. Did you seize them with the vessel?—I sent them up with
the vessel to Sierra Leone, and put them into the court with the
vessel; and with respect to the three children that were on board, I
considered, from their age, that they could be in no way connected
with the equipping of the vessel, or otherwise concerned in the vessel
beyond a general suspicion arising in my mind of what was intended
to be done with those children, and I therefore sent them on shore to
the governor of the Gambia, that he might make such inquiry respecting
those children as he might judge proper.
7254. Did you consider that those carpenters, working for hire on
board a vessel in the harbour, were justly chargeable with a participation
in the slave trade?—They were found on board the vessel, and
I considered it was necessary that I should send them with the vessel
before the Vice-Admiralty Court.
7255. Did you consider them as assisting in the equipment of the
vessel?—They were assisting in the equipment of the vessel, and it
was with that view I sent them up; and, moreover, their evidence, if
the court had required it, would have been necessary to show that the
vessel was absolutely equipping in a British port; but perhaps the
vessel would have been condemned without it.
7256. What was the result of the trial?—The vessel was condemned.
7257. Mr. Forster.] If the vessel was so fully equipped for the
purposes of the slave trade, as you stated, how could the evidence of
those carpenters be necessary at Sierra Leone?—I have stated that
the vessel was partly equipped, and was completing her equipment
in the port of St. Mary’s; those carpenters being on board, I considered
that it was necessary that I should send them to Sierra Leone
for the court to decide in what way they were punishable.
7258. Were not representations made to you from the shore that
those people were carpenters belonging to the settlement, hired by
the master of the vessel, and in no way answerable for his proceedings,
or for the destination of the vessel?—No official representation
was made to me; perhaps some merchant, or some person connected
with some mercantile houses on shore might have told me so, but I
certainly paid no attention to it, nor did I consider myself bound to
pay attention to any thing of the sort. Had an official representation
been made to me from the governor, of course it would require my
greatest attention; but if an officer in the execution of his duty is
to be guided by every person that he may meet in the settlement
telling him this, that, or the other, there would be no possibility of
his ever performing his duty.
7259. But at all events you knew that they were native workmen,
belonging to the British settlement at the Gambia?—Yes; I knew
that from their own story. I sent them up with the vessel, and put
them into court with the vessel, and moreover acquainted the lieutenant-governor
of the Gambia officially that I intended doing so.
7260. Were they put in prison upon their arrival at Sierra Leone?—I
was not at Sierra Leone when the vessel arrived. To the best of
my knowledge they were confined about a month.
7261. Chairman.] Were they condemned?—I do not know.
7262. Mr. Aldam.] Were they confined preparatory to trial, or
after sentence?—I forget, for I was not at Sierra Leone at the time;
but I believe it was the Vice-Admiralty Court that confined them.
7263. Mr. Forster.] Do you know whether the carpenters were
tried or not?—I do not know; I was not at Sierra Leone during the
trial of the vessel, but I believe I arrived at Sierra Leone the very
day that the vessel was condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court.
7264. Did you make no inquiry as to the fate of those carpenters?—No,
I did not, because I left Sierra Leone, I think, the day after the
vessel was condemned, for Portendique, and I had no time to make
inquiry on either of the two days that I was at Sierra Leone. I knew
that the vessel was before the Vice-Admiralty Court who would decide
upon the merits of the case.
7265. Was there a French gentleman also on board the vessel
when you seized her?—There was a French person on board, whom
I believed to be the supercargo, and, I rather think, was the brother
of Mr. Marbeau.
7266. Did you find that he was the supercargo of the vessel?—He
told me that he was the supercargo; and I believe that he was
the brother of Mr. Marbeau, the owner.
7267. Was he not a passenger from Senegal to the Gambia?—It is
impossible for me to say what he was.
7268. Had he been on shore at the Gambia previously to your
seizing the vessel?—It is impossible for me to say.
7269. Did you carry a French gentleman from the Gambia to Sierra
Leone, without making inquiry into his character and pursuits, and
his connexion with that vessel?—All persons who were found on
board the vessel, as I have before stated, with the exception of three
black children, I sent to Sierra Leone, because I could not tell, of
course, what he was doing in the vessel; he might be a French
gentleman, or he might be there for the purpose of purchasing slaves;
or he might be, for what I could tell, the very person who had got
on board the three children, who, I have before stated, I thought
were placed in a very suspicious position. My duty was to send
everybody found in the vessel I had captured, on the suspicion of
slave dealing, before the court appointed to adjudicate upon such cases.
7270. How did you consider him to be connected with those three
children?—What I stated was, that he might be; I have not said
that he was; I stated that I knew nothing about him, but finding
him in the slave vessel, I sent him with the slave vessel before the
court.
7271. You sent the three children on shore?—Yes; everybody else
I sent before the court; and if any person in the world had been on
board the vessel I should have sent him in the same way; if an
English merchant had been on board, that merchant would have gone
with the vessel likewise before the court; the court is to decide
upon the legality or illegality of the conduct of persons found under
such circumstances.
7272. Chairman.] You conceive that that vessel, by her equipment
was clearly seizable, as engaged in the slave trade?—Yes, or
else I should not have seized her; I took upon myself a great responsibility
in seizing her.
7273. And under those circumstances you felt yourself called upon
to send every person found on board the vessel for adjudication before
the proper court?—Yes; if I had not done so, I should have
conceived that I laid myself open to the charge of not doing my
duty.
7274. Sir T. D. Acland.] When you find a vessel reasonably suspected
of being engaged in the slave trade, you think those who are
found on board are liable to the same suspicion?—In the case of a
vessel seized amenable to the British law.
7275. Sir R. H. Inglis.] Did you not find on board the vessel a
contract between Marbeau and Pellett on the one hand, and the
French governor on the other, to deliver a certain number of “passengers”
at Goree?—This contract for “Blacks” was forwarded to
me by the lieutenant-governor of the Gambia, one or two days after
I had made the seizure, which contract I sent to the Vice-Admiralty
court, with the vessel; every paper connected with the vessel,
as well as the contract, was laid before the court.
7276. Mr. Forster.] Were you aware that she was engaged by the
French government before you sent her from the Gambia?—I had
seen this contract, which was entered into by the French governor of
Senegal, but not the French government.
7277. Was the French gentleman, M. Pellett, put in prison also
upon his arrival at Sierra Leone?—I have stated that I know not
what was done by the court at Sierra Leone. Not being in Sierra
Leone at the time the vessel was at Sierra Leone, I cannot say; but,
to the best of my belief, the whole of them were put in prison.
7278. Sir T. D. Acland.] Have you known instances of persons
in authority under other governments being engaged in slave dealing?—The
charge has been frequently repeated very strongly of the governor
of Bissao being engaged very frequently in slave dealing, and I verily
believe it myself, because I have frequently detected vessels with
papers given by the governor of Bissao, which vessels were equipped
in every way for being engaged in the slave trade; and I have also
some recollection of some papers being found from the governor of
Bissao, detailing how some slaves that he had sent from Bissao were
to be disposed of.
7279. That slave dealing being contrary to the law of his own
country?—That slave dealing being contrary to the treaty between
England and Portugal.
7280. Therefore the mere fact of finding the name of a governor
upon the papers would not be a complete warrant for the lawfulness
of the traffic in which the vessel was engaged?—I should pay great
respect to the name of the French governor, but I should be very
cautious how I regarded the name of the governor of Bissao, because
I have seen so many instances of papers in which his name has been
used to cover slaving transactions.
7281. Mr. Forster.] Was the captain of the Sénégambie a black
or a white man?—I think a black man was represented to me as the
captain.
7282. Mr. Aldam.] You spoke of the desirableness of having forts
upon the African coast, upon the territory of the native chiefs.
What establishment would it be necessary to have in any such fort?—I
should think if the forts were small and well built, a very few
men would be sufficient; I should fancy the best form of fort to be
erected would be a Martello tower, that they might have one gun
upon a pivot, so that for the defence of the fort it would require very
few men.
7283. How many whites?—I should say half white and half
black; I should say a dozen men altogether.
7284.—Would not one or two white officers be sufficient, the rest
of the men being black?—That would do if you could insure white
officers living, but the danger is of one dying, and in that case to
whom would the charge of the fort devolve. It would be necessary
to have a sufficient number of white people, that you might always
insure one person to be in command.
7285. Are there no sub-officers blacks, whom you might entrust
with a command of that kind, subject to the visits of the captains of
men-of-war upon the station?—I think not at present; I think
Africa would require to be much further advanced in civilization
before it would be prudent to trust a fort entirely to black men.
7286. And it would generally happen that those forts would be
built upon an unhealthy part of the coast?—It is almost impossible
to select any part of the coast of Africa as being healthy. One spot
may be more healthy this season than another; but there is very
little difference upon the coast. The coast of Africa, from the Kroo
country up to Senegal, is generally composed of a low swampy
mangrove line of coast. Those mangroves extend frequently from
25 to 30 miles into the interior. There are spots like Sierra Leone,
Cape Verde, and Cape Mount, where you can find high land; but
generally speaking it is all a swampy mangrove coast.
7287. The spots you would select for those forts for commercial
purposes would generally happen to be unhealthy?—It would naturally
so occur, because they would require to be near the mouths of
the principal rivers, for drawing the exports down from the interior;
but I should think that the communication would be drawn down
better from the interior by opening some communication, or making
an agreement or treaty with some of the inland powerful chiefs, such
as the Foolahs, who are by far the most enlightened race that I have
seen, and much more advanced towards civilization than the people
in any other part of Africa that I have been in.
7288. Sir T. D. Acland.] Does Teembo belong to them?—Yes.
7289. Mr. Aldam.] Would you contemplate in that case having
a fort some distance up the river?—No; in the River Nunez, to
which I allude with respect to the Foolahs, I do not think it would
be necessary, because the petty chiefs immediately at the mouth of
the Nunez, who are now likely to give trouble, would be kept in
order by them; I think a treaty entered into with the Foolah chief,
would in a great measure ensure our trade with the Foolah country.
Through the means of the Foolah chief we should be enabled to
carry on trade independent of the petty chiefs, through whose territory
the trade now has to pass.
7290. What kind of treaty would you make with those chiefs?—The
object of it would be to bind the Foolah chief down to afford
protection and security to our commerce, and to people settling in
his country, for the purpose of carrying on trade.
7291. And you think it would be easy to obtain such a treaty?—I
think so; I judge from the opinion given me by a Foolah chief,
whom I met in the Nunez, and who expressed himself desirous that
the white people should not leave the River Nunez, and said that
he would be very happy to escort me up to Teembo, that the Foolah
Almaamy would be very happy to see me.
7292. Over what extent of country would the influence of this chief
extend?—The Foolah country is now very extensive. The kingdom
of Kikandy is in some measure tributary to the Foolah country.
7293. Mr. Forster.] Were you at Sierra Leone when the affair of
the Hamburgh vessel, the Echo, took place?—I was at Sierra Leone
while the Echo was there.
7294. Did you apply to the captain of the Echo for some of his
crew?—I met some of the crew of the Echo, who came to me and
expressed a wish to enter the Saracen for Her Majesty’s service, and
on meeting the captain of the Echo, I mentioned to him that those
people had done so; but I had no idea of entering the crew, as they
were all foreigners.
7295. Sir T. D. Acland.] How far is the Nunez navigable?—For
vessels drawing 10 feet water to Debucca, a distance of 50 or
60 miles; and for large canoes I should think much higher.
Gentlemen,
July 15th, 1842.
I send you herewith a copy of evidence given by Captain
Hill, of a later date than that I sent on a previous occasion.
I am, &c.
(signed)
R. R. Gibbons.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Viscount Courtenay.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. W. Hamilton.
Viscount Sandon, in the chair.
Captain Henry Worsley Hill, called in; and further Examined.
7958*. Chairman.] Have you something which you wish to add
to your evidence on the case of the Augusta?—Yes; I wish to state,
with respect to my detaining the Augusta, the grounds on which
the seizure was made, as far as my memory will admit of my going,
and I feel myself at liberty to disclose to the Committee. On going on
board the Augusta, amongst the letters and papers that were seized
by me, I found a letter, dated “London, 20th August 1840.” This
letter is a reply to a letter written by Captain Jennings from Portsmouth,
stating, “We cannot exceed 500l. for the vessel in question,
such as described in your letter; if you cannot, therefore, succeed
at those limits, we must give up the purchase.” This letter is signed
Zulueta & Co. By this letter, it certainly appears to me that the
vessel was purchased by Zulueta &, Co., or intended to be purchased
by that firm. The next letter is dated “London, 26th of September
1840,” addressed to Captain Thomas Jennings, Portsmouth; the
signature of this letter was cut out on my finding it. It acknowledged
the receipt of Captain Jenning’s letter of the following day,
observing “that the sum remitted would not be sufficient to cover
the expenses, to clear the ship, and requesting that Captain Jennings
would write the next day, stating the sum that was necessary,
that it might be forwarded to him by the post of Monday night, to
enable the ship to sail for Liverpool on Tuesday or Wednesday at
furthest.” The signature cut out. But there is a note to the letter:
“According to our Liverpool mode, note, you will go on shore to the
Salt House Dock.” The next paper I would allude to, is the charter-party
of the vessel, dated London, 19th October 1840, wherein it is
mutually agreed, between Mr. Thomas Jennings, master and owner
of the good ship or vessel called the Augusta, and Messrs. Pedro
Martinez & Co. of Havannah, that the ship shall load from the factories
of the said Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. a cargo of legal goods,
and shall proceed therewith to Gallinas, on the coast of Africa, and
there deliver the same; after which she may be sent on any legal
voyage between the West Indies, England, Africa, or the United
States, according to the directions of the charterer’s agents. The
freight to be paid on unloading and right delivery of the cargo, at
the rate of 100l. sterling per calendar month. The necessary cash
for the ship’s disbursements to be furnished to the captain free of
commission; the captain being indebted to the charterers in certain
sums, as per acknowledgment elsewhere. The freight earned by the
vessel to be held as general lien for such sums.” This is signed
Thomas Jennings, for Messrs. Pedro Martinez & Co. of Havannah,
Zulueta & Co.
7959*. Jennings is the owner of the vessels?—Yes.
7960*. And Zulueta appears as the agent to Messrs. Pedro Martinez
& Co., chartering Jenning’s vessel for certain purposes?—Yes;
by the extract from the first letter it appears that Zulueta bought the
vessel; by the second letter he pays the expenses of the vessel; but
the charter-party is made out by Thomas Jennings, as the owner of
the vessel.
7961*. Sir T. D. Acland.] Then Zulueta acts as agent for Messrs.
Pedro Martinez & Co.?—Yes; the next paper, I will read the extract
from is marked “Additional Memorandum of Charter-party;” which
commences, “I Thomas Jennings, captain and owner of the ship
Augusta, declare I have received from Messrs. Pedro Martinez &
Co. of this city, 1,100l. sterling, for the disbursements of the said
ship, the fitting out and provisions, which I engage myself to repay,
with the earnings of the same, namely, all the earnings of the ship,
will be accounted for and applied to the said Messrs. Pedro Martinez
& Co., they furnishing the cash for all expenses, crew’s wages
(including 15l. per month for my salary as captain). At any time
when the said gentlemen may think proper to close the charter-party,
I will deliver to them, or their representative, a bill of sale
for the said ship, and all her appurtenances, to cover the balance due
to them in the said account.” It states, that Mr. Thomas Jennings
is no way responsible for the settlement of the above-mentioned
debt, but with the said ship and her earnings, and that Messrs.
Pedro Martinez & Co. will take on themselves the insurance and risk
on the vessel. This paper is dated London, 21st October, 1840,
and signed “Thomas Jennings.” The next paper is the bill of
lading, which states the cargo to be shipped by Thomas Jennings, of
Liverpool, in the Augusta, lying in the port of Liverpool and bound
to Gallinas: 20 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, one case of
looking-glasses, 10 casks copper ware, 134 bales of merchandize,
1,600 iron pots, 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be delivered at Gallinas
to Don Alvarez, Don Angel Ximenez, and Don Jose Perez Rolla.
This is dated Liverpool, 10th November 1840. The vessel had no
register, but a sailing licence from the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s
Customs, wherein Thomas Jennings, of No. 2, James-street,
Limehouse, is represented to be the owner, and that the vessel is to
be employed in foreign trade. There is also an account current
between Messrs. Zulueta with Thomas Jennings, master of the
Augusta, amounting to 339l. 16s. 9d., the chief part of which is for
the disbursements of the vessel. I further state to the Committee,
that ten letters were found on board this vessel, dated Cadiz, and
addressed to three notorious slave merchants at Gallinas: in one of
these letters, addressed to Señor Ignacio Perez Rolla, at Gallinas,
dated Cadiz, 30th November 1840, is a paragraph to the following
effect: “In a letter, dated London the 21st instant, which I have
just received from Messrs. Zulueta & Co., merchants, in London, I
had the pleasure of receiving a bill drawn by you on them for 250l.,
which I this day place to their credit, waiting your advice of the
same.” This letter is signed “M.” but no name. The other letters
were all on slave business; not a word of any innocent trade, but
the whole directing how slaves were to be shipped on board various
vessels.
7962*. Who were they signed by?—All signed in the same way.
7963*. Signed “M.”?—Yes, and to the best of my recollection,
every vessel to which they referred was captured by Captain Denman
and myself.
7964*. Where were these letters dated from?—From Cadiz; the
Vanguardia was captured by Captain Denman; the Uracca by
myself, the Diana also; the other vessel referred to in the letters is
the Gabriel, which vessel fired upon the boats of Her Majesty’s vessel
Termagant, killing three or four of her crew, and has been since
captured by the Acorn, Captain Adams. Therefore these letters at
once show that the three persons to whom they were addressed,
residing at Gallinas, and who were the parties to whom the
Augusta was consigned, were most extensively engaged in slave
dealing. No other letters were found on board the Augusta but those
that related to slave dealing.
7965*. The Augusta had touched at Cadiz on her way out from
England?—Yes, and landed part of her cargo at Cadiz, although it
was consigned to be delivered at Gallinas.
7966*. What are the inferences that you draw from these papers?—That
Zulueta, by the letter of the 20th of August, 1840, advanced
the money for the purchase of the vessel; that by the letter of the
26th of September, that Zulueta advanced the money to defray her
expenses and fitting out, necessary before she proceeded to sea; that
Mr. Jennings was put in as the owner, when in fact he was not the
owner; that Zulueta was perfectly aware of this, and that he
chartered the vessel to carry a cargo on behalf of Messrs. Pedro
Martinez & Co. of Havannah, a notorious slave dealer, which
cargo was to be delivered to three notorious slave dealers at the
Gallinas; that afterwards these notorious slave dealers at Gallinas
were to have the direction of the vessel for the future proceedings;
and, moreover, that at any time Messrs. Martinez, or their agents,
thought proper to close the charter party, the vessel was to be given
up to their agents, by which means, a ship bearing English colours
was certainly employed by notorious slave dealers; she was to be
directed in her voyage by slave dealers; and she was, at any time
these notorious slave dealers thought proper to name, to be given up
to them entirely. This transaction, with the purchase of the vessel,
and a person put in as the nominal owner who was not the owner,
cannot but stamp a character that the vessel was engaged, with the
knowledge of Zulueta, in some trade that they were desirous should
not be discovered.
7967*. Mr. Forster.] Inform the Committee in what way you connect
Messrs. Zulueta & Co. illegally with any improper transaction
there, or what part of the transaction which you have detailed it was
not competent for foreign merchants to perform as agents in this
country; mention which part they were not bound to perform, provided
they received instructions from their agents at Havannah to do
it, having money in their hands to make a purchase of the vessel and
ship the goods?—Messrs. Zulueta must be aware that it is contrary
to law to act as agents, or otherwise, for the shipment of goods that
are to be employed in the slave trade; they were bound to do no
thing illegal; they are merchants residing in England, and they must
conform themselves to the laws of England, and they cannot, by the
laws of England, plead ignorance of those laws.
7968*. Chairman.] You conceive it would be unlawful for an
agent in this country to ship goods to be employed in the slave
trade?—Yes.
7969*. Mr. Forster.] How is a merchant acting in this country in
pursuance of orders from his correspondent abroad to know what that
correspondent means to do with the goods which he purchases on
his account and ships at Liverpool?—In this case I think it is plain
that Messrs. Zulueta entered into a scheme for chartering and purchasing
a vessel, and putting in an owner, and establishing a British
character to a vessel that he could not be ignorant was to be engaged
in the slave trade, or in some trade which, for reasons that Messrs.
Martinez may have, that they wished to keep in the back ground,
and that secrecy alone ought to have called from Messrs. Zulueta a
degree of vigilance, and more particularly a vessel being bound to a
place on the coast of Africa, where, if they had taken the slightest
trouble in the world, they must have known there were no constituted
authorities or custom-house officers, or any persons of an European
nation who could ascertain if she was engaged in legal trade.
7970*. Then, in fact, you think it is imperative on the English
merchant, before he executes the orders of his foreign correspondent,
in any matter relating to the trade between Brazils, Cuba, and the
coast of Africa, to send out and inquire the character of the party
with whom the transaction is connected on the coast of Africa?—I
have stated nothing of the sort; but I have endeavoured to be particular
in making it appear that this vessel was chartered to a place
where there were no constituted authorities. A vessel to be chartered
to the Brazils or Cuba, or any country where authorities existed
in the colony of a recognized nation, would materially alter the
position of Messrs. Zulueta; but Messrs. Zulueta, as I before stated,
residing in England, it became the duty of that house to be guarded
that they did not break the laws.
7971*. Do you speak of this as a matter of prudence and taste on
the part of Zulueta & Co., or as an act of criminality?—As far as I
am able to give my own opinion, I believe that Messrs. Zulueta were
perfectly criminal; at least they had a perfect knowledge of what
they were doing. I think I am borne out in that by the secrecy they
have endeavoured to purchase, and putting in a false owner. Messrs.
Zulueta have been for a number of years agents to the notorious Pedro
Blanco; they have also before this purchased and sent out to the
Havannah a notorious slave vessel called the Arrogante, which circumstance
was represented by Mr. Tolme, Her Majesty’s consul at
the Havannah, to the English Government, and is also in the printed
correspondence laid before parliament, either for the year 1839 or
1840. In fact, there can be no want of evidence to show that
Messrs. Zulueta had for a length of time been agents to slave
dealers; and I think it is impossible that any merchant can be an
agent and ship cargoes of goods without ascertaining some knowledge
of the party for whom they are shipped.
7972*. in the first place, you assume that it was illegal for Messrs.
Zulueta & Co. to ship these goods to Alvarez at the Gallinas; are
you quite sure that that is not a gratuitous assumption of law on your
part?—I am speaking from my own belief; I cannot say what the
law is, but I am speaking from my own belief, and the inferences I
can draw from the vessel’s papers. I think the papers are quite conclusive
to the mind of any man that Zulueta was cognizant of what
he was doing; but as far as it is an illegal transaction it is not for
me to judge, but the judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra
Leone did think it illegal, and condemned the vessel; and, moreover,
the man who is put forward as captain and owner did not defend the
vessel on her trial.
7973*. Are you quite sure he had the means to do so?—He cannot
plead as an excuse that he had not the means, for the owner of a
vessel in a British port, with a cargo worth between 4,000l. and
5,000l., I think, could always manage to raise 30l. or 40l. for the defence
of his vessel.
7974*. Was that cargo in his possession, or was it under seizure at
the time you speak of?—The vessel and all was seized by me, but
still there was the captain and the owner present, and nothing was
touched until the condemnation took place.
7975*. How could he offer security and raise money on a seized
ship and cargo?—To say how he is to do so is not for me; I am not
a mercantile man, but I only observe, that it is most extraordinary
that the owner of a ship, with a cargo on board, cannot, in a British
port, raise 50l. for the defence of that vessel.
7976*. But how can you affect any wonder on that subject, when
you yourself admit that you do not know how he was to do it?—I
have already stated that I am no mercantile man, and to say how
these things are done, I cannot.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Mr. Aldam.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Captain Fitzroy.
Sir Robert H. Inglis.
Mr. Milnes.
Mr. W. Patten.
Mr. Stuart Wortley.
Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman, R. N. called in;
and Examined.
6540. Chairman.] Will you state what your service on the coast
of Africa has been?—My first acquaintance with the coast of Africa
was in the year 1834, when I took over a slave vessel from Rio
Janeiro. In the year 1835 I commanded the Curlew, upon that
coast, for a considerable period; and for the last two years I have
been in charge of the coast between Cape Verde and Cape Palmas.
I was the senior officer upon that district.
6541. What has been the course of the slave trade since your
acquaintance with the coast of Africa; has it decreased in extent, or
changed its direction?—Since my first acquaintance with the coast,
the slave trade has changed in many most important particulars, both
with regard to the locality and with regard to the method in which
it has been carried on.
6542. Will you state first, as to the locality, in what respect it has
changed?—In the year 1835, when the Equipment Treaty came into
force, the effect was, in a great measure, to drive the slave trade into
the south latitude, where it was carried on with perfect impunity,
under the flag of Portugal, by the then existing treaty. They then
found that upon the north coast they could carry on the slave trade,
by using the flag of Portugal, exactly as before.
6543. By the north coast, you mean north of the equator?—Yes:
but from the end of the year 1839 they have been equally shut out
from the Portuguese and from the Spanish flag. Up to that period
no check whatever had been effected. Since that period I conceive
that the slave trade has diminished to one-half what it was before.
6544. Not only north of the equator, but along the whole coast?—Along
the whole coast of Africa. The whole amount of the export
of slaves from Africa is, in my opinion, now, not one-half what it
was previously to the Act of 2 Victoria, empowering us to capture
Portuguese ships fitted for the slave trade. The effect of all former
changes had been to throw the slave trade under the flag of Portugal,
where it received a perfect protection in the southern latitude, and
in the northern latitude was on the same footing on which it had been
always since the trade was first established.
6545. Does the trade seem now to look to any flag to cover itself
under?—They seem to have been deprived of every flag they could
possibly look to; they no longer receive protection from any flag.
6546. Not from the American?—Not from the American flag,
decidedly, except indirectly.
6547. Do you conceive that the present system, if carried on with
the same amount of force, will reduce the slave trade to a still greater
extent?—My opinion is, that the system of blockade is that which
alone can be successful under any circumstances, but that to render
it effective we want a considerable increase of force; with an increase
of force I believe that in three years the slave trade may be demolished
and exterminated.
6548. Sir T. D. Acland.] In the south as well as in the north?—Yes;
there is no longer any difference since the 2nd of Victoria.
6549. Chairman.] Do you contemplate a blockade of the whole
coast?—I contemplate the blockade of those parts where the slave
trade is carried on.
6550. Do you believe that a material check to the trade, or an
extirpation of the trade for two or three years, in any one place,
makes it difficult to resume it afterwards, if the interference of the
cruizers is suspended?—It turns the trade into another course.
When once the trade is interrupted at any place, people are not in
the habit of sending traders up the country for slaves, and traders
from the interior cease to bring slaves down to them there, and there
is great difficulty felt in resuming it; and in almost every instance
legitimate commerce comes in, and the wants of the natives are
supplied by those means; but I would not in such cases suspend the
interference of the cruizers altogether, until the slave trade should be
entirely eradicated.
6551. You believe that when the slave trade is checked for a
period, legitimate commerce grows up in its place, and the desire to
resume it is diminished?—I think the desire to resume it is diminished,
in the first place, principally on account of the difficulty of
resuming it. I believe that all over Africa the natives prefer the
slave trade to any other trade.
6552. But you conceive that the lawful trade co-operates with the
efforts of the cruizers?—In speaking of lawful trade I think it is
necessary to state, that in my opinion the only legitimate trade of
Africa, in the strict sense of the term, is that wherein goods are paid
for in produce; all other trade, more or less, is connected with the
slave trade.
6553. You mean that the money by which goods are paid for can
only have been acquired by the slave trade?—Universally by the
slave trade; dollars are brought upon the coast by no other means.
6554. Mr. Forster.] Those dollars and doubloons being diffused
over the coast, in what way would you propose to stop the circulation
of them?—I do not propose to stop the circulation of them.
6555. Chairman.] When you say “lawful trade,” you mean trade
which you would consider as free from any connexion with the slave
trade?—Trade which is altogether unconnected with the slave
trade.
6556. Where it is a mere exchange of goods for produce, you see
no connexion with the slave trade?—No connexion whatever.
6557. But where you see an exchange of goods for money, there
you conceive there is at least a suspicion of the slave trade?—I do
not think that an individual receiving dollars or money upon the
coast should of necessity be suspected or accused of engaging in or
conniving at the slave trade in any way; I merely say that such
transactions do indirectly partake and mingle with slave-trading
transactions.
6558. Because the money is brought upon the coast originally only
by the slave trade?—Yes.
6559. But the parties receiving the money may be totally exempt
from any connexion themselves with the slave trade?—They may be
certainly unconnected with the slave trade altogether.
6560. Wherever the slave trade is carried on, there probably money
will be found?—Invariably.
6561. And therefore those who deal in lawful goods, in places
where the slave trade is also carried on, will probably receive money
in the course of their transactions?—In many places altogether money.
6562. What is the change in the system of blockade at present, as
compared with the former system?—Under the former system we had
no power over the ship until the slaves were actually on board. The
consequence was, that if a man-of-war lay in a port full of slavers, as
I have seen Whydah, with ten or a dozen slavers at one time, so
long as the man-of-war was in sight they would not ship their slaves;
directly the man-of-war was out of sight they shipped their slaves;
and every vessel in the harbour would weigh their anchor and set
sail. The cruizer would probably chase the wrong ship, and after
having chased 100 miles would be laughed at by the master of her,
and told that he only did it as a pasatiempo.
6563. Then the change of system is essentially dependent upon
the power of seizing under the equipment treaty?—Yes, entirely;
the system of blockade is only effective in consequence of that change
in the powers of the cruizers.
6564. Sir T. D. Acland.] The equipment treaty allows you to enter
rivers, and to board ships even while lying in the river?—The equipment
treaties do not give any new rights as regards places.
6565. Under that treaty you may examine slavers lying in the
river, and seize them there?—The sole difference is this, we might
have searched them formerly as we may search them now, but we
could not seize them before unless slaves were on board.
6566. Chairman.] Are you acquainted with the condition of the
leeward coast?—I have not been on the leeward coast since the year
1835.
6567. You cannot speak to the condition of that coast as to the
slave trade?—I can state that then it was carried on to an enormous
extent; that I knew 20 sail of vessels to be there, and that under
those former treaties every one of those 20 escaped with full cargoes
of slaves.
6568. You have been cruizing the last two years to the north of
Cape Palmas?—I have.
6569. What are the points that have been principally the resort of
the slave trade during that period?—The Gallinas, to an enormous
extent; New Cestos, which lies to the southward of Mesurado,
between Mesurado and Cape Palmas; Sea-bar at the Sherboro’
river; the rivers Pongas, Bissao, and Cacheo.
6570. Which should you say have been the places from which the
slave trade has been carried on with the greatest vigour?—The
Gallinas, immeasurably more than any other place; but at Bissao,
since the destruction of the Gallinas, owing to the great difficulty of
cruizing there, it has increased, and no doubt will increase more,
unless proper measures are taken.
6571. What is the great difficulty of cruizing off Bissao?—There
is an inland navigation, a chain reaching from Bissao to the sea upon
the north. There are innumerable islands to the south, amongst
which there are seven or eight different passages by which the slavers
could escape; and there is the Portuguese settlement of Bissao, under
which a slaver may lie with perfect impunity under the Portuguese
flag. From all those circumstances, there is the greatest difficulty
in the cruizers operating effectually there.
6572. You have not the right of capturing under the walls of either
a Spanish or a Portuguese fort?—No, we cannot supersede their
municipal laws; all we can do is to remonstrate with the authorities.
6573. But you may seize as soon as the vessel is out of their
waters?—Yes; but they take care never to go out when you are in
the neighbourhood; they can get the most perfect information by
canoes.
6574. Would steamers be especially adapted for cruizing on that
coast?—I consider two steamers indispensable for eradicating the
slave trade between the isle of Bulama and Bissao, assisted by two
cruizers at least; but a yet more important object is the occupation
of the Bulama island, from which the slavers have received the
greatest possible assistance, and the occupation of which would
directly intercept the principal supply of slaves. It is an island
not only of immense importance as regards commerce, but also of
extraordinary fertility.
6575. Is it salubrious?—I cannot say that any part of the coast of
Africa is salubrious, but I have no reason to believe that it is less so
than other parts; this inland is one of the last importance; I do not
think it is possible to appreciate it without seeing Captain Belcher’s
chart.
6576. What is the importance of that island to commerce?—It is
at the mouth of all the rivers; the river Nunez, which is a river of
vast importance, in my opinion, and the Rio Grande, and the Rio
Pongos. It intercepts the trade with Bissao completely.
6577. Do those great rivers open out a fertile country?—I think
not, generally; I think the banks are generally very swampy near
the sea; but there is a very large inland trade brought down the
river, both in slaves and produce: the slaves are carried almost
entirely to Bissao.
6578. Sir R. H. Inglis.] You have referred to the occupation of
the island of Bulama, as furnishing by its geographical position a
most important station for the prevention of the slave trade, was
not it selected by Captain Beaver for that purpose, and was not
its almost proverbial unhealthiness the cause of its abandonment?—I
believe there was a great deal of prejudice upon the subject;
I believe, moreover, that the settlement was most injudiciously
selected for health, and I think, besides, that if you compare it with
certain periods at Sierra Leone, and every other part of the coast,
there will be found periods quite as unhealthy at other places as at
Bulama. I think Captain Beaver’s account of the island fully explains
the causes of the sickness. It was very much from the
misconduct of the people. I know that when orders came out to
declare the sovereignty of Great Britain over that island, 1,600
persons at Sierra Leone volunteered to me to go there to settle it at a
time when the emigrant ships could not get a man, so high was the
impression of the people as to its advantages.
6579. Mr. W. Patten.] Are none of the other islands so well
situated?—None to be compared to this, and this is the only one
over which we have any claim.
6580. In point of health how are the other islands as compared
with Bulama?—I have no means of judging, being inhabited by
barbarous piratical people, with whom we have no sort of intercourse
at present; the policy of the Portuguese is to keep all the
persons surrounding their settlement in the most barbarous state.
6581. Mr. Aldam.] What is the nature of the land on the opposite
coast?—All swampy, I believe.
6582. Then is not the island necessarily unhealthy?—No, I think
not; I think that if the sea coast on the western side of the island
was occupied, it would not be so; it is certainly not more swampy
than the Gambia itself, and many other settlements.
6583. Mr. Forster.] You attribute the failure of Captain Beaver to
the inadequacy of the means that he employed rather than to the
fault of the island?—I think it was a great deal owing to that; I
think there is no proof that the island is unhealthy to the extent
supposed, and I believe the island might be immediately peopled by
blacks.
6584. Have you in the course of your cruizing on the coast of
Africa seen any part that appeared to you to be so eligible for a
settlement as the island of Bulama?—I have already stated in as
strong terms as I am able, the importance of the island, in my opinion,
in every respect; there may be places that I should suppose to be
more healthy; for instance, Sierra Leone itself, is apparently the
most healthy part of the whole coast, but there seems to be great
doubt whether it is so.
6585. Mr. Aldam.] If the opposite coast is swampy, would not
fever almost always prevail there when the wind sets from the land?—I
am not at all able to say what causes fever, for we find it under
all circumstances; you find sometimes swampy places less unhealthy
than high places.
6586. Mr. Forster.] Did you land on the island of Bulama?—Yes.
6587. Have you seen any considerable portion of the island?—No,
I have not, excepting the coast.
6588. Is it your opinion that there is open ground there?—I found
the ground under cultivation, and therefore only told the people that
it was a British island; I thought it would have been injudicious to
remove them and let jungles spring up before the Government took
possession of it.
6589. You saw no extraordinary obstacle to the cultivation and
improvement of the island?—Decidedly not; I think it is the most
favourable spot for cultivation I have seen upon the coast of Africa.
6590. Have you been up to the river Nunez or the river Pongas?—I
have been up the Nunez and the Pongas.
6591. To what distance?—I went up the Nunez as high as
Kacundy, about 40 or 50 miles in a direct line; it is where the British
factories are; it is the place to which all the trade of the Foota-Jallon
nation is brought.
6592. Did you land upon the banks of the river?—Yes; I was five
days in the river altogether.
6593. Did you see any thing of the state of the cultivation?—I had
no means of judging; I do not believe the exports of the produce
raised in the neighbourhood of the river itself at all important; the
important commerce is that which is brought down from Foota-Jallon;
and the opportunities I had of judging gave me the highest
impression of the state of that country. I think they are far superior
to any other African people I have ever had the means of acquiring a
knowledge of; they are a Foolah nation, in the Foota-Jallon country;
Teembo is the capital.
6594 Mr. Forster.] You found those British factories depending
entirely upon the protection of the natives, without any British establishment
to assist them?—I went up for the purpose of affording
them protection; there is no Government establishment of any sort,
nor do I think it desirable there should be.
6595. Sir T. D. Acland.] What is the ground of that opinion?—That
the river is exceedingly unhealthy; and my opinion is that the
Government influence would be quite as well supported by occasional
visits by steam ships, and Bulama would afford support to the trade,
if colonized.
6596. Chairman.] What kind of settlement do you contemplate
upon the island of Bulama?—A colony of black people, with any
traders there that choose to go there, supported by a small fort, with
a detachment of the African corps.
6597. Sir T. D. Acland.] Under the English Government?—Under
the English Government.
6597*. And visited by steamers?—And visited by steamers and
cruizers.
6598. Mr. W. Patten.] What time does it require to go from Sierra
Leone to Bulama?—It depends a great deal upon the time of year;
I should say, generally, the passage might be made in less than three
days.
6599. Do you recollect the distance?—I am not quite sure; 200
miles, I should think.
6600. Sir T. D. Acland.] Would you have this colony dependent
upon the Government of Sierra Leone?—Yes, I think decidedly.
6601. Mr. Forster.] Tn preference to its being attached to the
Gambia?—It depends upon the facility of communication between the
two; whichever the communication is most easy with, I should say it
should be connected with. I am not prepared to say at this moment
with which the communication is most easy.
6602. Sir T. D. Acland.] But at all events you think it should be
dependent upon one or the other, not separate?—I think so.
6603. Mr. Forster.] You were understood to say that the country
up the River Nunez, and the River Pongas, is swampy in the interior?—The
mouths of the rivers are swampy, but up the Nunez there is
good rising ground; the Pongas is a succession of creeks joining each
other.
6604. Did you become acquainted with the fact up the Nunez of
the growth of coffee on the mountains?—I became aware of the fact
of coffee growing in whole forests, which have been hitherto neglected
in consequence of the duties amounting to a prohibition.
6605. Is it your opinion that the slave trade is carried on in the
Nunez to any material extent?—The Portuguese settlement of Bissao
has small boats and canoes collecting slaves, together with produce,
as far down as the north bank of the Sierra Leone river; there are
many of those boats and canoes employed in the Nunez, but to the
best of my belief no vessel has carried slaves from thence for several
years, except in one instance, where, under the plea of recruits, the
French took away a cargo.
6606. Chairman.] The canoes go about picking up a few at a time,
and collecting them into a store, as it were, at Bissao and Cacheo?—At
Bissao and Cacheo; I have no doubt that there are also barracoons
upon the Bissagos islands, but I had no opportunity to examine
as to the fact.
6607. Mr. Forster.] You do not consider the British factories in
Rio as at all responsible for those proceedings?—Decidedly not; I
have no reason to suppose that they are.
6608. How do you account for so few cruizers having generally
visited that part of the coast hitherto?—Because the station which I
had charge of has generally been very short of cruizers; the only
means of communication was by boats, and owing to the long exposure,
and the fatigue it occasioned, it invariably cost the lives of
about a fourth of the people employed, whereas a steamer might do
in one day what boats take four or five days to do.
6609. Chairman.] How would you provide fuel for the steamers in
those parts?—I am not aware how far wood might be substituted for
coal; I think in that part wood certainly might be used, because they
would be able to take in supplies so frequently.
6610. They would have no long distances to go?—Not in that
district.
6611. So that they need never be far removed from the depôts?—Precisely;
there might be depôts at Bulama, and at the Gambia, and
at Sierra Leone; the great difficulty is the engineers; you are obliged
to have white engineers at present, but there is no sort of reason why
black people of Sierra Leone should not be brought up for the purpose.
There are numbers sufficiently educated for the purpose, and
with proper instruction, in the course of a few years, they would
supersede the necessity for white engineers.
6612. Mr. Forster.]—Have you not found the natives rather remarkable
for the quickness and facility with which they learn mechanical
operations of that kind?—I have found them quite equal to
white people in that respect, possessing great intelligence, and quickness,
and shrewdness, making allowance for their want of education
and barbarous habits in general.
6613. Mr. Wortley.] Did you ever consider how far it would be
possible to establish an effective blockade upon the coast which has
been the scene of the slave trade by means of a combination of
steamers and sailing cruizers?—I believe that by such means, by
taking certain districts of the coast pointed out by particular circumstances,
and effectively and continuously blockading those parts, and
then moving from point to point, leaving a smaller force to prevent
the slave trade from reviving, that system would be perfectly effective
in the course of three years, supposing the forces to be increased.
6614. Sir T. D. Acland.] From what point to what point?—I
speak merely of the West Coast, I have no knowledge of the East;
but I have no hesitation in saying that it might be effected from Cape
Verde down to the northern part of our Cape of Good Hope dominions.
6615. Mr. Wortley.] In order to accomplish that object are you
able to state what you imagine would be the necessary force of
steamers and cruizers?—I should say that steamers are only necessary
in particular parts; I should say that six steamers would be
quite enough.
6616. Chairman.] And how many sailing-vessels?—There are now
upon the coast sixteen sailing-vessels; I would increase them by at
least one-half; I would withdraw all the cruizers now employed in
checking the slave trade on the other side of the Atlantic; I consider
them, as regards the suppression of the slave trade, as entirely useless.
6617. Do you know what number are employed on the other side
of the Atlantic?—On the other side of the Atlantic they have various
other duties to perform; I can scarcely say that any of them are exclusively
employed in this service.
6618. Mr. Wortley.] But the whole number there is rendered large
by having this service to perform?—Yes.
6619. Can you say what number it would be possible to dispense
with, in case the slave trade service were discontinued on the other side
of the Atlantic?—I cannot answer this question, as they have various
other duties to perform, and are not exclusively employed against
slave trade.
6620. When you said that you would increase the number of
cruizers by one-half, did you mean that you would increase it by one-half,
including the number of steamers that you propose to have?—No,
excluding those; I would make the present 16 vessels 24, and have
six steamers in addition.
6621. And you think that if there were a force of that kind employed
upon the West Coast of Africa, it would have the effect of
entirely suppressing the slave trade?—If a proper system of blockade
were adopted, I have no doubt of it.
6622. Chairman.] Do you consider that it is useless, towards putting
down the slave trade, to capture slave vessels off the coast of
Brazil or the West Indies?—My opinion is, that any captures there
are such utter chance that they do no good whatever, as on that side
not one vessel out of ten can ever be captured, and wherever it is reduced
to a chance at all, the profits are sufficient to keep up the slave
trade. My opinion is, that the only way in which the slave trade can
be stopped is in the interior of Africa. Every slave vessel that sails
with her cargo of slaves has already done all she can to keep the slave
trade going in Africa. The native dealer has his profit upon them;
he does not care where she goes to, or what becomes of the slaves
afterwards.
6623. Mr. Forster.] Is not a slave vessel captured on the western
side of the Atlantic, equally a loss to the slave dealer as a slave vessel
captured on the eastern side of the Atlantic?—My opinion is, that
the amount of loss to the slave dealer is of little consequence, seeing
that it is the result of chances which, in that quarter, must be always
immensely in favour of the slave dealer, and that, compared with the
chance of escape, the chance of capture is nothing; the profits are so
large that the risk will be readily incurred.
6624. Chairman.] You think that the chance of escape is much
greater with cruizers on the western side of the Atlantic than on the
eastern?—My opinion is, that if the slaves are once on board, the
mischief is already done.
6625. Mr. Aldam.] Do you think that the only effect of capturing
a slave ship off the coast of America, is to increase the price
of slaves, and that any increase which that can cause, the planters
can still afford to pay?—The capture of a slave ship after her slaves
are on board inflicts a heavy loss on the owners; but while embarkation
can be effected to any extent, slave trade can never be stopped.
The mere fact of keeping cruizers on the American side of the Atlantic
is in itself an absolute proof of the want of success of our efforts, and
the strongest argument in favour of the system I recommend. While
slaves can be introduced, planters can afford to pay almost any
price.
6626. Mr. Wortley.] Do you think it would be possible to suppress
the slave trade by any system pursued in the interior of Africa,
without an effectual suppression of the trade upon the coast?—The
only way in which I contemplate the suppression of the slave trade
in the interior of Africa, is by the suppression of the embarkation of
slaves.
6627. As long as the temptation upon the coast exists, do you think
it impossible to put an end to the slave trade in the interior?—Precisely;
as long as embarkation takes place, that temptation continues,
and the slave trade of the interior remains untouched.
6628. Chairman.] Has not the cruizing off the coast of Africa the
additional advantage of protecting British trade incidentally, and
showing to the natives before their eyes that the English flag is
actively exerted to put down that traffic, which advantages would
not be secured by cruizing on the western side of the Atlantic?—Certainly,
it is one of our first duties to protect British trade, and in
that respect I have no doubt it is useful, as well as in the suppression
of the slave trade.
6629. Is it not of considerable advantage in a traffic like that upon
the coast of Africa, that the British power should be pretty frequently
displayed?—It is highly necessary.
6630. Chairman.] Supposing even the chance of capture to be
equal in the two cases, has not cruizing off the coast of Africa the
further advantage of checking or entirely preventing the horrors of
the middle passage?—If you capture a full vessel upon the coast of
Africa, she has nearly the same voyage to Sierra Leone from many
parts: it depends upon circumstances.
6631. Sir R. H. Inglis.] You have stated that the slave trade is a
favourite trade throughout Africa; would, therefore, the prevention
of the slave trade, whether on the east or on the west of the Atlantic,
remove the temptation in the one case more than in the other?—My
opinion is, that the temptation is removed alone by throwing difficulties
in the way of embarkation; because, as long as the native can
sell his slaves, he does not care where they go to; he goes and buys
more slaves.
6632. Chairman.] Would you think it advantageous if the cruizers
were allowed to fit up one of their prizes as a cruizing tender?—It
would be undoubtedly of great advantage, but it would be contrary
to the treaties.
6633. To all the treaties?—I think to all the treaties; and it would
be open to great abuses.
6634. What abuses?—I think you would have young midshipmen
and people cruizing away in those vessels, and getting into scrapes,
by improperly searching foreign vessels.
6635. You regard the duty as one of rather a delicate nature,
which is not to be entrusted to subordinate officers?—The most difficult
and the most delicate that a British officer can be entrusted
with; the immense mischief produced by an indiscreet search, by
giving offence to foreign nations, has been very much experienced.
6636. Do not the treaties require that officers of a certain rank
shall alone be empowered to carry out the search?—That is the case
in most of the treaties.
6637. Mr. Wortley.] Has not there been an improvement of late
years in the class of vessels employed in cruizing?—Very great; I
believe that for some years they have been replacing the old brigs
with a superior class of vessels; fast sailing vessels, which are quite
equal to the slavers in sailing qualities.
6638. Are you aware whether that change has been followed by a
perceptible increase of efficiency in the service?—That change was
about contemporaneous with the change by the Act of the 2d of Victoria;
you cannot distinguish between the effects of the two.
6639. According to your observation, should you say that the present
class of vessels is an efficient class for the service for which they
are employed?—Decidedly; there are still a few of the old class, but
they have been always replaced at the expiration of their term of service
by efficient vessels.
6640. How are they in point of sailing as compared with the generality
of slavers?—They are generally superior; I commanded one
for two years, and I never chased a vessel that I did not overhaul;
some got away from darkness coming on, but I had the advantage in
point of sailing in every instance.
6641. What vessel was that?—The Wanderer, a 16-gun brig.
6642. Chairman.] What are the respective functions that you
would assign to the sailing-vessel and to the steamer, the two acting
in combination?—The steamer, I think, should be probing the
rivers and ranging about the coast; the sailing-vessel should be as
much as possible a fixture at the place where the slaves are put on
board, which should never be left unguarded for an hour. The
steamer should be employed in going from place to place to see
whether from new places they are making arrangements to embark
slaves, and also for carrying provisions and water, and in chasing;
but steamers could not entirely blockade, because they are so much
more frequently obliged to leave their stations for supplies.
6643. Mr. Wortley.] What was the system you generally pursued
in the course of your service; did you pass your time principally in
stationary blockade, or were you upon a moving cruize?—When I
took charge of the station, the orders I issued to the other cruizers
(as well as what I practised myself) were, to maintain the principle
of blockade; and if they chased a vessel off a certain port where
slaves were shipped, never to lose sight of that port; but if they
could not catch the vessel without losing sight of it, to go back again,
for she was sure to come back again, and there was no harm done.
If, on the other hand, the chase is continued to any distance, other
vessels might get in and ship slaves; and even the very one pursued
might dodge the cruizer at night, and run in and effect her escape
with a cargo.
6644. Mr. Aldam.] Then where would you place the six steamers
you propose to have?—I would have two between Cape Mesaduro
and the river Gambia, principally stationed at the Bissagos; but
those operations I speak of would very soon alter the character of
the trade, and it would be removed from point to point. I think
there should be two more steamers, perhaps, between Cape
Formosa and Cape Palmas, and two more to the southward of those
points.
6645. Mr. Forster.] Do you think they could be navigated with
wood fuel entirely?—I am not prepared to answer that question,
but I think not; I think coal would be required upon most parts of
the coast.
6646. Mr. Aldam.] What would be the size of the steamers
necessary, the tonnage, and the power of the engine?—The steamers
on the coast of Africa ought to be small steamers, not drawing more
than five or six feet water.
6647. Chairman.] Might not the slave vessels be useful as tenders
sometimes after condemnation?—Under the treaties we are not
empowered to buy them. In the Act of 2d Victoria, there is a clause
by which the Government can take any captured vessel that they
please for the purpose of a tender,—one was established by me
under that clause by orders from the Admiralty,—but not to cruize;
simply to convey the prize crews to their proper ships.
6648. Mr. Forster.] Do not you consider the British settlements
on the coast of Africa an important assistance in the suppression of
the slave trade?—I consider that the settlements on shore have done
some service in that way, but not half so much as they might have
done.
6649. Chairman.] Will you state the grounds of that opinion?—With
regard to Sierra Leone, I have no hesitation in saying, that the
slave trade has derived great advantage from it, and that the British
influence does not extend there much beyond the limits of the colony
as regards this object. The entrance of the Sherboro’ river has on
one side of it Sierra Leone, and there is a slave trade carried on
there, and that has been owing to the view which the Government
took of General Turner’s proceeding in 1826, the consequence of
which has been to prevent future governors from attempting similar
plans.
6650. What were those plans?—To obtain the sovereignty of the
coast down as far as the Boom Kittam river, which lies on the south
side of the Sherboro’, and from thence, I believe, to Cape Mount.
6651. Mr. Forster.] Had he already entered into treaties for that
purpose?—He had already got possession as far as the Boom Kittam,
and the Government ordered that that should be relinquished
again.
6652. Chairman.] In what way has Sierra Leone lent assistance
to the slave trade?—The slave vessels have been repeatedly purchased
there by people, notoriously agents of Pedro Blanco, and others at
Gallinas, and they have gone back into his hands.
6653. Mr. Forster.] Do you think the settlement of Sierra Leone
was so much responsible for that as the system under which the
vessels were sold?—I think the individuals who purchased slave
vessels for slave dealers were very much to blame, and it is only to
be regretted that no punishment could be inflicted upon them.
6654. Sir R. H. Inglis.] By the law at present the slave vessels
must be broken up?—Not in all cases. Under the British law, the
Act of the 5th George the 4th, vessels are not broken up, so that if
a vessel is condemned in British waters by the British law, she is
sold, and probably goes into a slave dealer’s hands the next day,
which is the case also with vessels condemned under the Brazilian
treaty.
6655. Mr. Forster.] Are you aware that those vessels are sold by
auction to the highest bidder?—I am perfectly aware of that; that
is according to the treaties under which they are condemned: it is no
fault of the authorities of Sierra Leone nor of the Mixed Commission
Court; the authorities are compelled to allow her to leave the
port afterwards.
6656. If an agent of Pedro Blanco, or even Pedro Blanco himself,
went into the auction room and bid the highest price he would
get the vessel?—I suppose so.
6657. Chairman.] It is in that respect that you consider that
Sierra Leone has afforded facilities to the slave trade?—It is in that
respect; but, at the same time, I cannot conceive Pedro Blanco
having the audacity to go into the sale room for such a purpose, or
the authorities letting the vessel under such circumstances sail out
of port.
6658. How could the authorities stop the vessel going out under
the charge of Pedro Blanco himself, as well as under the charge of
his agent?—I think the facts would be almost sufficient to prove that
she was engaged in the slave trade; but there would be a difficulty,
unless she had equipments about her.
6659. Mr. Forster.] You would not propose to punish the auctioneer
who sold the vessel to the agent of Pedro Blanco?—No, he could
not be responsible; he would be acting as a Government agent.
6660. Mr. Aldam.] If a vessel was purchased on behalf of a slave
dealer at Sierra Leone, where would she clear for?—Probably for the
Cape Verd Islands. I know two cases where the vessels cleared for
the Cape Verd Islands; one of them I captured. I will state an
instance of the way in which vessels not broken up pass into the slave
trade again. The Republicano, a prize of the Fantome, was condemned
at Sierra Leone; she was purchased by an individual known
to be engaged in the slave trade; I went on board her and saw what
her object was, that she was going to carry slaves, and I detained
her.
6661*. The purchaser was a man known to be engaged in the
slave trade?—Yes, and I detained her. When I went away myself
I left orders with my agent, on no account to let her go without a
decree of the court; but he thought that we could not prove sufficient
to justify her detention, and he let her go. The purchaser then proceeded
to the Cape de Verd Islands, and fitted her out for the slave
trade, and she was taken off the Gallinas by Captain Hill, of the
Saracen, perfectly equipped as a slave ship.
6662*. Who was the slave dealer?—He was an American; I
forget his name.
6663*. Do you mean to say that he was a resident at Sierra Leone,
carrying on the slave trade?—No; but I merely mention that as an
instance of the way in which captured vessels, when not broken up,
are afterwards employed again in the slave trade. I do not say that
he was amenable to British law.
6664*. Chairman.] Was it the actual slave dealer who made the
purchase in Sierra Leone?—He was a man known very well to be
closely connected with a slave vessel lately condemned.
6665*. What was the nature of his real or supposed connexion
with the slave trade?—I cannot exactly call to mind the proof of the
fact; but that it was so a reference to the printed correspondence
will show.
6666*. Mr. Aldam.] Whose name appeared as owner; was the
owner of the ship that you captured a Spaniard or a Portuguese?—It
was a Spanish master; she appeared as the property of the American
who had made the purchase.
6667*. Chairman.] Have there been instances in which a slave
dealer in his own person has come to Sierra Leone and made purchases
of this kind?—In the case I have just mentioned he had been
already brought to Sierra Leone in some vessel, but he was not known
as Pedro Blanco was; but I believe there would be no means of
preventing them from taking the vessel away, unless equipment was
on board.
6668*. Has the colony of Sierra Leone in any other way contributed
to the maintenance of the slave trade, besides the facilities
which it has afforded of purchasing ships which have been condemned?—I
have no doubt that some degree of communication has
been kept up between the slave dealers in the neighbourhood of the
Gallinas and the Sherboro’, and parties in Sierra Leone.
6669*. Have you reason to know that any liberated Africans have
engaged in slave dealing?—I have no actual knowledge of any such
circumstance; I have no doubt that many, I have proof that some,
liberated Africans have been sold again into slavery.
6670*. To any extent?—I am not able to say to what extent; I
should think to a considerable extent, from cases which have fallen
within my knowledge.
6671*. Sir R. H. Inglis.] Do you believe that they have been
kidnapped?—I am unable to say whether they were kidnapped or
not; I should think it most likely.
6672*. Chairman.] What are the cases with which you are
acquainted?—There were three cases at the Gallinas. There was
one case in the Pongas, where I went up and liberated a girl who
had been carried off.
6673*. Had those persons been carried off from within the district
of Sierra Leone, or in the course of their traffic along the coast?—The
one in the Pongas had been carried off from the colony of Sierra
Leone, and one of them had been taken away as a servant, and left
as a pawn; in fact a slave. The other two had been taken when out
of the colony.
6674*. Was the case which you alluded to as having occurred
within the colony itself, a case of kidnapping or abduction conducted
by inhabitants of Sierra Leone?—I have Sir John Jeremie’s letter
here upon the subject. By the Timmanees, I see, is the statement
in the letter.
6675*. Then this is a case in which some strangers entered the
country and carried off some of the inhabitants of Sierra Leone?—So
it appears from the letter.
6661. Sir R. H. Inglis.] Then you wish the Committee to understand
nothing more than that Sierra Leone has been the scene of
incursions made with a view to carry persons as slaves from that
part of Africa, as might have been the case from the Bonny?—I
stated my belief that a considerable number had been kidnapped
also by the people of Sierra Leone, and sold to natives who have
carried them away, often in canoes.
6662. But you do not attribute that to any overt acts, or any
neglect of the Government?—By no means; I think it is almost
unavoidable under the circumstances.
6663. Chairman.] You have no reason to know that a system of
kidnapping prevails in the colony, though individual instances may
have occurred?—I have no reason to know it; but I have reason to
believe that it did exist to a considerable extent, more particularly
formerly, when a great number were landed from slave ships; but
now that is reduced to a small number.
6664. In those instances of kidnapping you imagine that they
were the acts rather of strangers to the colony than a system pursued
by the inhabitants of the colony?—In many cases I think they were
the acts of inhabitants of the colony, who had kidnapped people, or
seduced them from the colony, and then sold them to the slave
dealers.
6665. Upon what ground do you imagine that kidnapping does
exist to a considerable extent in the colony?—I have heard the thing
repeatedly stated with great confidence, and I think those instances
go to prove it; when I went into the Gallinas I found 90 slaves, and
of those 90 two were British subjects.
6666. Mr. Forster.] Could such a system have been carried on
without the consequences of it becoming obvious to every person
resident at Sierra Leone, and acquainted with the number of captured
negroes in the neighbourhood?—I believe that it might at
times, when there was a great influx of those black people; my
opinion is, from what I have heard, but I am not able to enter into
the facts very closely, that the apprenticeship system at Sierra Leone
is extremely defective, and that the whole system of supervision over
the liberated Africans, as well as of the apprentices, is also exceedingly
bad, and open to great abuses.
6667. Chairman.] Would it not be the duty of the police magistrates
of the district to see that there was no diminution of numbers
by kidnapping?—I am not aware that there are any district police
magistrates, except the superintendents of the villages.
6668. Do not those superintendents exercise the functions of
magistrates?—I do not know; but they are very often taken off by
sickness, and villages are frequently left without proper people to
take charge of them; and I believe, in my own mind, that the system
of kidnapping has gone on to some considerable extent.
6669. Mr. Forster.] But your opinion upon that subject is founded
merely upon report?—Yes; and upon information I have received in
conversation.
6670. Mr. Aldam.] Do you think that there is any remedy for
that evil?—I think the only remedy would be to exercise more
supervision over the liberated Africans, by having a larger Government
establishment to some extent, and a better class of people
employed.
6671. Chairman.] Have any other settlements given facilities to
the slave trade besides Sierra Leone?—Not directly, to my knowledge;
the trade of the Gambia is principally with Bissao, and at
Bissao there is a great slave trade, and legitimate trade, or rather
produce trade going on hand-in-hand together; the merchants of
Bissao purchase quantities of slaves and quantities of produce; and
again, goods supplied by the merchants at the Gambia are paid for
in produce and in money; those goods, undoubtedly, are more or
less used by the slave dealers in the slave trade.
6672. Sir R. H. Inglis.] The case to which you referred as within
your own knowledge, of a person detained in the Gallinas as a slave,
taken from Sierra Leone, was the case forming a subject of the Parliamentary
Papers of the year 1841?—No; another case; that was
a case where she had gone voluntarily into the country, and been
detained.
6673. Mr. Aldam.] How many white people would be necessary
to manage the establishment on the island of Bulama?—I do not see
the absolute necessity of one white person, unless it be the officer
commanding the detachment; but at the utmost, three or four, independently
of those who chose voluntarily to settle in order to trade.
6674. Mr. Forster.] You appear to entertain a doubt whether the
British settlements already on the coast have rendered as much service
as they might have done for the suppression of the slave trade?—I
spoke more particularly of Sierra Leone; at the same time, the
connexion of the Gambia trade with the slave trade is a fact that
there is no doubt about.
6675. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you also include the settlements on
the Gold Coast?—I have no knowledge of the Gold Coast settlements.
6676. Then your remark does not apply to them?—No.
6677. Mr. Forster.] When you speak in terms of disapproval of
the transactions which you say have taken place between Sierra
Leone and the Gallinas, do you wish the Committee to understand
that you would recommend that the intercourse between Sierra Leone
and the Gallinas should be put a stop to?—There is now no intercourse
whatever between Sierra Leone and the Gallinas, and there
has not been any for the last few years; I speak of former years.
6678. Would you think it desirable that there should be a commercial
intercourse between Sierra Leone and the Gallinas?—Undoubtedly
I think a commercial intercourse is the only means of
eradicating the slave trade; it is the best auxiliary of the cruizers.
6679. And your opinion would be the same with respect to the
intercourse between the Gambia and Bissao, that it is desirable that
commercial intercourse should be continued and extended if possible
between those two places?—Yes, and that it should be separated as
much as possible from the slave trade.
6680. Chairman.] How do you distinguish the lawful from the
unlawful trade carried on in a place where both are going on
together?—It is almost impossible to distinguish them; for instance,
at Bissao the principal slave dealer is also the principal produce
dealer, Caetano or Kyetan Nossolino, with whom all the merchants
at the Gambia have dealings; in my opinion, that is not a very
beneficial trade, because it is not a direct trade with the natives at
all; it is a trade between the slave dealer and the British merchants;
he buys produce, with which he procures slaves; his principal trade
is the slave trade, and he derives great advantages from his commerce
with the Gambia in his slave trade.
6681. Would he not have the same facilities of getting the goods
necessary for the slave trade from other sources?—He would not
have the same facility; it would be much more difficult for him to
get it from any other quarter, I apprehend.
6682. Mr. Forster.] Do you mean that it would be difficult, supposing
the supply from the British settlements at the Gambia were
cut off?—I think it would be more difficult.
6683. Chairman.] Could you stop an American or a Hamburgh
vessel going in with the same produce?—Certainly not, nor would I
stop an English vessel, but I should wish to consider the means by
which we might separate the legitimate trade from the slave trade;
my opinion is, that the separation would be best effected by the
occupation of Bulama, which would put our merchants in a better
position to trade themselves direct with the natives.
6684. You consider then that the trade with Bissao is now thrown
too much into the hands of one man, who becomes a monopolist of
the trade, and who derives advantages from it in carrying on the
slave trade, which would not be derived if we had an entrepôt of our
own, to which the natives could resort for goods?—I do; instead
of the trade passing all through his hands, I would endeavour, by
the occupation of such places as Bulama, to create a rival trade
between the English merchants and the natives, instead of goods
going, as they now do, through the hands of Caetano and other slave
dealers.
6685. You would not, by a legislative enactment, endeavour to
prevent a communication by British merchants with slave dealers,
but you would rather open other means of trade which were less
likely to be objectionable in their results, and thus rival the slave
dealers?—Where produce trade existed to any extent at all, I would
trust to such measures for the separation of the two; but there are
some places where there is no produce trade whatever, where, from
one year’s end to another, not a single piece of ivory, or a single
gallon of palm oil is exported. The Gallinas is a case in point; it is
very true that British vessels can supply goods to the Gallinas, but
there is, I think, a scandal in our ships supplying goods there, which
does infinite harm to our claim on other nations to abolish and make
an end of the slave trade.
6686. Mr. Forster.] How would you introduce British trade in
produce at the Gallinas unless you encouraged British traders to go
there?—The fact is, that wherever the slave trade exists people never
turn to legitimate traffic at all, unless the slave trade is insufficient
to supply their wants, or until the slave trade is stopped, or at least
checked, by forcible means. When the slave trade no longer supplies
what they want they are compelled to labour and raise produce,
and they are then ready enough to engage in lawful trade; but the
goods now brought are as much slave trade almost as the slaves that
are exported.
6687. Are you not aware that in some places on the coast the
slave trade has been in a great measure, if not entirely, suppressed
by the force of commerce alone?—I do not know of any instance;
in every case the first step has been the suppression or the check of
the slave trade, and then, and not till then, do the natives labour to
raise produce.
6688. Have you been to Popo lately?—I have been to Popo; the
cruizers at Popo first checked the slave trade, and then the slave
dealers preferred Whydah, which is in the neighbourhood, and they
have since taken to legitimate trade at Popo.
6689. Are you aware that there was a considerable slave trade
formerly from the Rio Nunez?—I am not particularly acquainted
with the slave trade that has been carried on from thence; I know
that in the year 1835 there was no great amount of slave trade from
thence.
6690. You are not then aware that since the establishment of
British factories there, the slave trade has entirely disappeared
excepting in the way you have referred to, by the visits of Portuguese
canoes picking up slaves in the neighbourhood?—I consider that
simply produced by the fact of Bissao being a more convenient place;
slavers lie there in perfect security under the walls of the Portuguese
fort; they prefer bringing their slaves from the Nunez, which they
do in great numbers, in canoes to Bissao, to shipping them direct
from the Nunez, from whence the passage and the escape is much
more difficult than from Bissao.
6691. Is it your opinion then that the slavers would have the same
facility in procuring slaves at the place or near the place where a
British factory was established, as in any other part of the coast
where no such establishment existed?—I consider that the British
factory would never, unassisted, put down the slave trade in any way;
I can answer for the statement that I received from Mr. Benjamin
Campbell, a merchant in the Nunez, and formerly in the Pongas, a
man of great intelligence and great experience: his statement to me
was, that directly a slave vessel came in, his factory was abandoned;
that nobody would come near him when she was there; that the
natives invariably preferred slave commerce to legitimate commerce.
6692. Are you not aware that the whole of the Gold Coast is at
present dependent upon our settlements for the suppression of the
slave trade, and that if those settlements were removed, the slave
trade would be immediately resumed there?—I have no doubt whatever
that the settlements on the Gold Coast have put down the slave
trade, but that has been not by the unassisted force of commerce; it
is because they have an establishment and force, and are able to
govern the natives; it is not like a single merchant upon the banks
of a river forming a factory. I have a letter from Mr. Campbell
here, in which he states that when the natives hear of a slave vessel
in the Pongas or Bissao, they accuse the British merchants of driving
away their trade. That I believe to be an error on their part, especially
as Mr. Campbell, in the same letter, states that Caetano has two
white agents in the river purchasing slaves for him. I believe the
reason that they go to the Bissao is because they are more secure;
but the slave trade with the Nunez is by no means given up; dozens
of canoes go every month with slaves.
6693. None are shipped there?—They are shipped in the canoes,
and they are taken to Bissao, because Bissao is a more convenient
place for sending them off.
6694. Would they not be shipped from Rio Nunez but for the
presence of the British factories?—I think they may throw some
doubt over the minds of people as to the probability of giving information,
and so on; but I believe the reason that the slave dealers
prefer Bissao is what I have stated; viz. the difficulty of escaping
from the Nunez.
6695. If British factories, without a British fleet or any British
force, can have a beneficial tendency in suppressing the trade, does it
not follow that settlements with a British force, and British authority
to support them, would be still more efficient in suppressing that
trade?—That is undeniable; and I allow that the influence would be
beneficial in conjunction with the naval force, but I deny the power
of unassisted British factories in putting down the slave trade; I do
not believe that there is a single instance of it on the whole coast.
6696. Then if British factories and British commerce cannot have
that influence, you apprehend that a large British force will continue
to be necessary upon that coast?—That is not what I have stated;
what I have stated is, that they have never, unassisted, put down the
slave trade; wherever it is put down commerce instantly springs up:
and there is the strongest reason to suppose, that when the slave
trade is put down generally, commerce will be established throughout
Africa; and when legitimate trade exists as a habit of the people, in
the course of time I look to that legitimate trade putting an end to
the slave trade for ever.
6697. Mr. Wortley.] Your observation and experience have led
you to the decided conclusion that all attempts to suppress the slave
trade by inducing the natives to betake themselves to legitimate
traffic would be abortive, unless the direct suppression of the slave
trade was effectual?—Unless the slave trade was checked by other
means; when it is checked, commerce begins, and extends by
degrees.
6698. Chairman.] How would you carry out the principle of separation;
would you proceed to prohibit certain places which you
considered to have no other traffic than the slave trade till the slave
trade should have been to a certain amount checked, if not extirpated
from that place?—My opinion is, that there is a change required in
the law. At present, English merchant ships may supply slave
factories, known to every soul at Sierra Leone to be slave factories,
and yet if they cannot prove that the person who sold those goods for
the purpose of buying slaves, did actually and positively know in his
own mind the fact of those goods being certainly to be used in the
slave trade, there can be no conviction.
6699. In a case such as that of Canôt, who is a great produce
dealer, as well as a dealer in slaves, would you prohibit intercourse
with him?—I would not prohibit intercourse with any body: but in
every case where it was clearly proved that goods were sold to a
person who it was well known could only use those goods in the slave
trade, and the slave trade alone, that man’s character being perfectly
notorious, I think that British vessels supplying him with goods,
ignorant of his character, and from the want of the exercise of
reasonable care and precaution, so aiding and abetting the slave
trade, should be subject to the penalties of the Act.
6700. Speaking of this as a legal question to be provided for by
Act of Parliament, how would you decide the proportion of produce
trade which should entitle a foreign slave dealer, under such an Act
of Parliament, to carry on intercourse with British traders; unless
you could define that, would it not be easy for every slave dealer
wishing to have that intercourse, to carry on a trade in produce, however
small, sufficient to bring him within the permission given to deal
with persons carrying on trade lawfully as well as unlawfully?—I do
not think that it would be desirable to apply the provision very
strictly; I think it would be very injudicious to be searching and
inquiring in every case, whether the proceedings were of this character
or not; but where there is a glaring and an unquestionable case, such
as any English merchant sending goods to a slave ship, or to a
factory where there is no other trade, I think he should be punished,
and I think that it is highly important to the position which England
holds upon this question with regard to foreign nations; my proposition
is, that if from want of reasonable care he did not know that
which was a notorious fact to every body else, he should be subject
to the penalties.
6701. Sir T. D. Acland.] The trade of which you are speaking is
that which is carried on with factories, notoriously used for the
purpose of the slave trade; would you apply the law to such places?—I
can mention a case which I think is a very strong one, the case of
the Gallinas, where, to my certain knowledge, cargoes to a great
extent were brought under the American flag, and other flags, solely
for the purpose of purchasing slaves, the freight for all those cargoes
being paid for in the Havannah, and without one single atom of produce
being exported in return. Now in my opinion it was open under
the Act for a British merchant ship to have carried all those goods to
the Gallinas instead of an American with perfect impunity, and such
a course of trade would bring the utmost scandal upon the English
name, and the utmost doubt upon the sincerity of our wishes to put
an end to the slave trade. You could not probably have proved to
the satisfaction of juries at Sierra Leone, that they were knowingly
aiding and abetting the slave trade.
6702. Mr. Forster.] Then to render such a law effectual you must
induce all nations to enter into a common league to carry it out?—I
think not; my view is, that England must leave to other countries
the control of their own merchant vessels; but especially considering
the situation she holds with regard to the slave trade, I think she is
bound to prevent such a direct system of aiding and abetting slave
trade on the part of English vessels.
6703. Do you think, if England were to do so, that it would have
any real tendency to prevent the slave trader obtaining a supply of
goods?—Certainly not; as in this instance he got all those goods
without the assistance of the British flag; but had the British flag
been used, I think it would have been an abominable disgrace.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Viscount Courtenay.
Mr. E. Denison.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Mr. W. Hamilton.
Sir R. H. Inglis.
Mr. Milnes.
Viscount Sandon, in the chair.
Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman, R. N. called in; and further
Examined.
6742. Chairman.] You mentioned that there had been a considerable
change in the means employed for putting down the slave
trade, within the last two or three years: and you mentioned, in the
first instance, a different system of cruizing pursued in consequence
of the Equipment Treaty. Has there not been another means lately
introduced, by means of destroying the slave factories upon the coast?—The
slave factories of the Gallinas were not destroyed as a part of
the powers with which I was invested. It was in consequence of
peculiar circumstances, which I took advantage of for the purpose.
6743. What was it that entitled you to make that attack?—For a
long series of months, the people upon the shore had been guilty of
the most inhuman conduct towards my boats, conduct which a state
of war would not justify, and which would be a fair subject of war if
committed in any civilized country.
6744. You grounded your attack upon information received of the
detention in slavery, by the son of the chief of the Gallinas, of two of
Her Majesty’s subjects of the colony of Sierra Leone?—I did; but I
had long previously intended to destroy the barracoons and the slave
factories, if I found the case to be what I supposed it was, upon the
grounds that I have before mentioned.
6745. What were those grounds?—The inhuman treatment of
my boats. I can show the Committee letters from the officers
reporting the treatment they had received. The circumstances
detailed in those letters were reported to me by the commander of
the ship as having occurred some time previously to the destruction
of the factories. This is the report of the officer in the boat; he wrote
me this letter subsequently to the affair, at my desire, the circumstances
having been stated before. He was entrusted with one of
the Rolla’s boats. He says, “I stood out for the purpose of reconnoitring,
it blowing a strong breeze, with a head sea. I had not
proceeded above three miles from the Alexander,” an American brig,
“when the boat was unfortunately stove, and it was with great difficulty
she was kept afloat by constant baling with three buckets, until
we arrived alongside the Alexander, the captain of which vessel
kindly allowed us to hoist her on board for the purpose of repairing.
Subsequently the captain of the Alexander going on shore to wait on
his consignees, they very strongly expressed their disapprobation at his
having rendered any assistance to a British cruizer’s boat, and at the
same time regretted that he had not left us to sink or swim. Had the
captain complied with their wishes, which had been communicated
to him previous to this accident, the only resource left us would have
been to attempt beaching the boat, which, owing to the boisterous
state of the weather, would have been almost impossible, and probably
attended with loss of life to all or most of the crew, the bar at
the time being perfectly impassable, and not the slightest probability
of keeping the boat afloat for any length of time by means of baling.”
That is signed by Mr. George Marriott, mate. In consequence of
this prohibition, refuge was repeatedly refused to my boats by friendly
vessels disposed to succour them, and had any boat subsequently
been in the same condition, she would have been left to drown with
all her hands. My whole knowledge of this was from the circumstances
reported to me by different officers.
6746. Were there other cases of the same nature?—Other cases of
the same nature, produced by threats of the persons on shore, which
prevented American and French vessels in the roads, otherwise disposed
to do so, having done so before, from affording refuge to our
boats under almost similar circumstances. But no case was so strong
as that of the boat sinking.
6747. Mr. Forster.] Were those things done by the authority of
the native chiefs, or by the authority of the Spanish slave dealers?—Before
I went into the river I had no means of knowing; but I considered
that the chiefs of the country were responsible for the treatment
of cruizers in their waters according to the law of nations.
6748. It appears by the correspondence that the detention of a
woman named Try Norman and her child were the grounds you
chiefly relied upon to justify that proceeding?—I might have gone
upon either ground. I preferred choosing the ground of the detention
of that woman and her child; first, because it was an outrage of
a far graver nature even than those I have described, which had
occurred in the anchorage; and secondly, because it would enable
me at once to go to the barracoons to get out all the slaves, to endeavour
to find out whether Try Norman and her child were among
them.
6749. By which of the chiefs was this woman detained?—By a
man of the name of Manna, the eldest son of King Siacca.
6750. Did he assign any reason for detaining this woman and her
child; did he justify himself in anyway?—It was impossible that
he could justify himself in any way. I considered that the woman
Try Norman was as much a British subject as any person in this
room. I can see no distinction between his making a slave of her
and his making a slave of any white person.
6751. Did he attempt any justification?—He attempted a justification
which was utterly unsatisfactory. His justification was, that
the person to whom she had been an apprentice had owed him money
and that was the ground of his excuse, as appears in the printed
correspondence.
6752. Do you know the name of the woman who, he said, owed
him money?—I know nothing of it but by his own statement; the
woman’s name was Rosanna Gray.
6753. You have read the correspondence?—I have.
6754. Is there not a letter from this Prince Manna, complaining
that one of his wives, whom he had sent to Sierra Leone for instruction,
had been made a prostitute by this Mrs. Gray?—So it appears
in his letter.
6755. Did not his detention of this woman and her child arise out
of that transaction?—Such was his statement.
6756. Did you inquire, when you arrived at Sierra Leone, whether
there was any ground for that statement?—I did make some inquiry
about it, and Mrs. Gray stated that the girl had run after the men
herself. I put the correspondence into the governor’s hands, and
requested him to afford such redress to Prince Manna as the case
might require.
6757. But you ascertained that she had been under the care of
Mrs. Gray?—There was no doubt of that fact, I believe.
6758. Then, at all events, you destroyed those factories and barracoons
on your own responsibility, and not by virtue of any treaty with
Spain?—I destroyed those barracoons upon my own responsibility,
because I found that the Spanish slave dealers had been the persons
who had been the cause of the inhuman treatment of my boats at sea,
in the first place; in the second place, I found in those barracoons
two British subjects. The destruction of the barracoons and factories
was done through the medium of the consent of the native
chiefs.
6759. Chairman.] Did you not act in some degree under instructions
from the governor of Sierra Leone?—The governor of Sierra
Leone had no power to give me any instructions; he merely mentioned
the circumstances, and requested me to take the necessary measures
for redeeming this woman; I considered that a stronger ground to
go upon than that which I before intended to go upon, and I therefore
adopted that which appeared most advantageous.
6760. Mr. Forster.] Did the native chiefs grant that authority to
destroy the property of the Spaniards voluntarily?—Decidedly;
they agreed to destroy it themselves, upon the grounds stated in the
correspondence.
6761. It would appear by the correspondence that they showed
great unwillingness to meet you and confer with you on the subject
of your mission, when you arrived there?—For the obvious reason,
that Prince Manna felt, that having held a British subject in captivity,
he was in a very awkward position; I think that is explained
in my letter to Governor Doherty.
6762. In the letter of the 20th of November you call upon King
Siacca to “destroy their factories, and their contents, or consent to
Captain Denman’s doing so, and that he will deliver up the slaves
who have been carried into the bush from the factories.” You mean
that he consented after you had made a requisition to this effect?—Undoubtedly;
a requisition to that effect was made, because he stated
that the white slave factors had got him into the scrape without his
knowledge, and without his authority; and also because I found them
in possession of British subjects for the purpose of exportation.
6763. The first article of your treaty with him stipulates that he shall
totally destroy “the factories belonging to these white men, without
delay,” and in a sort of postscript to the treaty, you promise him the
forfeiture of the goods belonging to the Spaniards that were deposited
in the Spanish stores?—I made no promise of the sort. The postscript
states, that King Siacca having declared that the white slave
dealers have acted in defiance of his laws, he considers their goods
are forfeited to him; for that reason my demand for their destruction
was withdrawn, and I consented that he should take possession of
them.
6764. In point of fact, they received as the reward of their consent,
the whole of the property belonging to the Spaniards that was
found in the stores at the Gallinas?—No, it was not so, for the treaty
was already entered into before this permission was made; and,
moreover, at the time this treaty was made they had already taken
possession of the goods out of all the factories but one.
6765. But, at all events, they got the goods as the result of their
proceedings?—They undoubtedly got the goods. I do not mean that
the chiefs got the goods, but the people in general got the goods.
6766. Do you think that the Spaniards were settled there with the
approbation or consent of the chiefs?—I believe that the Spaniards
did settle there, in the first instance, with the consent of the chiefs;
but I believe that they afterwards became very powerful, and were
exceedingly hated by the chiefs. I had various complaints from the
natives of the haughty and disgusting treatment which they received
from the Spaniards.
6767. If they were so averse to the settlement of those Spanish
slave dealers, how did it appear to be necessary to insert an article in
the treaty, binding King Siacca that no white man should ever for the
future settle in his country for the purpose of slave dealing?—I
thought it desirable to prevent the possibility of the slave trade being
re-established by the white people, as it had been before established.
6768. Captain Fitzroy.] Does it follow, that because the chiefs
were averse to those Spaniards living with them, that they should
also be averse to every other white man who might come there?—I
thought there was a very considerable chance of the slave trade being
re-established by white men afterwards.
6769. And therefore you took such steps as you thought best to
prevent any similar settlement?—To prevent any similar settlement,
and to give us a right to compel them to send them out of the
country again if ever they should resume such practices. It was a
precautionary measure.
6770. Mr. Forster.] Does it not seem somewhat inconsistent with
the seventh article of the treaty, which stipulates that “no white
man from Sierra Leone shall settle down in King Siacca’s country
without his full permission and consent”?—It seems to me quite in
accordance with the other principle. I say, “No white man shall
sit down as a slave trader.” King Siacca, upon the other hand, in
order to insure himself against his country being taken possession of
by the English, proposes this, which I accede to. It was a proposal
of the chiefs on the part of the King Siacca.
6771. Does it not imply that the king was averse to allow British
traders to settle there from Sierra Leone?—I think it bears upon its
face that he was averse, for the reason I have before stated.
6772. Chairman.] Did you feel yourself entitled, by King Siacca’s
country having been made the means of carrying on a slave trade,
through which some of Her Majesty’s subjects had been made slaves,
to make stipulations which should prevent the recurrence of such
an outrage for the future?—Not only entitled, but bound to do so.
6773. And you conceived that one of the most effectual means for
that purpose would be to prevent other white men, foreigners, from
taking advantage of King Siacca’s country as a position from which
to carry on a trade which endangered the safety of Her Majesty’s
subjects and their free passage into that neighbourhood?—I will
state the principle upon which I acted, and the relation in which
I considered that we stood towards King Siacca. In the first
place, the outrages and inhospitality committed in his waters I
considered him responsible for; secondly, I considered him responsible
for holding Sierra Leone people in his country as slaves for the
purpose of traffic. Upon his declaring that he knew nothing of
those acts, I considered it perfectly just that the punishment should
be visited upon the persons who had committed those crimes, and
who had been the cause of those crimes.
6774. And you felt yourself entitled, if the king professed an
inability to prevent others from taking advantage of his territory for
purposes injurious to the security of British subjects, to take means
yourself for securing such objects?—I entered into a treaty for the
purpose of preventing future proceedings of the description that
had already occurred, and enabling me to meet such cases if they
should recur.
6775. Mr. Forster.] Is it not your opinion that it has been owing
to the preference given to Spanish slave dealers that British merchants
have not sooner established themselves at the Gallinas, and
carried on commercial pursuits there?—In my Report to the Governor
of Sierra Leone upon the state and prospects of trade in the Gallinas,
in page 15 of the Printed Papers, I say, “When the English
slave trade was abolished, considerable traffic sprung up and was
rapidly increasing when the Spaniards commenced the slave trade in
about 1817. From that time legitimate commerce gradually withered,
and was at length totally annihilated by the establishment of a
permanent slave factory in-shore, about 15 years ago, by Pedro
Blanco, at that time mate of a slave vessel. Since then the slave
trade has been the only pursuit, and during the long period that has
since elapsed, not enough produce has been exported to form the
cargo of the smallest coasting vessel.”
6776. Had there been any legitimate trade carried on at the Gallinas
previous to your operations there?—A passage in the letter I
have just read states my opinion upon that subject, derived from
information from the chiefs themselves.
6777. Chairman.] You mean by legitimate commerce, the exchange
of manufactures for produce?—Exactly; and I stated that
there was no legitimate commerce, because there was no produce
whatever. Might I be allowed to refer to a question and answer
that I understand has been put referring to the Gallinas. I have
been informed that this question was put to Mr. Peters: “You do
not think Captain Denman’s observations upon the subject practically
of any value.” Now I beg to observe that Mr. Peters can
never have seen my observations upon the subject. The answer of
Mr. Peters is, that I thought I had put an effectual stop to the
slave trade in the Gallinas, and that many others thought so.
6778. Mr. Forster.] In a letter to the Governor of Sierra Leone,
dated the 12th of December, you say that the people at the Gallinas
“have already, in a wild state, but of the finest quality, cotton,
indigo, pepper, and palm nut, the sugar cane and tobacco, which
they are enabled to cure. Salt is procured in considerable quantities,
and there is no doubt that coffee would flourish as well as at
Sierra Leone and Monrovia.” Do you wish the Committee to
understand that if a trader from Sierra Leone were to go there with
goods, he could obtain in exchange for them any of those articles
you have enumerated?—With regard to the tobacco there is a misprint;
instead of “enabled to cure” it should be “unable to cure.”
I have stated in the same letter that no cultivation whatever did
exist, and that I used every effort to persuade the chiefs to cultivate
the soil. My information was derived from the chiefs as to the
existence of these articles.
6779. Chairman.] Do cotton, indigo, pepper, palm nut, the sugar
cane, and tobacco, grow there in a wild state, and are they of
good quality?—It is a fact that I derived from the unanimous
declaration of the chiefs of the country.
6780. Mr. Aldam.] Are there any means of carrying on any considerable
commerce at the present moment?—Certainly not. It must
begin upon a small scale, as elsewhere; it does not spring at once
into a considerable commerce.
6781. Mr. Forster.] Are you of opinion that there is nothing
questionable in the proceedings of our navy in destroying the property
of foreigners in a foreign country, and encouraging the native
chiefs in those proceedings, with reference to the moral effect of it
upon the minds of the chiefs and the natives?—It depends entirely
upon circumstances. If aggressions have been committed against
persons belonging to Sierra Leone (and I can conceive no aggressions
or injuries so great as that of making British subjects slaves), I
consider that those people are in every respect entitled to the same
protection as white people. Indeed I consider that the liberated
Africans of Sierra Leone have peculiar claims to the regard and
protection and favour of England. I see no distinction whatever
between them and British subjects. Supposing three British subjects
had been held in this way, I conceive it would have been highly
improper to have allowed such a proceeding to pass unnoticed.
6782. Chairman.] You rest your proceeding at the Gallinas, not
upon the general ground of using means for putting down the slave
trade, but upon the specific offences committed by the chiefs of the
Gallinas against British subjects settled at Sierra Leone, and their
inhospitality to your crews upon the coast?—Precisely so.
6783. Therefore you do not consider that you are making a precedent
for indiscriminate descents upon the coast, wherever a slave
barracoon is established, for the purpose of destroying it as a means
of putting down the slave trade?—In the proceeding adopted by me
at the Gallinas, the grounds were exactly those stated in the preceding
question. At the same time I conceive that the destruction
of barracoons and slave places not in settlements belonging to
European powers, would be justifiable all over the coast. Nothing
of the sort had been done before, and therefore I did it under very
heavy responsibility. I could not have struck out a new line without
some special grounds to go upon.
6784. Should you consider yourself entitled, without any of those
peculiar grounds for the interposition which the proceedings at the
Gallinas gave you, to make a descent upon any point of the coast
under the jurisdiction of a native chief, where slaves were collected
for the purpose of exportation, and destroying those barracoons, and
insisting upon the slave trade being given up?—I should think myself
perfectly justified in doing so whoever the slave factor might be.
Whether it would be borne out by my instructions from the Admiralty
would depend upon what those instructions were.
6785. You would conceive yourself, if you were an officer on that
station now, entitled to pursue that as a general method of putting
down the slave trade?—I should certainly have pursued it had I
remained.
6785*. Do you conceive yourself entitled to do this under instructions,
under treaties, or entirely upon your own responsibility, without
any direct authority?—I consider that it might have been done upon
my own responsibility entirely, upon the footing that the law of
nations can afford no sort of recognition of the dealing in slaves by
Spaniards in a foreign country. And secondly, that those persons
were criminals by their own laws, and could not look to protection
from their own government. So long as the slave trade was clearly
and distinctly separated from legitimate trade, I consider that such
proceedings would have been perfectly justifiable.
6786. Supposing a native chief had collected slaves in barracoons
upon his own territory for exportation, should you then have felt
yourself justified in destroying such places?—I should have considered
myself justified in following the same system there, upon the
ground that the native chiefs are not recognized amongst the nations
of the world; they are in a barbarous state, and the law of nations,
in my opinion, cannot apply to them further than for their own good
and their own protection, and I should have considered the destruction
of those buildings and the taking off the slaves as an act
most directly and most importantly tending to their own good and
benefit.
6787. Captain Fitzroy.] It has appeared in evidence before this
Committee that the Pluto sailed from Fernando Po, under orders
from the Admiralty, to destroy any barracoons or other slaving establishments
that she might meet with in various parts of the coast,
not being the property of Europeans; were similar instructions
issued to the officers on that coast while you were there?—I saw
instructions to that effect a few weeks before I left that coast.
6788. From the Admiralty?—From the Admiralty.
6789. Chairman.] Have you been at the Gallinas since?—Yes, I
have been three or four times at the Gallinas.
6790. Has the effect of what you did been to put down the slave
trade, or to what extent has it done so?—It has nearly broken up the
system then followed, except as regards the south-east branch of
the river, upon which a place called Soolimane stands; there was,
when I was at the river, a small factory there, which I did not
destroy, as I had no case against it, and this is the factory
which Captain Blount has recently destroyed. In the part where
I went, it does not appear that any slave trade has sprung up again.
6791. You conceive then that if this process is followed, it will be
effectual for its object?—My opinion is, that in such a part of the
coast as the Gallinas, blockade alone is quite sufficient to stop the
slave trade. These measures, of course, render the operation of the
blockade more quick. But I had kept a blockade up at that place
for nearly a year, during which only two vessels had escaped.
Nearly 20 vessels had been captured, and they were reduced to
despair. Every American vessel generally used to inform my officers
that the slave dealers declared they could not carry on the trade
under the pressure of a blockade so maintained. The blockade
during a great part of the time, both at Cestos, where similar results
were produced, and at the Gallinas, was carried on for the greater
part of the time at the Gallinas by my ship alone, and at Cestos by
the Termagant alone, under my orders.
6792. During that blockade, did you prevent the access of any
vessel bringing goods into the country?—I interfered with only
vessels equipped for the slave trade; goods to purchase the slaves I
could not interfere with. Had they been brought in British vessels,
I should certainly have seized those vessels; but I should have been
very doubtful whether conviction would have followed under the
penal clauses, where the necessity of proving the knowledge of the
party is so difficult.
6793. But you would have taken the risk?—I should have felt it
my duty to take that risk.
6794. Mr. Aldam.] Did any British vessels attempt to go in
during that period with goods?—No, not while I was there.
6795. Chairman.] Did any vessels of any nation come in with
lawful goods during that period?—There is a list of them in the
correspondence.
6796. Mr. Forster.] Then if a British vessel, laden with lawful
merchandise, had attempted to enter the Gallinas, you would have
seized her?—Not so, exactly; but if British vessels had come
under the same circumstances as American vessels did, with cargoes
consigned from Pedro Blanco to Thomas Buron, both notorious slave
dealers, to be paid for at the Havannah, or in dollars there, I certainly
should have seized them.
6797. How could you have known how the goods were to be paid
for?—I should have considered it a clear case of aiding and
abetting the slave trade, as clear as it is possible for any thing
to be.
6798. How could you have learned that the goods would be paid
for at the Havannah in dollars?—I think it is immaterial whether
they were paid for in dollars at the Havannah or at the Gallinas; but
the fact that they were not paid for in produce, and that it was distinctly
putting goods into the hands of the Spaniard Buron to buy
slaves with, would, in my opinion, make it a clear case of aiding and
abetting the slave trade.
6799. Chairman.] And you would argue, from those circumstances,
that guilty knowledge could not be absent?—Guilty knowledge
could not be absent, in my opinion, in such a case. It may
repeatedly happen that, in default of proving their guilty knowledge,
people may escape; whereas every one but the criminal himself
perfectly well knows the character of the trade which is going on,
and which alone could be going on at such a place. Sierra Leone
juries are exceedingly careful to have the fact of the knowledge
imprinted upon the mind of the culprit proved to them; and unless
it is proved they will not convict.
6800. Mr. Forster.] At all events, you would have assumed the
guilty knowledge, and seized the vessel under the supposed circumstances?—I
should; and had I not done so, I think my conduct
would have been open to a court-martial.
6801. You have stated that you think the slave trade can be
effectually prevented, and was effectually prevented, by a blockade
at the Gallinas?—It can certainly be effectually prevented, and was
effectually prevented to such an extent that during 9 or 10 months
but two vessels escaped, and about 20 were captured.
6802. Then it was not necessary, for the purpose of putting down
the slave trade there, to destroy the Spanish property?—My reflection
in such a case always would be, the miseries that the slaves on shore
were enduring in consequence of this; and I should always be eager
to take every opportunity of relieving them from it. It would be
undoubtedly the most effectual measure possible.
6803. The using means to put down the slave trade, or to throw
difficulties in the way of the slave trade, carries a moral justification
with it, which no one can question; but do you think the means you
took in that case were altogether justifiable, upon the ground of
example to the natives, and the native chiefs; do not you think they
might misunderstand those proceedings, and that it might lead to
conduct on their part prejudicial to the interests of British commerce?—I
think not in any way whatever; I think the operation
would be the opposite.
6804. Chairman.] Are you aware that any British commerce has
followed since those operations against the Gallinas?—No, it has
not; I knew very shortly afterwards that they were endeavouring to
re-establish the slave trade about there, and I kept the blockade up,
intending to knock them down immediately the fine season commenced,
and that has been done by Captain Blount.
6805. Mr. Forster.] From your experience in Africa you are aware
of the great importance of setting all ranks of the natives a high example
of honour, and equity, and honesty, in all dealings and transactions;
and the question is, whether the effect of those proceedings in
that point of view may not render them open to objection. Is it not
your opinion, considering that they are not themselves opposed to the
slave trade, that they might be at some loss to understand, on any
principle of justice, why you should be at liberty to destroy the property
of a Spaniard who favoured the trade which they also favoured,
and they not be at equal liberty to destroy the property of a British
merchant who was opposed to them on the subject of the slave trade?—They
are perfectly well aware that the one trade is a legal trade
and that the other is a prohibited trade; and they are, moreover,
perfectly sensible of the injustice of the custom of selling their fellow-creatures.
6806. Chairman.] You find them open to feelings of that nature?—Perfectly;
the argumentum ad hominem always tells very well with
them.
6807. Mr. Forster.] In your opinion, do they consider the slave
trade a crime?—They do not consider it a crime, because it is not
against their laws; but they perfectly well know that it is opposed to
every principle of justice, that it is founded upon the grossest injustice
and cruelty, and that it is productive of the utmost misery.
6808. How could they reconcile it to their notions of justice that
you should destroy the property of Spaniards for doing that which is
legal according to their own civil institutions?—Because they are
perfectly aware that the Spaniards are carrying on a contraband and
prohibited trade, and therefore they are not surprised to find that
their vessels are captured; nor are they much surprised when they
find that their slaves on shore are emancipated. The one is just as
easily to be reconciled to their minds as the other.
6809. Chairman.] Have you found, among any of the native chiefs
with whom you have had to deal, a feeling against this as an act of
injustice?—No, I cannot say that I have, in any instance. On the
contrary, I have a letter from the chiefs of Sea Bar, distinguishing
their position altogether from that of the Gallinas people, and, upon
that ground, begging that I would not come and burn them down.
6810. Do you think they are aware that the slave trade, if carried
on by any European nation, is a trade in itself illegal?—They are
perfectly aware of it.
6811. Mr. Aldam.] How do the chiefs at Sea Bar distinguish
between their case and the case of the Gallinas?—It is rather a difficult
letter to understand. It was sent off with two ducks, which I
believe were poisoned for my benefit. It is a long letter. It alludes
to General Turner’s endeavours to get possession of their country,
and then points out that it is not under the English laws, and that
they have received intelligence from the Gallinas that I have burnt and
destroyed the Spanish factories, and that it is my intention to come
to Sea Bar and do the same; and it ends with something like a
threat, that if we did do it, we might be insulted by their people,
which they should be sorry for.
6812. Will you have the goodness to deliver in the letter?—
[The same was delivered in, and read as follows:]
“Sea Bar.” On Her Majesty’s Service.
To Deman Esq., Commander of Her Majesty’s brig Wander.
Hon. Sir,
2 December 1840.
Be it known to you and all other officers commanding Her Majesty’s vessels
cruizing on this part of Africa, particularly off Sea Bar, that we the undermentioned
gentlemen of this country, do with the greatest honour to you and
all Her Majesty’s subjects, do relate and acquaint you of our poor late and
respected father, Mr. James Tucker, chief of this country, which I have no doubt
the Government knows the same, as he told them when they consulted together
with Messrs. Rendall, Macauley, Campbell, and several other gentlemen of the
colony of Sierra Leone, when with intention to put him under the controul of
the English laws, but which he did not consent to, stating that it was his living
throughout all his ancient family, and he had no other means for his livelyhood,
yes certainly the inhabitants of the colony of Sierra Leone trade in this river,
but their trade is no profit nor benefit to us in this country, although they
receive a great assistance from this country, but however we have received
intelligence from the Gallinas that you the subject of Her Majesty’s have burnt
and destroyed all the Spanish factories in that country, and that it is your intention
coming down here at Sea Bar, and will act the same here as have done
with Gallinas, so therefore we the under gentlemen of this country do beg and
warn you with the greatest friendship towards Her Majesty’s subjects to acquaint
you that this part of the country is very different with the Gallinas, as
the land is our and all the standing property and building is belonging to us,
and in case they should be destroyed and burnt down on account of foreigners,
it cannot be an injury to them, but to us in the country; we very knows that it
is a law between the different nations of Europe for diminishing that traffic,
but however it dont concern with us as they comes to us, if you meet them
outside to sea, but coming in the rivers and destroying places, so therefore
hearing such news from Her Majesty’s subjects about this country and taking
as friends, and if you coming on any purpose you dont let us know in the
country and burn any place belonging to us; as we do honour the English
colour for fear of coming in such a manner, perhaps some of our subjects might
do what may be an insult to the English flag, and we dont wish such a thing to
be between us, so therefore we beg you all to allow us the liberty of relating to
you the aforementioned laws of this country, and hoping it will not be an offence
to you.
Tessana Town,
2 December 1840.
}
Henry Tucker.
Johnny Tucker.
Jack Tucker.
6813. Chairman.] Did you have intercourse with those chiefs after
that letter?—No, I did not. The rainy season was coming on, and
I was compelled to go to another part of my station.
6814. Captain Fitzroy.] Did Governor Doherty make a requisition
to you, that you should take those measures with respect to the
Gallinas which you have described?—The only requisition from
Governor Doherty to me was, to recover the woman and her child,
who had been made slaves of by Prince Manna.
6815. Did Governor Doherty express himself satisfied, or otherwise,
with the result of your expedition to the Gallinas?—In the first
letter in the correspondence before the Committee, a despatch to Lord
John Russell, Governor Doherty expresses, in the strongest way, his
satisfaction.
6816. Sir R. H. Inglis.] Having received the approbation of the
local government near the scene of your exploit, have you also received
any expression of approbation on the part of Her Majesty’s
Government, either on the part of the Colonial-office, or of the Admiralty,
or of both?—The Colonial Secretary and the Foreign Secretary
both expressed, in the strongest terms, their approbation of my proceedings.
My despatches to the Admiralty did not arrive till
the middle of July. They had, however, previously approved of my
conduct, although they had declared that they could not entertain
the question with reference to promotion, as the despatches had not
come to them. The despatches sent through the senior officer arrived
at the Admiralty in July, and I was promoted in August.
6817. Were you promoted by the Admiralty with reference to those
services?—No, I cannot say that; I think they may also have considered
that as affording some claim, from the tone of letters which
I have seen, not addressed to myself, by the Foreign and the Colonial
Secretaries.
6818. But the approbation of the Colonial Secretary and of the
Foreign Secretary was absolute?—It was absolute.
6819. And the approbation of the Admiralty may be inferred from
the fact of your promotion?—That approbation was expressed, in the
first instance, by them before they received the despatches, from what
had appeared before Parliament.
6820. Mr. Aldam.] Has the Admiralty issued orders for other
officers in similar cases to follow the same course?—I think the Admiralty
has done so.
6821. Mr. Forster.] You wish the Committee distinctly to understand
that you think such means as you resorted to would not have
the effect of offering a bad example to the native chiefs, which they
might imitate, and under some pretext or other to seize upon British
property?—I think not; I think no example in the natives engaged
in the slave trade can possibly make them worse than they are while
such traffic is there pursued, nor is there a possibility of improvement
until it is stopped.
6822. You think that, when the slave trade is once put down,
British settlements planted at the parts where it has been carried on
will keep it down?—I think eventually legitimate trade will keep it
down; I do not limit it to British settlements only, although British
settlements would undoubtedly have a good effect for that object.
6823. Then if a British settlement had been founded at the Gallinas
on the completion of your operations there, you think the slave
trade would have been permanently suppressed?—Undoubtedly I
think so, if founded on good principles.
6824. In your last examination you spoke in terms of strong condemnation
of the traders upon the coast having any commercial dealings
with persons suspected of being engaged in the slave trade;
now, without requiring from a naval commander an intimate or practical
knowledge of the principles of commerce, it may nevertheless
be reasonable to ask you, after the strong opinions you have expressed,
how British trade in Africa could possibly be successfully carried on
in competition with foreigners under any restrictions such as you
have pointed at?—The restriction that I recommend is, that there
should be such a change in the law as to enable us to seize and to
condemn any vessel that trades with a notorious slave factory, there
being no other trade but the slave trade there prosecuted; also,
against the supply of slave ships with goods for the purposes of their
traffic, and also against the sale of vessels calculated for the slave
trade to slave dealers. In my opinion, those three practices should
be stopped.
6825. Do you know Senor Caetano, at the Bissao?—I know who
he is, well.
6826. You have stated in your former evidence, that Senor Caetano
dealt both in produce and in slaves; how would you act in his case?—I
have stated that it would be impossible to distinguish in such
cases.
6827. You are aware that slavery and slave dealing are extensively
carried on in Cuba?—Undoubtedly; the slave trade to a much diminished
extent of late.
6828. And you are aware that it is equally the case in Brazil?—I
am aware that it is also the case in the Brazils.
6829. And also in the southern states of the North American
Union?—I have no reason to believe that any slave trade whatever
exists there, except the slave trade from one part of the coast to
another; I believe that no new slaves are introduced.
6830. Are you aware that they buy and sell slaves throughout the
southern states of the Union?—Yes; I am speaking of the external
slave trade; slavery implies the right of selling slaves within their
territory; I mean that they have no external slave trade, to the best
of my belief.
6831. Do you draw any distinction between slaves sold and
shipped from Virginia to New Orleans, as compared with slaves
shipped from the coast of Africa?—Unquestionably; they were at
Virginia in the same condition as they are again at New Orleans; it
is merely a change of locality in the same country or state, quite
distinct from the African slave trade.
6832. Are the slaves shipped from the coast of Africa in the same
condition in the West Indies as they were in previously to their
being shipped from the coast of Africa?—No, decidedly they are
not; they are in a very different condition in Africa from what they
are in the West Indies; they are not equally slaves; their condition
is entirely different. The whole bearing and meaning of the trade is
as different as possible, in my opinion.
6833. Do you draw any distinction, in a moral point of view,
between selling and shipping men from the state of Virginia to
the Mississippi, as compared with selling and shipping men from
Africa to the West Indies?—I consider the case is altogether different;
as distinct as possible.
6834. Do you consider that there is any difference in a moral
point of view?—Yes, I think there is a difference in a moral point
of view. In my opinion, the distinction between commerce with
slave states in America and commerce with slave factories in Africa
is this: the commerce with the slave factories in Africa, in the cases
I have before contemplated, goes there entirely for the purpose of
purchasing and making men slaves: the commerce with the slave
states of America has no such tendency whatever; the slaves are
already property. In my opinion, there is the broadest distinction
between the cases.
6835. Then you disapprove of selling goods to persons connected
with the slave trade on the coast of Africa, not on account of the
moral difference of the act, but on account of the difference of the
tendency and consequences of that act?—I consider that, in every
case, the dealings of British merchants with slave dealers, although
their produce trade may be mixed with the slave trade, is, in a very
high degree, objectionable and improper; but, at the same time, I
do not think that we can separate them; I do not think it would be
politic, or for the benefit of Africa, or for the cause that England has
in hand, to endeavour to carry the distinction between them too far.
6836. But if it be wrong or immoral to have dealings with persons
engaged in the slave trade, is it not equally wrong for a British
merchant to ship and sell goods to a slave merchant in Cuba and
Brazil, as it is to sell goods to a slave dealer on the coast of Africa,
so far as the moral question is concerned?—I think so, decidedly,
supposing those goods are intended to go into the slave trade, and it
is known that they will go into the slave trade.
6837. Are you not aware, from your observation on the coast, that
most of the goods, if not all, the cotton goods in particular, brought
to the coast of Africa by Spanish and Portuguese slave dealers, are
manufactured in this country?—I am perfectly aware of it; I consider
this highly objectionable, in the same way as the mixed trade
upon the coast is; but I do not think it would be wise to interfere
with it.
6838. The Committee cannot but highly appreciate and deeply
sympathise with your benevolent feelings on this subject; but do
you consider yourself sufficiently familiar with the searching effects
of commerce, to pronounce a sound opinion on the collateral tendency
of trade to supersede the slave trade on the coast of Africa, even
when carried on with persons connected with the slave trade?—I
consider myself perfectly qualified to give opinions, so far as I have
given them. The opinions I have given, I feel myself perfectly
qualified to give, and to support.
6839. Chairman.] You do not see any indirect advantage in dealing
with persons solely engaged in the slave trade, by means of lawful
goods, sufficient to counterbalance the direct evil of the facilities
given by that means to the slave trade?—The case of the Gallinas,
I think, is a perfect answer to the question; no good whatever is
derived from the exchange of the commodities of the civilized world
for slaves. There is no export of produce in that district of the coast.
I conceive that this commerce has no good effect whatever.
6840. You think it promotes no industry?—On the contrary, it
annihilates it.
6841. Mr. Forster.] You have stated that there has been no
British commerce carried on there to any extent?—In the Return
which I have already referred to, in the 14th page of this correspondence,
is given an account of the trade which formerly did exist, and
which, under the withering influence of the slave trade, has been
utterly destroyed. There is no doubt that there was considerable
export trade at one time from the Gallinas; they exported rice, and
they exported produce. Now they are obliged to import rice to feed
themselves; cattle, which were formerly abundant, are now hardly to
be procured, and then only at an enormous expense. They used to
get cattle from Sierra Leone. Indeed, the only case I know of any
communication with Sierra Leone, while I was last on the coast,
was, in one or two instances of very small boats, not above six or
seven tons, which had in one instance cattle and sheep on board. In
the second instance I did not search her.
6842. You have stated that the Gallinas has been principally supplied
with goods for the slave trade by foreign ships, and not by
British traders?—That has been my statement.
6843. You have stated also that you would have felt it your duty
to prevent English trading vessels entering there?—Under certain
circumstances, which I have detailed.
6844. Are you not of opinion that if British commerce had been
encouraged there, and more particularly if a British settlement had
been formed there, British commerce would have been of material
assistance in discountenancing and putting down the slave trade at
the Gallinas?—Legitimate commerce at the Gallinas has been
eradicated and annihilated by the sole influence of the slave trade.
It existed there, and the slave trade annihilated it. Had a British
settlement been formed there, the results might have been different.
6845. Chairman.] Do you think the results would have been
different if the same goods had been brought by English ships carrying
on the same trade as the foreign ships?—I do not see, had they
been brought in the same way as the goods were brought in the
foreign ships, how any difference would have been made. It would
have been the same unmixed evil as it has been when carried on
under the American flag.
6846. Mr. Forster.] Then it is only by the formation of British
settlements that you think the advantages of British commerce could
be fully realized there?—I think the advantages of legitimate commerce
will commence when they make their minds up that the slave
trade will no longer supply them with what they have been hitherto
accustomed to receive, and that that might be further assisted by the
formation of a settlement, I have no doubt whatever.
6847. Sir R. H. Inglis.] Have you any means of knowing how the
slaves in the barracoons at the Gallinas were procured for the slave
market; whether they were born in slavery, or were made slaves for
the mere purpose of sale?—The fact that the general system of
society in Africa is slavery, I believe is universally admitted. Those
people were brought down from the interior to meet the demand
upon the coast.
6848. Do you mean the Committee to understand that in your
opinion they were born slaves, and brought up to the slave market,
or that, having been free, they were made slaves for the slave
market?—In my opinion they were all born in a state of domestic
slavery, answering to a sort of villeinage in the early periods of our
own history. But my belief is, that no African chief dare sell his
domestic slaves in this way, except occasionally under the pretence
of crimes committed, or of debts owing; they are generally, I fancy,
either kidnapped or taken in wars, or in the ways I before mentioned.
6849. The kidnapping and the wars being for the purpose of supplying
the slave market?—Undoubtedly, in my opinion.
6850. Chairman.] Do you derive your information of the internal
condition of the Africans from investigations of your own, or from
what you have read?—Partly from inquiries I made while in shore at
the Gallinas and up the Nunez.
6851. You do not believe that, generally speaking, the chiefs, the
owners of slaves in Africa, have the right of selling their own slaves?—By
no means; I believe they dare not do it; that the population
would at once rise against it.
6852. Mr. Aldam.] Do you consider that the slaves are generally
prisoners taken in wars that have incidentally arisen, or that there
are wars carried on for the purpose of making slaves?—I believe both
to a great extent; I believe that wars are frequently begun for the
purpose of taking prisoners and making slaves, and frequently by
agreement between two chiefs, who dare not sell their own people.
They go to war in order to take each other’s people.
6853. Mr. Forster.] Did you hear of instances of that kind while
you were in the country?—I have heard statements of that kind
from persons conversant with the country up the rivers, and also from
the natives.
6854. Captain Fitzroy.] Referring to the letter which you have
produced from the chiefs of Sea-bar, was that letter written by a native?—It
was written undoubtedly by a negro, whether a native of
Sierra Leone, trading to Sea-bar, or whether one of the chiefs there,
I cannot say; but I have seen natives write infinitely better than
that.
6855. It is signed by Henry Tucker; who was that Henry Tucker?—He
was one of the chiefs of the country in the neighbourhood of
Sea-bar; they are a family who have dominion there.
6856. Was that chief, Tucker, educated at Sierra Leone?—I cannot
say; I believe he was, but I am not sure about it.
6857. (To Captain Hill.) Are you aware by whom that letter was
written?—I was at Sea-bar frequently, and have frequently seen
Harry Tucker, and have also seen a person whom he introduced to
me as his secretary, who, on conversation, I ascertained to be Harry
Tucker’s son, and this son was writing letters for him; and I asked
his son where he learned to write, and he told me that he was educated
at Sierra Leone; and Harry Tucker also told me, that he sent
two or three of his sons to Sierra Leone to learn to read and write.
6858. Then, it is your belief that that letter was written by a son
of a native chief, who was educated at Sierra Leone?—Yes.
6859. Mr. Aldam, to Captain Denman.] Where is Sea-bar?—It
lies between Sierra Leone and Gallinas. It is the passage between
the south-eastern end of the Sherboro’ Island and the main land.
6860. Captain Fitzroy.] Is “Sea-bar,” the place named in the
letter, the same as the River “Shebar,” in the map?—It is the
same.
6861. Mr. Hamilton.] Had you any opportunity of making any
observation as to the climate of the Gallinas; how far it would be fit
for Europeans to live there?—As far as my observations went, they
were rather favourable, for I went in at not a very good time of the
year, and, out of upwards of 100 men, I think that only two or three
deaths occurred. I believe only two men died after having been on
shore a week.
6862. Going up in the boats?—Yes.
6863. Is the ground swampy, or is there any high ground in the
neighbourhood?—The ground is rather low, but some of the islands
are as healthy as any of that part of Africa; indeed, the contrast
between that river and some of the rivers we afterwards went up, at a
more favourable season, was remarkable.
6864. Mr. Milnes.] Did you not fall in with a vessel called the
Echo, bringing a cargo of goods to the Coast of Africa?—I did, a
Hamburgh vessel; I think it was on the 11th of December.
6865. Had you any reason to suspect her of having any connexion
with the slave trade?—The officer who was sent on board her found
that her cargo was consigned from the Havannah, I think from
Charles Tyng to Mr. Canôt, a slave dealer at New Cestos, and she
had also on board a Spanish supercargo, affording strong ground for
suspecting her, indeed proof, that she was engaged in aiding and
abetting the slave trade.
6866. Do you regard any commerce in which ships might be engaged
with a slave factory as necessarily abetting the slave trade?—Not
all commerce; but I consider that if she were sailing with goods
consigned from one slave dealer to another she would be aiding and
abetting the slave trade.
6867. Chairman.] You mean that there could be no doubt of the
guilty intent of the parties?—There could be no doubt of the guilty
intent of the parties to aid and abet the slave trade.
6868. Mr. Forster.] Are you of an opinion that a Hamburgh vessel
could not lawfully enter into a charter-party to the Havannah, to convey
goods to a slave factory on the coast of Africa?—I think that
where a Hamburgh vessel is carrying a cargo under the same circumstances
I have described, it forms the strongest reason to suspect that
she may be doing still worse.
6869. Mr. Milnes.] You searched that Hamburgh vessel?—Upon
the 11th of December; it was late in the evening when I boarded
her. The officer returned to me, reporting after a very imperfect
search, indeed after no search, that he found on board nothing to
condemn her, and that he had given a certificate to that effect.
6870. Do you think that that certificate was prematurely given?—No,
that the search that I had to institute was under the treaty, and
therefore I considered her entitled to a certificate, although I certainly
intended, if I fell in with her again, to search her more perfectly,
as I was not satisfied upon the subject; all I could say then
was, that nothing was found.
6871. What time did the first search take?—It was not a search,
it was a visit; it did not amount to a search; it was a visit to the
ship, and some little examination, perhaps lifting the hatches; it was
in one sense a search, but a most imperfect search; it did not occupy
above half an hour.
6872. Did you afterwards see Mr. Canôt, upon the subject of that
vessel?—I afterwards saw Mr. Canôt, not upon the subject of that
vessel; he mentioned to me that he expected a vessel with a cargo.
6873. Under what circumstances did you search the Echo a second
time?—Upon our arrival at New Cestos, considering her exposed to
the worst suspicions, after I found that she was consigned to Mr.
Canôt, I caused a most perfect search to be instituted; the hold was
cleared, and she was thoroughly searched for slave equipments. It
should be observed, that the right of search is never carried to anything
like this extent, except in cases justifying the strongest suspicion.
6874. How long did that search take?—I think from the 15th to
the 18th of December.
6875. Were you then satisfied by the result of that search that
there were no grounds for seizing the Echo?—I certainly found nothing,
in my opinion, to convict her; at that time there was nothing
detected on board her to warrant detention; had there been, I should
have detained her of course.
6876. Did you or your master entrust to the captain of the Echo
certain captured Spaniards, to take to the Havannah?—When I was
about to sail from New Cestos, I allowed a prize crew of Spaniards,
who had been captured in a prize, to go on board this vessel, to
endeavour to get a passage back to their own country.
6877. Did you use any persuasion to Captain Soms to call at
Sierra Leone, as he states in the papers you have seen?—I never was
on board her in the first place, and I never saw Captain Soms; in the
second place, the master, on returning on board the Wanderer, told
me, that he had advised the captain of the Echo to go to Sierra Leone
with the view of getting passengers; subsequently, when I heard
that the vessel was captured, I recollect distinctly saying to the
master, “Oh, they will think you have betrayed them into the hands
of the Sierra Leone government.” The advice was given without
my authority, and without my knowledge until afterwards; but I saw
no harm in the advice.
6878. Could the Echo have incurred any culpability with regard to
the slave trade between the time when you examined her and her
seizure at Sierra Leone?—Very possibly.
6879. How?—She might have entered into an arrangement to
carry away a cargo of slaves from another part of the coast; she
might have equipped herself for slave dealing; it does not at all
follow because she was apparently free from liability to capture when
I was on board her, that she should not have done something subsequently
that rendered her so.
6880. You do not consider your having declared her to be innocent
to be a sufficient ground for saying that she was not guilty at Sierra
Leone at a subsequent period?—It was certainly no sort of guarantee
against the consequences of any future proceedings that she might
choose to take.
6881. Sir R. H. Inglis.] It was not either a retrospective or a
prospective guarantee; it was a guarantee only that on the 11th of
December, when you visited her, she at that time had no primâ facie
evidence of being engaged in the slave trade; is that your impression
upon the subject?—It was no particular guarantee, but it was a
certificate which the treaties, under the authority of which I searched
her, declared that I was to furnish her with; it was a certificate to
the effect that the treaty required.
6882. Chairman.] Was that certificate a security to her against
any further search by any other man-of-war on the station?—It would
probably operate against any further search, because they would not
take the trouble to do it unless they had some new reason to suspect
her; they would have no wish to cause unnecessary vexation.
6883. Is the certificate intended, in your view, to operate as a
security against further trouble?—I think there are two motives for
the certificate; one is, that there may be no concealment as to the
ship which may have committed any wrong in the exercise of the
right of search upon her; and secondly, to act as a sort of certificate
with regard to others that may fall in with her; but if others have
reason still to doubt her, in spite of that certificate, they are perfectly
at liberty to search her again.
6884. Did you hear what became of the Echo afterwards?—I did
not hear of her detention at Sierra Leone until the end of March,
I think the 28th of March; I visited Sierra Leone a few days after
I had boarded her, but before her arrival.
6885. Did you not hear that she was condemned?—I heard that
she was condemned.
6886. Upon what ground?—My knowledge upon the subject is
merely hearsay; all that I know is, that an officer of the Wanderer
was at Sierra Leone, and I mention it in order to show that Sir
John Jeremie was not moved by interested motives in seizing her,
he was anxious that this officer should seize her as a prize to the
Wanderer.
6887. Has the Governor any interest in seizures?—He has a proportion
of the proceeds.
6888. Mr. Forster.] And he would be entitled to a proportion of
the proceeds of the Echo when condemned at Sierra Leone?—Yes.
6889. Mr. Milnes.] Did you ever fall in with any other Hamburgh
vessel engaged in abetting the slave trade?—I fell in once with the
Argus, at the Gallinas, when she was landing casks. I considered
that a suspicious circumstance, although one not warranting seizure.
I never met with any other.
6890. Have you ever heard that eight or any other number of
Hamburgh vessels had proceeded from Hamburgh for the purpose of
abetting the slave trade, or being engaged in it?—I think decidedly
not.
6891. Mr. Forster.] If the Echo had been an English vessel,
would you have seized her under the circumstances in which you
found the Echo?—Undoubtedly, under the circumstances of the
trade which she was carrying on.
6892. Mr. Milnes.] Do you mean after the first or after the second
search?—The search told nothing. It was the fact of her carrying
goods from one slave dealer to another, with a Spanish supercargo
on board, that would have proved to me that she was aiding and
abetting the slave trade.
6893. Would you have seized her upon the knowledge of that fact
alone?—Undoubtedly, if she had been an English vessel.
6894. Chairman.] But being a foreign vessel, you did not think
that ground sufficient to act upon?—Being a foreign vessel, I could
not apply the English laws to her case. I could only apply the
treaty to her case, and I held that according to the treaty only
equipment would warrant a seizure, or slaves.
6895. Mr. Milnes.] Would you have had a right to seize that ship
under those circumstances simply from the fact of her having a
foreign supercargo?—Not upon that fact, but upon the fact of her
carrying goods from one slave dealer to another slave dealer to buy
slaves with.
6896. How do you know that it was to buy slaves with?—From
the fact of their being both engaged in the slave trade.
6897. Was Mr. Canôt at that time avowedly engaged in the slave
trade?—Mr. Canôt had, a very few days before the arrival of the
Echo, given up all his slaves and abandoned the slave trade. It was
a mere accidental circumstance their finding that Mr. Canôt was not
then carrying on the slave trade.
6898. Chairman.] They were consigned to him under the expectation
that he was a slave dealer?—At the time the consignment took
place he was a slave dealer, and no one at that time could have contemplated
so sudden a change on his part.
6899. Mr. Milnes.] But at the time the Echo was there, Mr.
Canôt was not engaged in the slave trade, and was under British
protection?—Mr. Canôt had, a few days before, given up his slaves
and abandoned the slave trade.
6900. But the parties who chartered the Echo could not have
been aware of that fact?—They could not possibly have been aware
of that fact.
6901. Sir T. D. Acland.] Mr. Canôt was known to be concerned
in the slave trade at the time the consignment was made?—Perfectly.
6902. Mr. Forster.] You do not think that Mr. Canôt in abandoning
the slave trade, was at all influenced by the prospective
arrival of this vessel, with a view to possessing himself of the cargo?—I
do not see how he could have been influenced by that; because,
under the circumstances, I could not have seized her, whether he
had been carrying on the slave trade or not. On the other hand,
although he had turned from the slave trade, yet, had I found any
equipment upon her, I should have seized her. It made no difference
whatever.
6903. Did he immediately avail himself of the services of the
British squadron to remove the goods from New Cestos, the place to
which they were consigned, to Monrovia?—It would be necessary to
explain what had taken place at New Cestos with reference to
Mr. Canôt, to understand what took place with respect to those
goods. Mr. Canôt, on the 8th of December, voluntarily delivered
his slaves to Lieutenant Seagram, commanding H. M. S. Termagant,
stationed by me to blockade the place. Lieutenant Seagram
then sailed, to land those slaves at Sierra Leone, carrying with him
reports upon the subject for my information. I met at New Cestos
his boats, and not having received any information from him, but
only from the officer in charge of the boats, verbally, I left an order
for him to the following effect: that if he was persuaded of
Mr. Canôt’s integrity of purpose, and provided the slave trade was
at an end, he was to afford him convenience and protection, and to
assist him in establishing a factory for Redman & Co. at Cape
Mount. After my departure, the goods consigned to Mr. Canôt were,
I believe, landed at his factory, the supercargo being on board, and
ready to object if there was any thing improper about it; and they
were subsequently, according to the orders I had left, protected by
Lieutenant Seagram, when embarked from the beach, the natives
showing every disposition to resist the departure of Mr. Canôt.
6904. Mr. Milnes.] Did you hear any thing at Sierra Leone about
a buoy, in which the papers of the Echo were said to have been
concealed?—I saw a buoy at the registrar’s office, at the Vice-Admiralty
Court, which was hollowed out with a scuttle, and I was
told that the papers had been concealed in this buoy. I should
state, that on searching the Echo, there was no search for papers,
because papers under the treaty with Hamburgh would not have been
sufficient to condemn her. Equipments were what I searched for.
6905. Would any papers that you could have found have been
sufficient to condemn her under the treaty with Hamburgh?—Had
I found papers distinctly proving that she was intended to take
slaves, I should have taken upon myself the responsibility of sending
her to Hamburgh for trial, according to the treaty; because,
although not according to the letter of the treaty, I believe the spirit
of the Hamburgh treaty is entirely true and just, and I believe it
would have been enforced.
6906. Would any papers found upon her in British waters cause
her to be condemned, which would not cause her to be condemned
if found in other waters?—Papers found upon her in British
waters, proving her to be engaged in the slave trade, might
certainly condemn her under our laws, as coming under our jurisdiction.
6907. Mr. Forster.] Did the registrar inform you that the hollow
place in the buoy was intended to conceal papers, or that papers
were found concealed in it?—He told me that papers had been concealed
in it. He did not say that they had been found there, but
that it had been used for that purpose.
6908. Did he say that papers of that nature had been found in it
at Sierra Leone?—No, I think not.
6909. Mr. Milnes.] Have you known many instances of the crews
of men-of-war boats remaining on board during a search of that kind,
and conducting themselves improperly, taking articles out of the
cargo for their own use?—Extremely rarely. In this instance I am
aware that some of my ship’s company misbehaved themselves; but
they, well knowing the punishment that awaited them, managed to
desert.
6910. Did you order the return of the goods which they had
taken?—There were no goods taken; I believe there was a bottle or
two of champagne drunk.
6911. Did you order the men for punishment?—The men escaped;
the master did not bring them back with him. They both died
shortly afterwards, or rather one died and the other one was very
badly wounded in the Termagant’s boats, and never returned to the
Wanderer.
6912. Is it not very difficult to prevent the men from committing
those abuses?—I think not when the officers are strictly vigilant;
but upon this occasion Mr. Elliott had been induced to go on shore
by some representations of Mr. Canôt, who wished to prove to him
that his intentions were honest and upright as regarded his abandonment
of the slave trade; and that accounted for it.
6913. Were the men left by themselves?—No, they were not;
there were the officers of the Termagant employed also, in whose
charge they were left.
6914. Mr. Forster.] What means do you suppose the master of
the Echo would have at the Havannah of knowing the character and
pursuits of Mr. Canôt, to whom he was consigned upon the charter-party?—If
he had made the smallest inquiry, he could not have
been in doubt for a moment.
6915. Where should he have made inquiry?—In the Havannah;
Mr. Canôt was as well known in the Havannah as Pedro Blanco
himself.
6916. Is it the duty of a merchant captain in search of trade at a
foreign port to make inquiries as to the character and pursuits of his
consignee in another country?—Applying it to an English captain,
I should say that he was just as much bound to ascertain that he
was not engaged in the slave trade as an apothecary, when he sells
arsenic, is bound, as far as in him lies, to ascertain that it is not
intended to poison any body.
6917. Mr. Milnes.] Is it common for a ship to be condemned, and
for the captain at the same time to be declared not guilty of aiding
and abetting in the slave trade?—It occurs frequently, upon the very
principle of the difficulty of proof of the individual being wilfully and
knowingly engaged in the slave trade.
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.
6930. Would the individual property of the captain himself be
included in the condemnation?—I believe the doctrine always has
been, that the whole property on board the ship is vitiated by her
being engaged in the slave trade. But these questions are all questions
as to the construction of the Act of Parliament of the 5th of
George the 4th, which I do not feel competent to interpret in this
manner, although I see my way clearly enough to act upon it.
6931. Mr. Forster.] Do you consider that the mere conveyance as
a common carrier of goods from the Havannah to the coast of Africa,
is an act of slave dealing?—Not the common carrying of goods: but
if she is carrying goods from Pedro Blanco to Mr. Canôt, I do not
call that a common act of carrying. It is the act of carrying goods
for a specific purpose between two persons engaged in a criminal
trade.
6932. Mr. Milnes.] Could not Pedro Blanco and Mr. Canôt have
mercantile communications which should be of an indisputably legal
character?—They might, but they indisputably have no such commerce
except in the smallest degree possible. There was some little
palm-oil trade carried on by Mr. Canôt. I believe Mr. Canôt’s
evidence was not taken upon the question, but Mr. Canot made no
secret of the purposes to which that cargo would have been applied
by him.
6933. Mr. Forster.] Supposing arsenic to be conveyed from
London to Manchester, and there made an illegal use of, would you
consider the carrier responsible in that case?—No, but I think that
supposed case applies to the carriage of goods from England to the
Havannah, and not from the Havannah to a slave factory in Africa.
If you suppose the case of the person at the place to which the arsenic
was sent, and the person who sends it, both being employed in
poisoning people, I should think in that case the carrier would be
culpable, supposing him to be aware of the fact.
6934. Do you consider it illegal for an English vessel to convey a
cargo of merchandise from the Havannah to a person engaged in the
slave trade on the coast of Africa?—Supposing they are sent by a
person engaged in the slave trade.
6935. Do you consider it illegal for an English vessel to convey a
cargo of goods to a notorious slave dealer at the Havannah?—No, I
do not.
6936. On what ground do you draw the distinction between the
two cases?—I think the one is more directly aiding and abetting the
slave trade than the other; the other is in a much more remote
degree. I have before stated that I thought it was morally wrong.
6937. Mr. Milnes.] Do you recollect whether the fitting up of the
vessel was such that it could have taken back a cargo of slaves, supposing
Mr. Canôt had still been concerned in the slave trade?—She
would only have had to get a few casks and a few planks, and she
might have taken back 700 or 800 slaves with the greatest ease
Any vessel can be fitted up as a slaver.
6938. Then your impression is that that vessel arrived there
expecting to find Mr. Canôt engaged in the slave trade, and was
disappointed at finding that he had abandoned it?—Undoubtedly,
they still supposed him to be engaged in the slave trade; but
how far the disappointment went I cannot say. The goods were
landed to him still, although there was a supercargo on board, which
is a strong reason to suppose that Mr. Canôt was not robbing his
employers, as was suggested.
6939. Mr. Forster.] Was it not the fact, that it was not till after
they had been landed that the goods were removed to Cape Mount?—But
they had been promised to be removed before. The promise was
given that his goods should be removed to Cape Mount, under the
protection of the British flag, because it was well understood that
the natives would resist the removal of Mr. Canôt; they wanted to
have a slave dealer.
6940. What back cargo could the Echo have taken from Mr.
Canôt, except slaves?—She could have taken nothing approaching to
a cargo; there were a few casks of palm oil, but wholly insufficient
for the cargo of such a vessel.
6941. Chairman.] Could she not have taken money?—She could
have taken money or bills, but nothing in the shape of cargo.
6942. Is not the greater part of the slave trade on the coast of
Africa carried on upon the principle of one vessel bringing a cargo
and taking back money, and another vessel being employed to take
away slaves?—It is. In most of those cases, the principal slave
dealer is resident at the Havannah; and in all cases almost the freight
of the former is paid for in the Havannah. There is no money or
goods taken out in the vessel intended to carry back slaves.
6943. There is nothing, in the course of the slave trade on the
coast of Africa, which leads you to imagine that a vessel which carries
goods to the coast must necessarily intend to carry slaves back?—No;
there is only one instance which I know, when I was upon the
coast during the last two years, of such an attempt. With respect
to Mr. Canôt, there is one fact with regard to his conduct which is
highly in his favour. Some time after the slaves were delivered up,
the natives got some goods from him, and tried to endeavour to induce
him to resume the slave trade. They went and bought 50 slaves
with those goods. He gave information on the subject, and through
him the slaves were delivered up to Lieutenant Seagram. Throughout
his whole conduct I have the strongest reason to suppose that he is
most perfectly honest in his intention of abandoning the slave trade.
He has always given me the fullest information with regard also to
the resumption of the slave trade at New Cestos.
6944. Chairman.] You had a good deal of intercourse with Mr.
Canôt?—A good deal. I used to receive communications from him,
giving me information with respect to the slave trade.
6945. What appears to have been the moving cause to induce him
to abandon the slave trade?—I have reason to believe that he had for
some time contemplated it; but the immediate cause was, that under
the blockade he found that he could not follow out the commerce;
that he could not get the slaves away.
6946. Mr. Forster.] Was the captain cognizant of Mr. Canôt
having abandoned the slave trade previously to the landing of the
cargo?—He states it himself in his complaint. He states that it was
so; that he saw the English flag flying.
6947. Do not you consider that strong proof, that the captain of
the Echo was no party to the slave trading transactions going on
between the shipper and the consignee?—I can only suppose that the
property was Mr. Canôt’s, and that he as an honest man felt himself
bound to give it to him. Had it been Pedro Blanco’s own property,
sent by him for Mr. Canôt to buy slaves with, I think the property
would not have been allowed to be landed.
6948. If the captain had been in the secret as to the transactions
between the house at the Havannah and Mr. Canôt, the captain, to
protect the house in the Havannah, finding that Mr. Canôt had
abandoned the slave trade, would not have delivered the goods?—He
was paid for his freight. I suppose he did not care what became
of the goods. Had he not landed the goods, he would have had to
carry them back; he would have been unable to take freight back.
6949. Mr. Milnes.] Was none of the freight landed?—I believe all
that was consigned to Mr. Canôt was landed after I sailed.
6950. How would Mr. Canôt have paid for it?—I have no idea
how it was paid for. There are three theories to choose amongst;
one is, that he robbed his employer’s goods without any set-off;
another is, that his employers owed him something equivalent at least
to the value of the goods; and the third is, that they were his own
property. I refused to enter into the subject with him at all; I had
nothing to do with his slave transactions; had it been amenable to
seizure I should have seized it.
6951. Captain Fitzroy.] Does the slave trade increase or decrease,
at the time of the senior officer on the station being changed?—It
has generally been observed in the printed correspondence of the
commissioners, and also from the observations of the officers on the
coast, that the senior officers not having a practical knowledge of the
coast, upon their first arrival there the cruizing is much less efficient
for a certain time. It requires a long time for an officer to understand
the duties of the coast.
6952. You have understood that frequently changing the officers is
injurious to the suppression of the slave trade?—Such is my opinion;
I think that three years is the proper time for an officer to be employed
there. I think the service would suffer if they were removed
more frequently.
6953. How long, speaking generally, does it take for an officer
to acquire a tolerably competent knowledge of the duties on that
coast?—Several months, certainly.
6954. Are the cruizers now obliged to leave their stations frequently,
to get provisions?—They are obliged to leave their stations generally
once in three or four months for that purpose, and during that period,
of course, the slavers frequently escape. The period is longer or
shorter, according to the distance of the depôts.
6955. Do not the slave traders generally obtain accurate information
of the periods at which the cruizers will probably be absent?—They
frequently do so by reasoning, and by observing the time at
which the cruizers have received their supplies.
6956. Does the present state of the Bounty Acts afford due encouragement
to exertions for the prevention of the slave trade, or
might an alteration be made which would do more justice to those
who are affected by those Acts?—In my opinion the present system
of bounties is upon an extremely bad footing. It affords a great
premium upon the capture of full vessels over empty vessels; whereas
I believe the slave trade is to be stopped by the prevention of embarkation.
6957. How could the Act be altered, in your opinion, so as to
make less difference between full vessels and empty vessels?—My
opinion is, that there should be no difference whatever between them;
that they should be paid upon the tonnage a bounty, calculated upon
the average between the profit of a full vessel and an empty vessel
of the same tonnage; that there should be no more head-money
whatever; that the proceeds should not go to the captors; that the
proceeds should go to the Government; that the reward of the
captors should be only upon the tonnage.
6958. Abolishing head-money altogether?—Abolishing head-money
altogether.
6959. Chairman.] Do you conceive that Sierra Leone is well situated
as a place for adjudication, under the present circumstances of
the slave trade?—I think that it is the best place, under the present
circumstances of the slave trade.
6960. Captain Fitzroy.] Can you suggest any improvement in the
rigging of the ships employed on the coast, or in the boats with
which they are furnished?—The cruizers employed upon the coast have
the same masts and sails precisely in them as they would have in the
North Sea, their duties lying altogether in the Tropics. In my
opinion, with the same masts, a large increase of canvass, by making
the sails squarer, would be of the utmost advantage.
6961. Are the boats now used the best adapted for that particular
service?—I think every vessel, capable of carrying them, ought to
carry two long six-oared galleys at her quarters, and that those that
carry boats amidship should have as large boats as they can stow,
and that they should be built so lightly as to be able to keep pace
with the galleys. A much larger proportion have been captured by
boats than by cruizing.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Mr. W. Hamilton.
Mr. Milnes.
Viscount Sandon in the chair.
Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman, R. N., called in; and further
examined.
6962. Chairman.] Can you give the Committee any information
with regard to the Kroo Coast; first as to the extent of the Kroo
Coast?—The Kroo Coast, I conceive, begins at the river Cestros,
the place known as St. George’s, where Mr. Spence had established
a factory several years ago, which has been recently abandoned. The
Kroomen occupy only five towns upon the coast at different places
between the river Cestros and the Grand Cestros; to the northward
of that the Bassa people lie intermixed with the Fishmen, and, occupying
all the coast to the southward of the Grand Cestros, are the
Fishmen, a different people from the Kroomen; they are often confounded
with them, but there is a broad distinction between them.
Intermixed with the five Kroo towns are many Fish places. The
Kroomen occupy the interior of the country more than the Fishmen;
the Fishmen are entirely upon the coast. Below Grand Cestros they
are all Fish towns. The Fish people are much more numerous than
the Kroomen. At a place called by the Fishmen Saucy Town, the
natives from the interior fought their way down to the beach.
6963. What were they?—We have no means of knowing; they
are quite different from any other races that we know of; at this the
Fishmen are exceedingly angry, as they consider that they have a
title to all the trade upon the coast. They have prohibited all trade
with this place, and have committed many outrages against British
vessels and others who have traded there in spite of their prohibition.
The Fishmen are perfect pests to the trade upon the coast; they
require keeping in order very much.
6964. Are they principally Kroomen or Fishmen who enter on
board Her Majesty’s ships?—More Fishmen than Kroomen; we
cannot employ them together.
6965. Is it the same with reference to mercantile vessels?—I am
not aware, but I think the Fishmen are generally preferred, as they
are more at home with boats and more accustomed to live on the
water than the Kroomen.
6966. Do you call those principally Kroomen or Fishmen that live
at Sierra Leone?—Both classes exist there, but I am not aware in
what proportions; the Kroomen are preferred for domestic purposes;
they are much more capable of attachment to white people.
6967. Have you any idea what the population is, whether of Fishmen
or of Kroomen?—The population of the coast of Fishmen is
much greater than that of Kroomen, but I always understood that
the Kroomen ran a long way into the interior, and were an agricultural
race; indeed if it was not so, I do not see how they could possibly
exist against the hostility of the Fishmen, as their numbers on
the sea-coast are very inferior; they are almost always at war.
6968. Are both Fishmen and Kroomen exempt from becoming
slaves?—They are exempt from becoming slaves; at the only slave
factories upon the coast, between Sierra Leone and Cape Palmas,
Gallinas, and New Cestos, the work was entirely carried on by
Fishmen, but they have a great objection to being slaves themselves;
they are in the habit of sacrificing their enemies taken in war to the
Fetish tree.
6969. Are you speaking of Fishmen or of Kroomen now?—Both; I
have had opportunities of knowing that that is the fact.
6970. Do those parties bring slaves from distant parts in the
interior, or is it upon neighbouring tribes that they make inroads in
order to procure slaves?—I do not think the Fishmen or Kroomen
are in the habit of collecting slaves at all; but they are very
willing to lend themselves out to slave factories, to assist them in
carrying on the traffic in every way.
6971. And to allow their territory to be made a place of embarkation
for slaves?—I believe not; indeed there is no embarkation of
slaves in their territory; nor nearer than Young Cestos.
6972. Sir T. D. Acland.] Their willingness to hire themselves out
to slavers is merely as a means of active employment?—Exactly so.
6973. Not from any preference to that employment?—They prefer
it, I believe, because they are better paid for that than any thing else.
6974. Chairman.] Have you had any opportunity of knowing the
domestic condition of the Kroomen or the Fishmen; whether they are
under the obligations of slavery to any parties?—No, there is no
slavery in the Kroo or Fish country, although the system of every
headman having his boys under him approaches something to it. The
headman receives all the wages of all the boys under him; whether
that is from family connexion, or from political institution, I do not
know, but the headman receives all the pay of all the boys. A headman
on board a man-of-war, for instance, will have 20 men under
him, and he receives the whole of their wages.
6975. Do you always take on board a headman, for every number of
Kroomen or Fishmen that you engage?—It is absolutely necessary
to have a headman to keep them in order; he generally chooses all
the people, we leave it to him to choose them. If Fishmen and
Kroomen happen to be mixed up in the same party there are always
quarrels and disturbances, indeed there is no getting on with them, so
strong is the antipathy.
6976. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you think, from what you know of
those people, that they would be disposed to engage themselves as
labourers in the West Indies, if proper means were taken to acquaint
them with the nature of the service?—If proper means were taken, I
have not the least doubt they might get thousands of them; the thing
necessary is to produce confidence in their minds, and that would
best be done by some man-of-war upon the coast taking over some
of the headmen, upon a promise that they should be returned by the
same ship.
6977. Chairman.] You believe that they have confidence in a man-of-war?—I
believe they have the greatest confidence in a man-of-war,
and also in the English people; but they might fancy that
abuses might take place, and that they might be made slaves of, unless
they had the evidence of some of their own people.
6978. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you think it would be possible for a
man-of-war to discharge the duty of securing against any possible
abuse in their embarkation?—I do not think it would be at all necessary
to have a man-of-war for that purpose. I think you might safely
leave them to take care of themselves. The only purpose for which
a man-of-war need interfere, would be to give them a feeling of confidence
in the first instance. They might object to go over in any
thing but a man-of-war. I think the first impression is all that a
man-of-war would be required for.
6979. Do you think these people might not take others with them
against their will?—I think not; I do not think they hold slaves in
any way; the mark of the race is so very distinct, that other races
could not be mixed with them as emigrants without detection.
6980. Chairman.] You think that the connexion between the chiefs
and those companies of boys is rather a voluntary connexion, for the
purpose of protection, than one of compulsion?—It is a voluntary
connexion, because it exists equally strongly at Sierra Leone as any
where else.
6981. Sir T. D. Acland.] Have you any doubt that the commanders
of one of Her Majesty’s ships could effectually prevent any
embarkation of the natives against their will?—I do not think there
would be the smallest necessity for a man-of-war to superintend the
coast, except at first.
6982. Supposing no landing were allowed in the West Indies
without a certificate of one of Her Majesty’s officers, would it be
easy for the officer, before he gave such a certificate, to take effectual
security against being imposed upon by the delivery of a person
without his full consent?—It would be very easy to ascertain the
fact; but the Kroo and Fish race are so distinct from all others, that
I do not think there is the smallest apprehension of its taking the
form of slavery.
6983. You mean so far as regards any embarkation from that part
of the coast?—Yes, in British ships.
6984. Would it be equally safe on other parts of the coast?—It
would be impossible in other parts, without perpetuating the slave
trade, in my opinion.
6985. Chairman.] What would be the difference between the two
cases?—There are no other races upon the coast who leave their
country voluntarily to labour. The only way in which it could
possibly be expected that the natives would be obtained from any
other part of the coast would be upon compulsion and upon sale,
upon positive sale and nominal manumission afterwards, before
embarkation; but that would hold out the same inducements to
internal slave trade in Africa as the slave trade to Brazils or Cuba.
6986. Sir T. D. Acland.] You think it would be impossible to
guard against fraud in that case?—It would be impossible to establish
such a plan without perpetuating the slave trade.
6987. Chairman.] On the Fish Coast, and on the Kroo Coast, you
would not apprehend that the advantage given by any little presents
to the chiefs on the departure of any of their people for the West
Indies, might induce them to bring negroes from other parts of the
country for the purpose of emigration?—I think negroes from other
parts of the country would be immediately distinguished from the
Kroomen.
6988. The security, then, you think would consist in the external
marks of the Kroo and Fish people?—Yes. Moreover, the Kroomen
and the Fishmen, on landing in the West Indies, would be always
able to tell their own story; to speak English enough to make their
case known.
6989. You do not mean that the Kroomen living inland speak
English?—I suppose not; but all that I have ever seen have
managed to make themselves understood; indeed I think it is possible
they might have some idea of the English language inland, it
is so universal amongst all that I have seen. It would be very easy
to follow the plan supposed, to have a man-of-war stationed in that
quarter, and known to be at a certain place; it would be very easy
to require every emigrant ship to visit her, and receive a certificate
from the captain before she sailed for the West Indies.
6990. Would you feel any difficulty in ascertaining certainly,
against possibility of fraud, that those people were bonâ fide volunteers?—There
would not be the smallest difficulty.
6991. Chairman.] You would call up the men and be able to ask
them, either directly in English, or through interpreters, the circumstances
under which they embarked?—Yes.
6992. And ascertain their knowledge of the object of the embarkation?—Yes;
nothing would be more easy or more certain.
6993. Sir T. D. Acland.] Supposing any man embarked were to
say that he did not wish to go, what would you do with him?—He
must give his presents back that he has received and go back
himself.
6994. If he had been sent on board by compulsion, would he not
run some risk on his landing?—I think it altogether repugnant to the
customs of the country to force people on board; I do not think it is
a thing at all to be apprehended.
6995. Mr. Aldam.] You think there would be no more difficulty
in emigration from the Kroo Coast to the West Indies than in
emigration from England to Canada?—There would be scarcely more
difficulty; I should feel quite confident, that with the commonest
care upon the part of the Governments in the West India islands,
such a thing could not be abused.
6996. You think the one is as liable to abuse as the other?—Yes:
I think the emigration from the coast of Africa would require a little
more looking after.
6997. But the captain of a man-of-war might perform every duty
that the emigration agent now performs in an English port?—Yes;
I think a man-of-war stationed in the neighbourhood might do so.
6998. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you think the Kroomen would be
willing to leave their families?—I think they would be perfectly
willing to remove without their families; you could not get them to
take their families.
6999. For what length of time?—For three or four years; they
have the greatest objection to remove their women; indeed it is
impossible for any race to be more obstinately attached to their own
habits and prejudices than the Kroo and the Fish races.
7000. Therefore their engagement would be of a temporary nature?—There
is scarcely such a thing known as a Krooman to be absent
from his country more than seven years.
7001. Mr. Aldam.] Would their absence in the West Indies, and
the habits they would be likely to acquire there, tend to improve the
manners of the people at home, upon their return?—I think it would
have that effect to some small extent.
7002. And to introduce civilization?—To a very small extent; I
do not think that much could be expected without other means.
7003. Sir T. D. Acland.] Have they any means of education?—None
whatever.
7004. Chairman.] They have no contact with any white men,
except some that come for the purpose of trading upon the coast?—And
at the settlements of Sierra Leone and Liberia.
7005. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do they take opportunities of acquiring
instruction on board ships?—No, I think not, except what they must
learn to do their duties.
7006. Do they show any disposition to learn to read and write?—Not
at all.
7007. Do you think that having learned the cultivation of sugar
in the West Indies, they would be likely to introduce the same cultivation
in their own country?—I think that at present they are not
sufficiently enlightened to make it very probable.
7008. Chairman.] Would the effect of considerable emigration
from the Kroo Coast be to raise the rate of wages of the Kroomen
employed in the navy, and on board merchant ships?—I should think
very probably it might have that effect, but the wages now paid on
board ships of war are much higher than are paid anywhere else.
7056. Chairman.] Have you considered the subject of the removal
of the Mixed Commission Court from Sierra Leone?—I have. I
have heard that the places named as preferable are Fernando Po,
Accra, and Ascension. The first is a foreign possession, and not to
be purchased, therefore utterly out of the question. The second has
dangerous anchorage; no harbour or place for breaking up ships, no
territory for location, no market for goods, and no community of
which liberated Africans could become a part. The third is a desert,
the 150 persons now living there being victualled, as at sea, on salt
provisions. Since 1839, at the latter end of which we were for the
first time enabled really to attack the slave trade, the number of
Africans liberated by the Mixed Commission Court has been extremely
small; and this diminution may be regarded as a test of
success, the grand object being to guard the coast and prevent the
embarkation of slaves. In 1840 the number emancipated at Sierra
Leone amounted to but 732, and in the first half of 1841 to but 291,
and of these not one-sixth died between capture and emancipation.
Sierra Leone is far preferable to any other place for the location of
liberated Africans, there being already a large and prosperous community,
comprising natives of every African race, who receive among
them their newly-emancipated countrymen, and regard them with the
utmost sympathy, assisting them in every way, and instructing them
in the language and customs of the colony. It frequently happens
that near relations are again united, and the transports of joy on such
occasions well vindicate the African from the charge so often repeated.
The marked inferiority of the liberated Africans who have
been sent to the Gambia is owing to their small numbers, in a community
having no sympathies with them, and from whom they are as
much separated as from the white inhabitants; and I would ask
whether intercourse with the Fantees of the Gold Coast would civilize
or improve them to a greater extent?
7057. What is your opinion as to the advantage of transporting
the slaves as soon as they are emancipated, from Sierra Leone to the
West Indies?—The treaties embodied in the Act of the 5th of
Geo. 4, provide that slaves shall be located in the territory of the
nation of the capturing cruizer. This provision is fulfilled, when
slaves captured by a British cruizer are emancipated at Sierra
Leone. When slaves so captured are emancipated at Havannah,
they should be removed to whichever of the British West India
islands it is honestly believed they will be best placed for their own
welfare and happiness. I utterly deny the right to consult the
interests of any other parties whatever in their location. It has
been argued that it would be beneficial to Sierra Leone to send
negroes after emancipation in the West Indies, and that the Act in
question authorises the Government to compel slaves emancipated
under its provisions to serve in the Army or Navy, or to send them
where it pleases. But to carry this provision out to its full extent
would be but to perpetuate their slavery, contrary to the whole spirit
of the Act; nor could the forcible removal of these poor creatures
from an asylum containing thousands of their countrymen, and possibly
many of their near kindred, be rendered justifiable by any
consideration whatever. I have seen a cargo of slaves, after the
completion of one voyage across the Atlantic, condemned to another
for their own supposed benefit; and I can bear witness to the
horror of the victims, when they found themselves once more on the
“middle passage.”
7058. What circumstance do you allude to?—The vessel which I
stated before, that I took from Rio Janeiro to Sierra Leone, a slave
ship, with a cargo of slaves which had arrived there, and had been
there seized. Further I would say, let the subject be considered
with regard to foreign governments. The Dutch government not
long ago purchased slaves at Elmina, who, after nominal enfranchisement,
were forcibly transported to the island of Java. It is
undoubted, that a vessel employed in carrying them would be subject
to capture by a British cruizer, and condemnation at Sierra
Leone. Had such a case occurred, and the negroes after emancipation
been immediately transported to Trinidad, or to Demerara
without their own consent, how could such a transaction be vindicated
in the eyes of Europe? Voluntary emigration from Sierra Leone
may very properly be encouraged by all fair means. The number of
emigrants cannot, however, amount to any considerable extent,
compared with the wants of the West Indies.
7059. Mr. Forster.] Are you well acquainted with the land in the
neighbourhood of Accra?—No; I have not been to Accra. I only
know that the British settlement is confined to the walls of the
fort.
7060. Are you aware of any difficulty that would arise in acquiring
territory in the neighbourhood of Accra?—I believe there would
be no difficulty; but it is the fact that we have no territory now.
7061. But if it were deemed advisable to establish the Mixed
Commission Court there, are you aware of any difficulty in acquiring
territory for the purpose of locating the liberated Africans?—No; I
believe that territory might be obtained if it were desirable in other
respects. But I believe it is not desirable in other respects.
7062. Captain Fitzroy.] Have any liberated Africans been employed
at Ascension; and if so, how have they conducted themselves?—I
have a letter from a gentleman who was adjutant in the
Island of Ascension, under whom those Africans were employed,
Lieutenant Wade. I beg leave to state that in this letter, as regards
the first party to which he alludes, from my own knowledge I can say
that he has very much understated the difficulty that existed with
them. They were very troublesome in every way. He expressed
to me verbally, in the strongest terms, the contrast between the
people who had not received the benefit of residence at Sierra Leone,
and those who had.
[The letter was delivered in, and read as follows:]
Sir,
London, 23 June, 1842.
I have the honour to address to you the following facts relative to the liberated
Africans employed by Government on the Island of Ascension, and
which you may be pleased to lay before the African Committee for their information.
The liberated Africans attached to the establishment are 33 in number, and
are relieved every three years if they wish it; they are paid in three classes.
The first class receive 6d. and the lowest 4d., according to their merits; they
receive a full ration of provisions, but no spirits, except the head man, who is
paid and victualled as the marines.
I was three years on the island, the last two as adjutant, and as such these
people were more immediately under my control; and therefore I am enabled
to speak confidently as to their general conduct.
I found them easily managed, especially the last party which arrived in
December 1840, who being residents at Sierra Leone for many years, were
most useful and intelligent men; most of them had learned to read and write,
and several had been brought up to trades and were industrious; whereas the
former party, who were sent direct from the slave-yard (as it is commonly
termed), were difficult to instruct, owing to their ignorance of the English
language.
Each man is permitted to bring his wife.
To Captain the Honourable
Joseph Denman, R.N.
(signed)
Jno. Wade, Lieut. R.N.
7063. Mr. Forster.] As you appear to consider Sierra Leone as a
desirable place for landing and locating the liberated Africans, how
do you account for so little progress having hitherto been made in
agricultural improvement and in carrying civilization into the interior
from that part, up to the present time?—I consider that the
liberated Africans of Sierra Leone have made a wonderful advance,
comparing them with their condition when landed from the slave
ships.
7064. Is it not the fact that no progress has been made in cultivation
or in planting in the neighbourhood of Sierra Leone?—No
advance has been made because there has been no inducement held
out to them; but the people have made wonderful strides, in my
opinion, in civilization, and the condition of the liberated Africans
is quite extraordinary, comparing them with the state in which they
were landed, considering the very short time that has elapsed since
the first Africans were liberated there from the slave ships.
7065. Is it not upwards of twenty years that the system has been
going on there, and would not that afford ample time for greater improvement
than is perceived there at this moment?—Considering
the great numbers that during the twenty years have been landed
from the slave ships, and their condition, I think the advance is
more than could have been expected, considering that no inducement
has been held out to agricultural pursuits.
7066. Are you acquainted with the banks of the Gambia and the
land in the neighbourhood of our settlement there?—I have been in
the Gambia a good deal; I cannot say that I have any perfect
knowledge of the banks of the river.
7067. Would you think that the Gambia affords a more desirable
location than Sierra Leone for cultivation?—I think, perhaps, for
that particular object it may, but I am not at all sure of that.
7068. Chairman.] Sierra Leone furnishes very little exportable
produce of its own?—I am not aware that it exports any thing of its
own, but the country we are about to purchase affords means of
raising produce, if it is encouraged; I mean the Quia country.
7069. You think it desirable that the limits of the colony of
Sierra Leone should be extended?—I think undoubtedly, both up
the river and coastwise; I consider that the plans of General Turner
were in the utmost degree wise and enlightened, and it is very much
to be regretted that they were not followed up.
7070. Sir T. D. Acland.] When you say coastwise, do you mean
north or south?—I think south to Cape Mount, where a settlement is
already established, I would purchase the sovereignty, and establish
one or two settlements between Cape Mount and Sierra Leone.
7071. Including the Sherboro’?—Including the Sherboro’; Boom
Kittam General Turner already had. With regard to the Gambia I
should wish to observe, that to bring forth the resources of that
colony a steamer on the river is indispensably necessary, and in my
opinion she would pay her own expenses, if she were allowed to
carry light goods up and down for the merchants, as a sort of packet.
7072. Chairman.] Would there be any difficulty in manning a
steamer almost entirely with blacks, so as to expose very little, if
any, white life to the risks attending the navigation of the river?—For
the services of colonial steamers, I believe they might be entirely
manned with black people, and in the course of a few years, even
with black engineers.
7073. Mr. Forster.] Are you aware that the French have two
or three steam boats generally on the Senegal?—I am aware that
the French have steamers, that they are exercising the utmost rivalry
against British commerce upon the coast, and that they derive the
greatest possible advantages over British commerce by the use of
those steamers.
7074. Chairman.] Is there any thing at present to prevent the
establishment of mercantile steamers, either at Sierra Leone or at the
Gambia, as a private venture?—As a private venture, certainly not;
but it would not be worth the while of any individuals to make the
speculation.
7075. Sir T. D. Acland.] Are the French steamers government
steamers?—They are government steamers attached to the colony of
Senegal.
7076. Chairman.] What sized steamers would be required for the
purpose that you contemplate?—I should say very small steamers for
the Gambia itself; as small as the London boats that run above
bridge; but their services would be required entirely for that river,
and perhaps for the Casamanza.
7077. Mr. Forster.] Would not a steamer on the Gambia be very
important for the Government communication with Macarthy’s Island,
and generally up the river?—It is the only way that settlements up
the river can be supported or protected in my opinion; it would
have the effect of quadrupling the force there now, and it is
the only means by which we can, in my opinion, bring out the resources
of the upper parts of the river, which are so great.
7078. Chairman.] Is the force of the current generally so strong as
to render it extremely difficult to navigate up the stream with sailing
vessels?—It frequently takes a week or 10 days to get a good-sized
vessel up to Macarthy’s Island, where now our highest settlement is;
but we should have one still higher.
7079. You conceive that there are immense resources up the river?—I
do; I believe that a supply of gum might be obtained at the
Gambia equal to that which we have been deprived of by the French
at Portendique, if proper measures were taken. At Portendique, for
the last two years, there has been no trade at all.
7080. Mr. Forster.] In your former evidence, in answer to question
6674, in reference to the importance of British settlements for the
suppression of the slave trade, you say “I spoke more particularly of
Sierra Leone, at the same time the connection of the Gambia trade
with the slave trade is a fact that there is no doubt about;” are the
Committee to understand that you mean that Sierra Leone and the
Gambia are on the same footing in that respect?—I think they have
assisted the slave trade in very different ways; one way in which
they have both assisted, is by the sale of vessels to the slave dealers;
but the trade in the Gambia goes hand in hand with the slave trade of
Bissao, as I before stated; at Sierra Leone it has been more directly
by the sale of vessels, and some few goods passing down through their
hands to the Gallinas and elsewhere.
7081. Will you have the goodness to explain to the Committee
your meaning in saying that “the connection of the Gambia trade
with the slave trade is a fact that there is no doubt about”?—I
should have said the external trade of the Gambia; the trade up the
river is another thing. As regards the external trade of the Gambia,
the greater part of the trade is through the hands of notorious slave
dealers, who sell produce, and give money to the Gambia merchants,
and who in return receive goods from the Gambia; and those goods
are the means again of purchasing slaves and produce; that is a connection
which I consider is a very direct one.
7082. Chairman.] You do not mean, that merchants trading at the
Gambia are themselves personally interested in any slave trade adventures,
or have any share in the profit or loss of such transactions?—No;
I have no reason to suppose that such is the case directly.
7083. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you mean to say that the goods so
furnished to the slave dealer are essential to the maintenance of the
slave traffic?—I believe they might get goods elsewhere, if those were
not supplied by the Gambia merchants.
7084. But still goods from some part are essential to the maintenance
of the slave traffic?—Indispensable; all their slaves are bought
with British goods.
7085. Chairman.] Could they not obtain their slaves solely with
money?—I think not.
7086. Sir T. D. Acland.] What is the state of civilization of the
people upon the Gambia?—The banks of the Gambia have been disturbed
for several years by a man of the name of Kemingtang, and a
great deal too much forbearance has been used towards him. I do
not think the people in general upon the banks are in an advanced
state of civilization, by any means.
7087. Its progress has been interrupted by this man’s disturbance?—This
man has occasioned mischief, but I do not think it was making
progress to any extent.
7088. Mr. Forster.] You appear to distinguish between legitimate
and illegitimate trade by the mode of payment; that is to say, according
to whether the payment is in money or in produce?—I have
already said that, strictly speaking, in the strict sense of the term,
“legitimate trade,” that is, trade which has no communication with
the slave trade in any way whatever, is that in which goods are exchanged
for produce.
7089. Would you recommend or expect that a trader on the coast
of Africa should refuse dollars in payment of his goods to any body?—In
cases where he knew that no use could be made of those goods
but to purchase slaves, I think he would be bound to do so; and I
think if he did not he should be subjected to the penalties of the
Act.
7090. Supposing the British traders of Bissao were to refuse money
from the Spaniards, would you recommend that they should refuse
money also from the natives in exchange for their goods?—I have
stated that I do not recommend that they should refuse money from
any body, except in cases where the trade must necessarily be going
on to supply the slave trade exclusively. In cases where slave trade
and produce trade exist together, I do not think it would be possible,
and I do not think it would be desirable to endeavour to prevent
the trade from going on; I have stated that fully in the former
part of my evidence.
7091. Chairman.] You would, if possible, devise some means by
which English trade, although in lawful goods, with settlements
purely confined to slave trading, such as the Gallinas, should be
prevented?—Precisely; that is my view.
7092. As long as the prize vessels are sold at Sierra Leone, will
there not be great practical difficulty in preventing those vessels getting
ultimately into the hands of the slave dealers, whether you can prevent
it at the first hand or not?—I think the longer the interval that
elapsed before they got into the hands of the slave dealers, the better.
I think that British subjects selling vessels adapted only for the
slave trade into the hands of notorious slave dealers, should be rendered
subject to penalties; but I admit the difficulty of preventing
the eventual return of such vessels into the hands of slave dealers.
7093. You think it very desirable, if possible, that the system of
breaking up vessels should be further extended?—I think it should
be applied universally to slave ships.
7094. Is there any English law which you would wish to see
amended in that respect?—Under the Act 5 Geo. 4, under which a
vessel in British waters would be condemned for carrying on the slave
trade, there is no provision for breaking up the vessel; and consequently
vessels condemned under that Act are sold to the highest
bidder. I certainly think it is desirable that a clause should be
inserted in the act for the purpose.
7095. Mr. Forster.] You have stated in your former evidence that
the public auctioneer is obliged to knock down the vessel to the highest
bidder. Would you recommend that the public auctioneer should be
subject to penalties for selling a vessel to the agent of a slave dealer?—I
have before stated that he is not subject to penalties; he is a
Government agent employed according to law.
7096. Captain Fitzroy.] You have stated that the cruizers should
be withdrawn from the western coast of the Atlantic, their efforts
against the slave trade there being comparatively ineffectual. Can you
give any further reason for that opinion than the one you have
expressed?—The cruizers upon the coast of Cuba or Brazil, cruize
under much greater disadvantages than they formerly did upon the
coast of Africa, before the Equipment articles came into force; and
moreover, the immense number of merchant vessels always in sight
about those parts of the coast is, I think, another reason against
attempting to suppress the slave trade upon that side of the Atlantic.
And there is besides another subject of greatly increased importance,
the inconvenience that would arise from the exercise of the right of
search in that quarter.
7097. Chairman.] You mean to say, that in consequence of coming
into contact with a much greater number of vessels of different descriptions,
the right of search, if exercised there, would be more
obnoxious, and lead to greater difficulties with the countries upon
whose vessels we should exercise it?—It could never be fully exercised
with regard to the vessels that were there, and the exercise of
it would involve 50 searches for one upon the coast of Africa.
7098. In the one case you only have to search the African trade,
in the other case you have to search the whole trade of those countries
on the American coast?—Yes.
7099. Captain Fitzroy.] You have stated the disproportion between
the emolument derived by the captains of cruizers from the capture
of slavers after the embarkation of the slaves, compared with that
derived from the capture of empty vessels, to be very great, and
altogether unjust; can you give the Committee any further information
upon this subject?—I have here an account of two vessels, captured
under the Equipment articles by me, one measuring 57 tons
and the other 43 tons; the aggregate of the proceeds of both these
vessels for distribution to the captors was 576l. 6s. 5d. Another
vessel of 48 tons was captured by me, with slaves on board; the
proceeds for distribution upon this single vessel amounted to
1,654l. 19s. 5d., nearly three times as much as the two empty ships,
measuring together 100 tons.
7100. Chairman.] Can you state how many slaves could have been
carried by the two empty ships, in case they had been allowed to
have been filled?—There might have been 700 slaves in those two
ships.
7101. Sir T. D. Acland.] How many were there in the other?—Forty-eight
tons and 350 slaves. With regard to the capture of
these vessels, the empty vessels were captured upon the principle of
blockade, a service of the most harassing, tiresome, and arduous
description. The full vessel was, as it must be in most cases, captured
by chance.
7102. How would you propose to arrange it?—I would take the
whole of the sums payable upon captured vessels during any given
year, and upon that I would calculate what it amounted to per ton,
and I would give that bounty for the future upon every vessel, as a
substitute for the head-money, for the payments now made.
7103. Captain Fitzroy.] You have stated in your former evidence,
that, six weeks after you were at New Cestos destroying the slave
factory, a slaver was there again; can you offer any explanation of
that circumstance?—The slave factory at New Cestos was abandoned
in December 1840. The factories were left standing, to form a palm-oil
factory, at the request of some British traders. I however understood
that the prince was endeavouring to get a slave-dealer to
re-establish himself in this factory, and I therefore, in the middle of
April, burned down the buildings. On the 8th of June a new factor
arrived from the Havannah and landed his goods, but no slaves were
taken away till October. Three or four days after the slaves were
carried off the blockade was re-established, and there could be no
more.
7104. It has been stated, in answer to question 5968, that you
thought you had put an effectual stop to the slave trade at the Gallinas
by the destruction of the factories; was that your own opinion?—I
beg to refer the Committee to the third paragraph from the bottom
of a letter in the correspondence relative to the Gallinas, at page 9,
in which I state that “I believe they will endeavour still to prosecute
the slave trade.”
7105. Mr. Forster.] Is it your opinion that the British traders on
the coast of Africa, and those connected with them, are more deeply
interested in the suppression of the slave trade than any other class
of British subjects?—In general they are; but there are some instances
in which particular merchants derive great advantages from
the connexion. There can be no question that it is for the interests
of commerce that the slave trade should be put down; but there may
be particular instances where British merchants derive great profits
from their connexion with it.
7106. But generally, you are of opinion that the British merchants
are decidedly interested in the trade being put down?—I have no
doubt of it at all.
7107. Chairman.] You believe that wherever the trade in slaves is
put down, a more profitable trade might be carried on in its place in
the form of manufactures in exchange for produce?—Undoubtedly
more profitable, both to the natives and to the persons trading with
them.
7108. When you speak of individuals being interested, you mean
that there are individuals incidentally benefited by the commerce
which the slave trade gives rise to in that country?—Precisely; that
is what I mean. For instance, supposing the slave traders at the
Gallinas had been supplied by a British commercial house, that
probably would have been more profitable to them than any prospect
of produce trade after the slave trade of the Gallinas was destroyed.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Viscount Courtenay.
Viscount Ebrington.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Sir R. H. Inglis.
Mr. Wilson Patten.
Mr. G. W. Wood.
Viscount Sandon in the chair.
Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman, R. N. called in;
and further examined.
10646. Chairman.] What evidence had you of those parties being
British subjects whom you brought back to Sierra Leone?—I found
them in the barracoons mixed with other slaves for exportation; I
took them to Sierra Leone; they were examined, both speaking
English, by the Governor of Sierra Leone in my presence; the
opinion of the Governor of Sierra Leone was, that it was most undoubtedly
the fact that they were British subjects; one was a
liberated African and the other a Creole, born in Sierra Leone.
10647. Mr. Forster.] Do you consider them, under those circumstances,
as fairly and properly entitled to the appellation of British
subjects?—As completely as any person in this room.
10648. Was the circumstance of your finding them at the Gallinas
the ground upon which you took your proceedings there and burnt
the place?—It was the principal ground of those proceedings; the
grounds have been already stated in my former evidence; I think
that was the most important ground.
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Viscount Courtenay.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Foster.
Mr. W. Hamilton.
Sir R. H. Inglis.
Mr. Milnes.
Mr. Wilson Patten.
Lord Stanley.
Mr. G. W. Wood.
Viscount Sandon, in the chair.
Pedro de Zulueta, Jun. Esq. called in; and examined.
10370. Chairman.] You have seen some statements that have been
made to this Committee upon the subject of a transaction in which
your house was engaged; have you any observations to offer upon
it?—I received from the Clerk of the Committee a letter accompanying
a copy of certain evidences, which are Mr. Macaulay’s evidence
of the 10th of June, the 14th of June, and the 15th of June; and
Captain Hill’s evidence of the 29th of June, the 4th of July, and the
6th of July. I would beg, first of all, to refer to the letter which I
had the honour to address to the Chairman. My reason for wishing
to be examined before this Committee was, that the statements contained
in the evidence which I have mentioned are all of them more
or less incorrect, some of them totally so. I will begin by stating
what has been the nature of our, I will not say trade, for we have not
had a trade ourselves, but of our connexion with the shipment of
goods to the coast of Africa. We have been established as merchants
for upwards of 70 years in Spain, for nearly 20 years in this
country, and we have had connexions to a large extent in Spain, and
in the Havannah, and in South America, and several other places;
among them we have had connexions or commercial intercourse with
the house of Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and with
Blanco & Cavallo of Havannah. With them we have carried on a
regular business in consignments of sugars and of cochineal, which
they have made to us; and in specie received by the packets from
Mexico and other places. We have several times acted for them
here in this country, buying raw cotton for instance at Liverpool, and
re-selling it very largely; that has been principally with Pedro Martinez
& Co.
10371. They are general merchants?—They are general merchants,
and their transactions with us have been of that nature. As general
merchants we have bought stock here for them rather largely; and
in the course of those transactions we have received orders from Don
Pedro Martinez & Co. of the Havannah, and from Don Pedro Martinez
of Cadiz, to ship goods for the coast of Africa; never from Pedro
Blanco, and never from Blanco & Cavallo.
10372. Have you received orders from Pedro Martinez for shipments
for the coast of Africa?—Yes; in the course of business we
have received orders to ship goods upon the funds in our hands belonging
to them; and we have shipped the goods described in the
letter, and sent the bills of lading to Pedro Martinez; but beyond
that we have never had any returns from the coast of Africa, nor any
control of any kind from the moment the cargoes left the ports of this
country.
10373. You have had no interest in the result of the venture?—No,
nor any notice, nor any acquaintance, nor any correspondence
with any one upon the coast; we have never had any kind of knowledge,
either subsequently or previously, of the shipments, except
the mere fact of buying the goods and shipping them.
10374. Your whole interest was a commission upon the transaction—Entirely.
The extent of those transactions has been so
limited in the course of nearly 20 years that we have been in this
country, that the amount of the invoices that we have sent out has
been something like 20,000l. or 22,000l. in the course of all that time.
That is one part of the operations we have performed. The other
operations are the acceptance of bills drawn by people on the coast;
among them Pedro Blanco when he was there, upon ourselves, on
account of Blanco & Cavallo, of Havannah, upon funds which Blanco
& Cavallo had in our hands: for instance, the people at the Havannah,
or in Spain, open a credit with us, and we accept the bills of the
parties on that credit with us, just the same as we should do with any
other correspondent in any other part.
10375. You would have funds in your hands, arising from some
commercial transactions between you and the Havannah merchant or
the Cadiz merchant; and Pedro Blanco, upon the coast of Africa,
would draw upon the credit of those funds, being authorised by the
Cadiz or the Havannah merchant?—Yes; and if Pedro Blanco had
drawn 5s. beyond that, we should have protested, and in some instances
we have protested. With regard to the vessel alluded to in
this Report, the Augusta, our part in that concern has been simply
that which appears from one of the letters: that is to say, Pedro
Martinez, of Cadiz, had made choice of Jennings to buy the vessel,
and lent him money to buy the vessel; because Pedro Martinez
wanted him to have a vessel in the trade, for the purpose of taking
his goods to their destination. I have now described the three kinds
of operations in which we have been concerned, and our knowledge
of all of them terminated with the execution of the orders
of our correspondents. We had nothing more to do than to
follow the orders of the purchaser in shipping the goods. With
regard to the purchase of the vessel by Jennings; Jennings is a
man who has been employed some time by Martinez; he has served
Martinez as a chartered captain, and Martinez having been satisfied
with his services, agreed to lend him that money on the security of
the vessel, provided it did not exceed a certain amount; which was
all the interference we had with it, just to see that a certain amount
was not exceeded, 500l. or whatever it was.
10376. Then you were to furnish Captain Jennings with money
for the purchase within a limited amount, say 500l., credit being
given to him upon you by Pedro Martinez, of Cadiz?—That is just
the point.
10377. Captain Fitzroy.] The Augusta being purchased by money
advanced by your house for Martinez & Company of Cadiz; and she
then became the property of Pedro Martinez?—No, she became the
property of Jennings; the money was lent to Jennings, and he bound
himself by giving security on the vessel to answer for the amount.
It is a mercantile operation which is not unusual.
10378. Mr. Forster.] You advanced the money to Captain Jennings
for the purchase of the vessel, Jennings transferring the vessel to you
as a security for the amount so advanced?—That is just the description
of operation, which is a very general one in business.
10379. Chairman.] What is the object of such an operation?—I
know very little or almost next to nothing of the operations in those
parts of the world; but the object of such an operation I apprehend
to be this: a vessel chartered with a stranger must be governed by
the different clauses of the charter-party; the charterer must be limited
to time and to places; and by Martinez having the vessel
owned by a man with whom he could have a better understanding
than with others, he might always send more advantageously articles
from the Havannah to the Gallinas, and from here to the Gallinas.
When I say articles, I mean legal articles.
10379*. What advantage would there be in Mr. Jennings taking
the articles rather as the owner than as captain under Martinez;
was not he commander of the vessel as well as owner of the vessel?—Yes.
10380. He is made the owner, instead of being captain?—He is
the owner as well as the captain of the vessel; he stands indebted
to Martinez, and gives a bottomry bond for the vessel.
10380*. Does Mr. Jennings upon this transaction make all the
freight to his own profit?—Certainly, whatever he does is to his own
profit.
10381. He is not, then, an agent for Martinez?—No, he is a
person to whom Martinez lends the money to buy the vessel; whatever
profit he derives is his own. Martinez has this advantage,
which to a mercantile man is very perceptible, that he has got a
charter with a man who stands in that relation towards him which
gives him a sort of control over the vessel. If I as a stranger charter
a vessel for Martinez, and he has spent one, two, or five days more
in landing goods than the charter-party allows, I should make a
claim for it; I should say, “You must keep to the charter.” Now,
when Jennings is indebted to him for the favour of a loan for the
vessel, he is not upon a similar footing.
10382. So that he gets the vessel more under his own control?—Yes;
in saying this I am putting an hypothetical case, but I do not
know the mind of Martinez himself.
10383. Mr. Forster.] You acted in this transaction merely as
agent in the usual manner, as you would have acted for any house in
any part of the world?—Exactly; if Martinez had told me, “You
have got 500l. in your hands, pay that to Captain Jennings,” I
should have known nothing more of the transaction; I should have
paid the money. But Martinez did not wish to go beyond a certain
amount; and he says, “You exercise control, do not allow the man
to pay more than 500l. for the vessel.”
10384. But beyond the purchase of the vessel and the shipment of
the goods, the other arrangements and the subsequent transactions
were entirely between Jennings and Martinez & Co.?—Most assuredly;
except with the order of Martinez, I do not know how we
could have done any thing with him in any way.
10385. Captain Fitzroy.] Though the process of hypothecating a
vessel may be usual between British merchants, is it usual to cover
a transaction of Spanish slave trade with the British flag, by means
of such an arrangement as that described to have taken place in the
case of the Augusta?—In order to answer that question, it seems to
me that it is fair that I should ask where is the transaction of covering,
and where is the slave trade transaction? I know positively of
my own knowledge, that there is no such thing at all connected with
the Augusta. If I had an opportunity, I could make my affidavit
of that.
10386. Sir T. D. Acland.] Do you mean that you know that the
Augusta was not engaged in any slaving transactions during the
voyage upon which she left Liverpool?—Most assuredly not; in
fact my testimony is hardly required of that, because every thing
proves that. When she was detained, it was never said that she
was upon a slaving operation at all. Before she left this port, after
she was bought, she was completely rendered useless for that
purpose.
10387. Chairman.] The charge is, that she was engaged in carrying
goods to a person engaged in the slave trade; not that she was
engaged in the slave trade herself?—I most certainly say that I do
not know whether the person is so engaged or not.
10388. Captain Fitzroy.] Is it usual to cover a transaction of
Spanish trade with the English flag?—I am not aware that a Spanish
merchant is prohibited chartering an English vessel.
10389. But is it lawful to employ the British flag to cover a vessel
that is not owned by a British subject?—I say that that vessel is
owned by a British subject.
10390. Sir T. D. Acland.] By whom?—By Captain Jennings.
10391. Was not the money with which she was purchased, the
money of Pedro Martinez?—It seems to me that English captains
and English subjects are not prohibited from borrowing money from
Spaniards; she was bought with money lent by Pedro Martinez to
Captain Jennings for the purpose.
10392. Do you mean that the money was a loan to Captain
Jennings, at the time he paid it for the vessel?—It was a loan to
Captain Jennings.
10393. Do you mean that the ship was then Captain Jennings’s
property?—It was.
10394. Was it in his power to sell that ship at any port he
pleased?—There was a mortgage upon the vessel.
10395. Mr. W. Patten.] You have stated that yours is an agency
trade?—It is so; and in the multitude of business, any one can
understand that 20,000l. in 15 or 20 years, can only be a mere trifle
in the business of any merchant, without laying claim to a large
business; and in following that business, we have executed shipping
orders.
10396. To what part of the coast of Africa has that business been
chiefly conducted?—I believe, almost exclusively to the Gallinas.
10397. Have the goods that Mr. Martinez has ordered to be sent
to the Gallinas, been all sent to the same individual?—No, to
different individuals; sometimes to Pedro Blanco, who was for a
certain time an agent of Pedro Martinez on the coast, and sometimes
we have sent a bill of lading drawn in this way to order; we have
sent it to Pedro Martinez as a voucher against his account.
10398. Do you know the nature of the trade of Pedro Martinez at
the Gallinas?—I know from general report that Don Pedro Martinez
himself is supposed to deal in slaves, and I believe it is so.
10399. Is he known at the Havannah as a dealer in slaves?—I do
not know, but I believe so; I do not know why it should not be
known at the Havannah, if it is known in other parts.
10400. Chairman.] Is a ship which is hypothecated, liable to be
foreclosed at any moment, at the discretion of the mortgagee?—It
depends altogether upon the terms of the mortgage; if the mortgagee
says, “You must give me the money when I ask for it,” of
course he must sell the vessel if he has not got any thing else; he
would always have to deduct whatever freight had been earned.
When the security may be called upon to be effective, depends upon
the nature of the transaction between the parties.
10401. Mr. Forster.] Your house had nothing to do with any letters
that might be put on board the Augusta after she sailed from this
country?—Nothing whatever.
10402. The Augusta was seized on the coast of Africa, on the
charge of slave trading?—I believe that was the case.
10403. Did you not appeal against that condemnation?—Yes,
there is an appeal by the owner.
10404. Before the Privy Council?—Yes.
10405. That appeal is not yet decided?—I believe not.
10406. Sir T. D. Acland.] You stated that your transactions with
Africa for Martinez have amounted to about 20,000l. in 15 or 20
years. What has been the amount of your whole transactions with
Blanco & Martinez of the Havannah during that period?—Perhaps
100,000l. or a larger sum. For instance, we have received more
than 40 or 50 cargoes of sugar from the Havannah, consigned to us,
and cigars; and we have received bills of lading of specie shipped
at Mexico to be sold here, and bar gold, and things of that sort.
10407. Mr. Wood.] Have you reason to suppose that the whole of
that large commerce is subservient to the carrying on of the slave
trade by the house of Blanco & Martinez at the Havannah?—I do
not know; I know that they have large transactions in general
business. I know that a short time ago I got 40,000l. or 50,000l. of
Spanish bonds in the market for Martinez. I know that he is a large
speculator in Spanish bonds and in securities of state.
10408. Is that speculating in Spanish bonds on account of the
house at Cadiz, or the house at Havannah?—Speaking technically,
I should say it was on account of the Cadiz house.
10409. The question related to the commerce of the Havannah
house?—Pedro Martinez is a Havannah merchant. But with regard
to Havannah merchants, we have received large consignments of
sugar, cochineal, and sometimes Mexican goods, brought to Havannah
and shipped to us here.
10410. In what course of business have the proceeds of those consignments
been disposed of; have they gone in sending supplies to
the coast of Africa?—Out of that large amount of money 22,000l. is
the amount of all the goods that we have sent to the coast of Africa
in 20 years.
10411. Of all descriptions?—Of all sorts and kinds; I have gone
through the invoice-book and found them out.
10412. Have the proceeds generally been disposed of by drafts
from the parties themselves to your house?—By the parties at
Havannah, when the exchange turns to their advantage.
10413. Have you reason to suppose that a large portion of the
trade that they carry on at the Havannah is the slave trade?—I had
no reason to know any thing of the kind; I have known more of their
transactions with the slave trade since these things have been mooted
than I ever knew before; I have had more knowledge of these things
lately than I ever had in my life before; and when I say “I,” I beg
to state that I ought to state “we,” for all my partners are in the
same situation.
10414. Have you been employed by the house at the Havannah to
ship manufactured goods from this country to Havannah, suitable
for the African trade?—We have sometimes shipped goods to the
Havannah of the same kind as those that were in the “Augusta;”
cotton goods and other things of that sort.
10415. Has that been recently?—In the course of our operations.
10416. How many years ago?—In the course of these 15 or 20
years that we have been engaged in business with them; all that I
could see in a moment by my books.
10417. Have you sent any goods of that description to the
Havannah recently?—Not very recently; I think not for some years.
10418. Have you sent any goods of that description since you first
began to send goods out direct to the coast of Africa?—They have
been mixed; I cannot draw a distinction between the two destinations;
some have gone to the Havannah, some to the Gallinas.
10419. Have those supplies of English manufactured goods, which
heretofore went to the Havannah, to be used there for promoting the
slave trade, been more recently sent direct from this country to the
coast of Africa?—No, I do not think that is the case; I should think
the contrary is more likely to be the case, but I think we have
shipped in some months, or in some years, partly to the Havannah,
and partly to the Gallinas.
10420. If the coast of Africa be their ultimate destination, will not
they go out at a cheaper cost to the owner if they go direct from this
country, than if they go circuitously first to Havannah, and then to
the coast of Africa?—I think that is very doubtful indeed, because
the freights to Havannah are so miserably low that I believe they can
be taken for almost nothing; in Liverpool, English vessels loading
for Havannah, load for any thing you will choose to give them.
10421. Has the trade of Pedro Martinez increased or diminished
the last few years in that particular kind of goods?—I think it is
neither more nor less: I think it is just about the same. I believe
for the last three or four years it has been less altogether to both
places, but it has diminished equally; I cannot say when it is increased
in the one part or diminished in the other.
10422. How long have you conducted the trade upon the coast of
Africa?—As I said before, I do not think we have conducted any
trade on the coast of Africa, either legal or illegal.
10423. How long have you acted as agents for Martinez, on the
coast of Africa?—As long as we have had any connexions with
Martinez; it is part and parcel of other operations; that is to say, in
the multitude of other operations that have intervened we have shipped
goods as I have said.
10424. Did that part of your operations for him spring up after
your first connexion with Martinez had commenced?—No, it is part
of a mass of business all mixed up together.
10425. Mr. Forster.] In the extensive transactions of your house,
these shipments, whether to Havannah or the coast of Africa, form a
very trifling proportion?—I can only leave the Committee to judge for
themselves as to that, after what I have stated.
10426. Mr. Wood.] What is the firm of the house at Havannah?—Pedro
Martinez & Co.; the Cadiz house is Pedro Martinez only,
without the company. Blanco & Carvalho was the firm some time
ago: it is now Blanco & Co.
10427. Are the answers which you have given in relation to one
of these houses equally applicable to both of them?—There is some
difference between them: but in regard to the general business
of both of them, what applies to the one applies to the other. I have
the same general business with both, and the smallest part of the
business has been the shipment of goods, whether to Havannah
or to the coast of Africa. The shipments apply to Martinez
only.
10428. Have you shipped English manufactured goods direct to
the coast of Africa, on behalf of both those houses?—Such goods as
were in the Augusta I have shipped for one party only. With regard
to the house of Blanco & Carvalho, and the house of Pedro Martinez
& Co., with both of them I have carried on a general large
business. But to Blanco & Carvalho I never shipped a single piece
of goods of any kind, except some sugar mills to the Havannah;
and with regard to the house of Pedro Martinez, we have shipped
such goods as those by the Augusta.
10429. From your general knowledge of the trade of the house of
Pedro Martinez & Co., is it your opinion that the goods which you
so shipped to the coast of Africa were destined to be employed in
the slave trade?—I do not know; they may be, for any thing that I
know.
10430. Has it come within your knowledge that the house of
Martinez & Co. are exporters from Africa of the native produce of
Africa?—No, because I never tried to get any knowledge of their
transactions there of any sort.
10431. Have you ever received consignments from them, or on
their behalf, of palm-oil, gold dust, or ivory, from the coast of Africa?—Never;
we never have received any thing from the coast of Africa
whatever. With regard to all these transactions, it will perhaps
appear strange to the Committee that I should not know more of
the coast of Africa, having shipped things there; but if we had
shipped to the amount of 100,000l. to the coast of Africa, or carried
on any considerable trade there, we should certainly have known
more about the coast of Africa; but in transactions of a very large
amount, an invoice occasionally of about 2,000l. or 3,000l. of goods
was a thing that we sent as a matter of course, and did not trouble
our heads about, especially as the remuneration we got was a mere
trifle, not of itself worth pursuing, if it had not been for the general
business we had.
10432. Chairman.] Is there any other part of the evidence which
has been given that you wish to observe upon?—It is asked here,
in Question 5086, “Who was he?” the answer is, “The name is
mentioned in the Parliamentary Papers as being connected with the
purchase of a slave vessel, Mr. Kidd; and it is mentioned in connexion
with that of Mr. Zulueta of London.” Now, as to Mr. Kidd,
the very first thing I ever knew or ever heard of his name was to see
it here. I never heard of his name at all. I never had a letter from
him or through him, or knew any thing of the man whatever. That is
with regard to myself. With regard to my partners, I can say the
same; I have been making inquiries about it. My father knew there
was such a man upon the coast, but I did not know even that,
though I have managed all this business. Our house never had a
letter from the man, or knew any thing about him.
10433. You have no connexion with Mr. Kidd in any way?—No,
nor any knowledge of him. Then in the next answer it is said
“Zulueta the gentleman in London to whom the vessel was sent,
and who sold her again to her former Spanish owner, is a name well
known on the coast in connexion with the slave trade.” Now what
is known on the coast I really cannot pretend to say; but I believe
that not many persons can say that which I can say, that neither
myself, nor my father, nor my grandfather, nor any body in our firm,
has ever had any kind of interest of any sort, or derived any emolument
or connexion from the slave trade. My father had at one time
an interest in a bankrupt’s estate at the Havannah, upon which he
was a creditor. There were some slaves on the estate, and they
formed part of the property assignable to the creditors, and my father
got the slaves assigned to him; because the other gentlemen and the
creditors were not of the same opinion, he got them assigned to him,
and made them free; and that is all the connexion we have ever had
with any slaves in the world. I do not know how far that may be
considered irrelevant to the point, but I state it because we are here
mentioned three or four times as connected with slave dealers, as a
name well known in connexion with the slave trade. That sort of
statement is rather a difficult thing to deal with.
10434. If it is meant to insinuate by these observations that you
ever had any other connexion with the slave trade, than being the
shipping agent of goods which were sent to a man who was a dealer
in slaves, you entirely deny it?—I assure the Committee, that
although I have a general notion as to what interest Blanco
and Martinez have in slaves, yet, if I was put upon my oath to
make any particular statement, I really could not, because I do not
know it. Of course I believe it; but my personal knowledge
amounts only to that which the knowledge of what we read in a
newspaper amounts to.
10435. There was nothing upon the face of the transactions which
you had with those parties which spoke of a connexion with traffic
in slaves?—Nothing whatever. It is well known, that, fifty years
ago, it was in the ordinary course of business in Cadiz to insure
operations in slave trading. My house at that time were underwriters,
and it was notorious that a policy of that kind would never
enter the doors of our house; and nobody would come to offer such a
thing to us upon any terms. It is notorious, both here and in Spain,
that we set our faces distinctly against having any interest of any
kind in the slave trade.
10436. It is further stated, “It appears that it is a regular thing
sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they come to
England to him he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again to
the Havannah and come again into the trade.” Have you any observation
to make upon that?—It is all untrue, the whole of it; I
never received a vessel from those gentlemen; there has been nothing
of the kind.
10437. Have you any thing further to state upon the subject?—There
are several things I have marked; for instance, such as this,
“You are not bound to suppose that a man will make a bad use of that
which he purchases.” If I wished to put my statement upon that
footing, I should have done with it in a moment, for I knew nothing
of the use they were put to. I bought goods, but as to what use
was made of them I knew nothing whatever. But that is not the
position which I wish to assume. It is said here that we sent goods
or vessels to Pedro Blanco. To that I say, that we never sent either
goods or vessels to Pedro Blanco. In answer to Question 5474 it is
said by Mr. Macaulay, “I stated ‘that it appears that it is a regular
thing sending vessels to him, that is to Mr. Zulueta; if they come
to England to him he sends them to Cadiz, and they get out again
to the Havannah and come again into the trade.’ My answer was
intended to describe only the course of that particular transaction
and not to apply to any other case.” I never received a single vessel
from the coast of Africa at any time, nor any body for us.
10438. Mr. Forster.] Then that statement is entirely untrue?—Totally,
from beginning to end; we never did so, and nobody for us;
and nobody to our knowledge, or with our connivance; I deny it in
the most distinct manner. In answer to Question 5487, Mr. Macaulay
is asked, “Have you any thing further to say with regard to
the connexion of Zulueta with the slave trade?” The answer is, “I
would refer to his connexion with the Gollupchik, which was lately
captured. In that case it appeared that the vessel went out direct to
the Gallinas from London.” That is the same vessel as the Augusta,
which I have already explained; it formerly bore the name of
Gollupchik.
10439. Chairman.] Have you been concerned in the purchase of
vessels frequently for Pedro Martinez or Pedro Blanco?—We have
sometimes bought such vessels here as we could resell at the Havannah,
such as the Arrogante, which we have bought.
10440. Upon orders?—Partly on orders, and sometimes on our
own account on speculation.
10441. Mr. Wood.] For what particular trade were they calculated
when they reached the Havannah?—I think for the same trade which
they were calculated for when they were sold here.
10442. For the conveyance of merchandise?—As well as any thing
else. They were sold here publicly.
10443. Mr. Forster.] If it was legal for them to be sold here, you
considered that it was legal for you to buy them?—I never had any
doubt of the legality of buying here, or of selling them again afterwards.
10444. Mr. Wood.] But the questions appertaining to the carrying
on of the slave trade do not confine themselves within strictly legal
grounds, but they have other more important considerations attaching
to them?—As to that point, there may be a difference of opinion; I
would be very sorry indeed, for the sake of catching the approval of
other persons, to make a disclaimer of any particular set of opinions
whatever; but I believe the only point with which the Committee
have to do, is the legal point. As to the moral point, it seems to
me, that I am to judge of that; upon that point, I think I have
stated quite enough, having stated distinctly that I never had any
connexion, nor derived any profit from the slave trade whatever.
10445. Sir T. D. Acland.] You have stated in your letter, that
your principle is, that of “not wishing to derive profit or advantage
from the sufferings of humanity, whether avoidable or unavoidable,”
and you have acted upon that principle?—That is the principle upon
which we have acted.
10446. And you do not find that acting upon that principle has
interfered with the fair success of your commerce?—I do not think it
would; if it would, we should not care much about that, because we
are in a position which is well known to many persons here, as well
as to persons abroad. In 5495, Mr. Macaulay is asked, “What
evidence have we that Zulueta knew that in dealing with Pedro
Blanco, the goods he sold would be used for the barter of slaves.”
I have said, that I had nothing to do with him; I never sold any
goods to Pedro Blanco. The answer here is, “Any body engaged in
the Spanish trade would be aware that Pedro Blanco was the largest
slave trader in the world.” It may be so, that he is the largest in
the world; but I can only say that the largest is very little, if that is
the case, for I have spoken of 22,000l. as being the amount of the
bills we have paid for him, which I have here (producing the same),
to the order of several houses established in Sierra Leone, for goods,
I suppose bought for him, amounting to about 22,100l. I only
mention this with reference to the notoriety of his being such a large
slave dealer, that it was impossible to shut your eyes to it. Then
with respect to what is said in answer 5502, I only wish to remark
upon this, that what I have answered already I believe applies to
this. It is said, “I think that a man who viewed the slave trade in a
proper light, would have considered it improper to be so engaged.”
I have observed already upon that, that the propriety or impropriety
of our conduct is a different thing from the question whether we
have been legally or illegally engaged, although the question with
which I am now concerned is a general disclaimer of any participation
in the slave trade.
10447. You agree with Mr. Macaulay’s opinion, “That a man who
viewed the slave trade in a proper light, would have considered it
improper to be so engaged”?—I do not know whether my opinions
would agree with Mr. Macaulay’s upon this subject, but I think that
a man who in any way tried to elude the laws of his country, would
be acting against his conscience in the highest degree; that is my
impression of it, and that is what I mean to say; and with regard
to the slave trade, I mean to carry out that which I have stated in
my letter, that I look upon it as an evil, and I would wish to add
nothing to that evil in any way, but to diminish what I could of it.
As to the moral criminality of all the parties, I suppose that depends
upon other considerations. Then in the Evidence of Captain Hill,
in answer to question 7161, it is stated here, “the Custom-house
officers in Liverpool may be totally ignorant of the trade carried on
at the Gallinas, and also totally ignorant of the trade carried on by
Pedro Martinez & Co. at the Havannah.” All our shipments have
been made through the Custom-house, giving the destinations of the
vessels and every thing, and what we did was illegal; we should
consider ourselves not justly treated altogether, in being allowed to
do that which we say we are going to do, and then after it is done
being told it is illegal, although before it is done we have the very
sanction of the parties to do it, because we have no concern in it
beyond the shipment, and the shipment is publicly made. In answer
to Question 7165, it is said, “I have never met a vessel belonging to
Messrs. Zulueta & Co. on the coast of Africa.” Of course, we
never had one, and therefore he never could meet with one. Then
in answer to Question 7958*, Mr. Hill states that he found a letter,
dated London, 20th of August 1840, stating, “We cannot exceed
500l. for the vessel in question, such as described in your letter; if
you cannot therefore succeed at those limits, we must give up the
purchase.” But he says, “there is a note to the letter, which says,
‘According to our Liverpool mode, note, you will go on shore to the
Salthouse Dock.’” Now I have been looking at our letter-book, and
I am quite willing to suppose that the person who has stated this
might not wish, of course, to state any thing that was incorrect; but
this is altogether unintelligible to me. The Salthouse Dock is well
known to every person acquainted with Liverpool; it is one of the
docks in which vessels go and unload, and that is all. Our house
might say that our custom was to send our vessels there; we generally
do; but I do not understand this at all.
10448. Chairman. You do not understand what bearing it has upon
the question?—I think the words must be badly copied; there is no
such thing in our letter-book as it appears here; it is quite unintelligible
to me.
10449. Sir T. D. Acland.] Is the other part of the letter correct,
which is stated as bearing date the 26th of September 1840?—Yes.
10450. Have you referred to your own copy of the letter?—Yes,
and it is not in our copy; but I can conceive our saying to the captain
of the vessel, go into the Salthouse Dock, because we generally
send our vessels there.
10451. Had you ever employed Jennings before?—Jennings had
had charge of vessels before, chartered by Martinez, and hence the connexion
between Martinez and Jennings. There are some captains in
all trades, that make a great deal of difficulty about every thing, and
others that do not; of course, merchants like to deal with those that
do not, more than those that do.
10452. Chairman.] It would appear from Question 5087, that your
name is supposed to have been mentioned in a Parliamentary Paper,
as connected with a slave trade transaction. Will you refer to page
38, in Class B. Paper of 1839 and 1840, which is the place referred
to in the answer, and see if there is any trace of your name in that
transaction?—I do not find my own name there; I only find an allusion
at the bottom to the name of Pedro Martinez, but in a manner in
no way connected with me, and stating a circumstance which I never
knew. In Question 7965*, it is stated, “The Augusta had touched at
Cadiz on her way out from England?” The answer is, “Yes, and
landed part of her cargo at Cadiz, although it was consigned to be
delivered at Gallinas.” Now Captain Hill, who has given this answer,
must have known why she touched at Cadiz, and why she discharged
part of her cargo, for it must be in the log-book of the vessel.
It was because she was nearly wrecked in her passage; she put into
Cadiz in distress, and there she landed a part of her cargo, which
was tobacco which was rotten, and sold for the benefit of the underwriters.
Now that has not been stated here, but I think Captain
Hill must have known it, because it is in the log-book of the vessel
which he took.
10453. Chairman.] And the log-book he must have read?—I
should think so; because if he has not done that he has done nothing.
All I mean to say is that it is, an ex parte statement.
10454. Sir T. D. Acland.] It was not intended when she left England,
that she should put into Cadiz?—Most certainly not; all the
facts of the case show that she went there because she was obliged.
I have not seen the log-book, but it must be there; because in the
log-book the captain is bound to enter those things, and whoever
captured the vessel must have seen the log-book of course. In answer
to Question 7967*, it is said, “Messrs. Zulueta must be aware
that it is contrary to law to act as agents or otherwise for the shipment
of goods that are to be employed in the slave trade; they were bound
to do nothing illegal; they are merchants residing in England, and
they must conform themselves to the laws of England, and they cannot
by the laws of England plead ignorance of those laws.” Now I
and my partners are British subjects, and therefore we are bound by
the law, and we must obey the law; and I say that to endeavour to
elude the law is criminal in my estimation of things. In the answer
to Question 7970*, it is stated, “I have endeavoured to be particular
in making it appear that this vessel was chartered to a place where
there were no constituted authorities.” I think that in the Gallinas
there are constituted authorities. It is the first time that I ever
heard that it is illegal for any merchant to ship goods for any places
without ascertaining beforehand whether there are constituted authorities
there. I believe that if they like to send goods to any place,
they may do it; and as to the fact of there being constituted authorities
in the place or not, I do not see what that has to do with the
question; besides, there have been such things as treaties made with
persons at the Gallinas, so that there must be some constituted authorities
there. But I do not know why I should be called upon to
know whether there are constituted authorities at the port or not.
Then it is stated, in answer to Question 7971*, “As far as I am able
to give my own opinion, I believe that Messrs. Zulueta were perfectly
criminal, at least they had a knowledge of what they were
doing. I think I am borne out in that by the secrecy they have endeavoured
to pursue in putting in a false owner.” I have answered
all that before. I state again, that all the secrecy and mystery of the
thing lies in supposing other things different from what appear.
Then it is said, “In fact there can be no want of evidence to show
that Messrs. Zulueta had for a length of time been agents to slave
dealers.” Mr. Blanco and Mr. Martinez may have been engaged, as
I have stated, in slave operations; and I have stated that we conducted
their general business here.
10455. Mr. Forster.] Is not Pedro Blanco a partner in a commercial
house at the Havannah who are general merchants?—Yes, I
have stated that before.
10456. Captain Fitzroy.] Have you ever discounted any bill
drawn by Pedro Blanco on Pedro Martinez &. Co. for goods delivered
for them on the African coast at the Gallinas?—I have accepted
bills drawn by Pedro Blanco and others from the Gallinas upon our
house, and paid them to the order of several houses in Sierra Leone
and houses in London. I have paid them in money that I had in my
hands resulting from the general transactions of business, which I
have explained. But discounting would be this, if I had paid those
acceptances before they were due, and received some consideration
for them; that I never did, but I might have done it in the case of
these bills.
10457. Were those bills negociated through your hands in payment
of goods delivered at the Gallinas?—No; they were drawn
generally with the advice attached to them, saying, I have drawn
a thousand pounds upon you for account of Blanco and Carvalho, or
Blanco &, Co., at the Havannah.
10458. Mr. Wood.] By whose orders were you desired to honour
it; was it by the order of Pedro Blanco at the Gallinas?—No; by
the house at the Havannah or by the house at Cadiz; sometimes the
one and sometimes the other. Blanco had a house some time ago in
Malaga, as a general merchant, occupied in shipping the fruits of the
country and oil to the United States, &c. &c. In answer to Question
7961*, the following is stated:—“In one of these letters, dated Cadiz,
30th of November 1840, is a paragraph to the following effect: ‘In
a letter, dated London, the 21st instant, which I have just received
from Messrs. Zulueta & Co., merchants in London, I had the pleasure
of receiving a bill drawn by you on them for 250l., which I this
day place to their credit, waiting your advice of the same.’” There
is here certainly a mistranslation of some kind, because it says that
this man receives a bill upon us, and credits it to us, which is of
course contradictory in the very terms of it, because if the bill was
remitted to this man upon us, he would have debited it to us, and
not credited it. But altogether there is some confusion about it; I
suppose arising from the mistranslation of the documents, because
the fact is this, the bill is one of the bills I have already mentioned,
drawn from the Gallinas upon ourselves, to the order of a third party.
It is a bill drawn at the Gallinas upon ourselves, on account of the
credit, and therefore it could never have been received by the person
in Cadiz. It must have been presented to us here, and in fact so it
was; the bill is here. I wish to show that that letter is perfectly inaccurate.
10459. Sir T. D. Acland.] Can you give the Committee any information
upon this: “The other letters,” nine of them, “were all
on slave business: not a word of any innocent trade, but the whole
directing how slaves were to be shipped on board various vessels.”
How do you account for this vessel carrying letters upon slave
business?—I account for it in this way: first of all, it is impossible
for us to answer here what letters will be put on board a vessel at
Cadiz; but there is very seldom any communication between Cadiz
and the Gallinas; whatever letters there were must have gone by
such random occasions as arose. As to the fact that whoever wrote
those letters is engaged in the slave trade, the letters will speak for
themselves.
10460. Chairman.] Those letters were not prepared in the expectation
of the arrival of this vessel, because this vessel was not destined
to that port, and was only driven there by stress of weather?—Most
certainly. I will add one circumstance in proof of that. The vessel
was supposed to have been lost, from the circumstance of a boat
having been found upon the coast with the name of T. Jennings
upon it, and it was supposed that it was a boat belonging to the
vessel; it was, in fact, a boat from the vessel, but the vessel had not
been lost; therefore the vessel was quite unexpected in Cadiz by
every soul. It went there from stress of weather, and nothing more.
Then it is said, in answer to Question 7972*, “I think the papers
are quite conclusive to the mind of any man that Zulueta was cognizant
of what he was doing; but as far as it is an illegal transaction,
it is not for me to judge; but the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty
Court of Sierra Leone did think it illegal, and condemned the vessel;
and moreover, the man who is put forward as captain and owner
did not defend the vessel on her trial.” Now, as to the statement
of his being a false owner, I have already stated that he was not.
But then, again, with regard to the other part of the business, the
man did not defend it, because he was prevented from defending it.
10461. How was he prevented from defending it?—He had not
money to defend himself. It appears from the protest that the vessel
was condemned without allowing Thomas Jennings to say any
thing in her defence. I will deliver in the protest, which shows that
that was the fact. (The same was delivered in.) As to his not
having money, it is said that he might have raised money upon the
cargo; but there is no one can entertain any doubt as to the palpable
contradiction of such a statement, because to raise money
upon a cargo, which was seized, over which he had no control, is to
me quite unintelligible.
10462. Mr. Wood.] You have spoken of some bills drawn upon
your house by Pedro Blanco, and you were understood to say that
they were drawn some of them, in favour of Sierra Leone houses.
Can you inform the Committee the names of the houses at Sierra
Leone in whose favour they were drawn?—I have no objection to
do so, but I feel loath to mention names. I could have mentioned
many names; we are not the only correspondents in London of
Blanco and Martinez. With regard to those houses at Sierra Leone,
I should be sorry to introduce names, because I know the pain I
have had from mine being introduced here, but still there is no
secret in the thing.
10463. You have given the committee the names of parties drawing
the bills, and on whose account they were drawn, and you speak
of their being drawn in favour of Sierra Leone houses; have you any
objection to furnish the names of the houses in whose favour they
were drawn?—I say that I have no objection, except that I should
not like to introduce names unnecessarily; but the bills are in my
hands, and any gentleman can look at them who chooses; they are
at the disposal of any body who likes to look at them.
[The Witness produced the bills.]
MEMBERS PRESENT.
Sir T. D. Acland.
Mr. Aldam.
Viscount Courtenay.
Viscount Ebrington.
Captain Fitzroy.
Mr. Forster.
Mr. Milnes.
Mr. Wilson Patten.
Mr. G. W. Wood.
Viscount Sandon, in the chair.
Pedro de Zulueta, jun. Esq. called in; and further examined.
10464. Chairman.] The Committee understand that you have
some further observations to make upon the evidence which has
been given with reference to your house?—With reference to the
destination of the Augusta, from Liverpool to Gallinas, and the fact
of its having put into Cadiz unforeseen, and unpremeditated altogether,
in consequence of stress of weather, I omitted to mention a
circumstance which will put the thing beyond doubt, and it is this:
an insurance was made at Lloyd’s, from Liverpool to the Gallinas,
and it is well known that, of course, we should have forfeited the
insurance by going to any other port except from the peril of the
sea, and the British consul at Cadiz is well aware of the circumstance,
because he is Lloyd’s agent there; and therefore he had to
interfere in the whole proceeding; without his sanction nothing
could have been done. We have called upon the underwriters upon
that account, and it has been paid, and which would not have been
paid without its being proved. I stated yesterday that the
transactions of my house with Pedro Martinez & Co. of the
Havannah, with Blanco & Carvalho of the Havannah, and with
Pedro Martinez of Cadiz, had amounted in the 20 years to 100,000l.
I was afraid of overrating the amount; but on reference to the books
of the house, I find that our transactions with them in 20 years have
amounted to 400,000l. out of which the 22,000l. that was mentioned
is the whole amount of goods that have been shipped by their
order for the coast of Africa.
10465. Can you state how much of the 22,000l. has accrued
within any given period; is it distributed equally over the whole 20
years, or has it grown up in the last four or five years?—In the last
few years it has decreased, but otherwise it is spread over the whole
number of years. In such a length of time it forms to our minds a
mere speck. In the last six months our transactions with the house
of Pedro Martinez of Cadiz amount to already 30,000l., and with
Pedro Martinez of the Havannah to nearly the same amount. With
the house of Pedro Blanco & Co. of the Havannah, the amount has
been 15,000l. for what has passed in the last six months, and with
the houses generally at Cuba, throughout the island, it amounts to
100,000l. altogether, arising entirely from cargoes of sugar, and from
tobacco, and remittances of bills from there in carrying on banking
operations, upon which they draw again, which are negotiated in the
Havannah and sent to houses in London to cash, and remittances of
drafts on the Spanish treasury at the Havannah, and bills of lading
of specie and bullion, and such things, from Mexico. I state these
things only to show the nature of our trade, and I have been particular,
because as these are large amounts I wish to show what they arise
from. Another fact escaped my attention yesterday, and it is this,
that Don Pedro Martinez is owner of several large vessels of 300 tons
and 400 tons, which are in the trade of sugar, tobacco, and such
things, with us, in England and with Cadiz.
10466. Have you bought other vessels for him than those which
have been employed in the slave trade?—Yes, decidedly so; there
was the Star, Captain Jennings. That vessel was sent from here to
the Gallinas, precisely the same as the Augusta has been sent. She
delivered her cargo; she went from thence to Cape Coast, I believe,
and from there to Madeira; she received a cargo of wheat; she came
back to Spain, and she was sold at Liverpool to a third party, not
Martinez, or any body connected with him; in fact, she was sold
for very little. The object of that vessel was just the same as the
Augusta, to maintain a legal trade with Gallinas; that is, within my
own knowledge.
10467. Mr. Aldam.] What is the description of legal trade that
was carried on?—Sending out goods to be sold at those places, and
to go to other ports, not to carry any cargo from there to the
Havannah.
10468. There has been a good deal of evidence, in which it has
been stated that no legal trade is carried on with Gallinas?—I could
not say what trade there is at the Gallinas of a legal nature, but I
know that those vessels would have taken nothing if there was
nothing legal to take, from that place to the Havannah, or to any
other place; I am aware that my answers upon this point must be
deficient, because I am really very ignorant of the trade of the West
Coast of Africa.
10469. Do you suppose that the vessels would be used to carry
on a legal trade?—Most certainly I do; because persons find it
worth while to send goods there constantly. The Committee will
observe, that what the application of the goods is afterwards I
cannot say, but I speak of the fact of the vessels having gone there
with the intention of returning to the Havannah to bring a cargo of
some description here, to pay a freight, and then to go again with
the same kind of goods to Africa.
10470. Chairman.] You have stated before, that you have cleared
out for the Gallinas from Liverpool?—Yes.
10471. In carrying on operations of that kind, should you have
ever thought it necessary to exercise any disguise as to what part of
Africa you were clearing out for?—Not at all.
10472. You did not imagine, that in being the instrument of sending
lawful goods to any part of Africa you were doing any thing
which required concealment?—Nothing at all of the kind; and the
proof of that is, that in the bills of entry in Liverpool any body
could see our names as consignees of the vessel, and see entries made
in our names of every thing.
10473. Is not there a document officially published daily in
London and at Liverpool, stating the daily entries at the Custom-house
of all goods shipped, with the description of the goods, and the
name of the port and of the shipper?—Yes, there is.
10474. Is not this printed from time to time in the public papers?—It
is in general circulation; there is hardly any merchant in Liverpool
or in London who is not possessed of one. The Liverpool
entries are reprinted in London, Liverpool being such an important
place of business. The bill printed in London contains also Liverpool,
Hull, and Bristol.
10475. So that every such transaction is perfectly notorious to
every one?—Notorious to every one who chooses to read the public
papers. There is another thing which escaped me till I came into
the room this morning. As I have been in the business from
my childhood, I know every thing that is going on in it. The Arrogante,
after we sold her at the Havannah, was sent to Vera Cruz with
a cargo of Spanish paper, spirits, raisins, &c. &c., such as is sent
for the South American trade, for the purpose of breaking the
blockade of Vera Cruz, which she did break and went in. It was
asked in question 7147, whether the Augusta was equipped for the
slave trade the second time; the answer was, “She was not.” I wish
to state, that before any goods were put on board of her, it was our
express wish and order that every thing in her that was fit for that
trade should be taken down, and the vessel put in the same condition
as any other merchant vessel; and we should not have loaded any
thing in her if that had not been done. It is stated in the evidence
that the Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave dealers;
now we had never in our lives heard of the name of any one of the
parties to whom she was consigned.
10476. You mean that the first time you heard their names was
when the order to ship those goods was given to you?—Yes, and the
circumstance of three consignees is a regular thing with distant consignments,
such as South America and Africa. There is such an
uncertainty attending the residence of parties in those places, that
we invariably put a second and a third consignee in addition, in case
the first should not be in the way.
10477. Mr. Forster.] Some bills were referred to in your former
evidence drawn by Mr. Pedro Blanco upon your house; have you
any objection to put those bills before the Committee?—Not any.
And I ought to state now, as I have been looking at the bills more
closely, that they are not all drawn to the orders of Sierra Leone
houses, but to the orders of other Spaniards, and those people
endorsed them to the Sierra Leone houses. This does not alter the
case materially, but for the sake of accuracy I mention it.
10478. You will put them in for the inspection of the Committee?—Certainly.—(The
same were delivered in.)
10479. You only hesitated in giving the names yesterday from
motives of delicacy, not from any motive of concealment?—Yes, I
do not wish to withhold any thing, but I am indisposed to introduce
any name. I have no wish to conceal any thing whatever. I have
been consulting with my partners upon this subject, and I have a
request to make to the Committee. Our position is one which is
certainly an unpleasant one. I think that what I have stated will
have proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that we have not
in any way intended to elude the law. Now our situation is this,
with reference to any future transactions we have no valid reason to
give our correspondents for not executing an order. The Committee
will have to make their report, and several gentlemen have given
their opinions as to how the law is to be altered. I, for my part,
am not competent to give any advice upon the subject, but I would
only wish that whatever law is made, it should be clear and distinct
as to what a man might to do, and what he is not to do. The trade
that we have carried on with the Gallinas, at least the shipments we
have made, are perfectly unimportant to us in itself, as is evident
from the amount; but at the same time, with regard to the correspondents
that we have accounts with, we are placed in this dilemma,
that we must refuse fulfilling their orders without giving them any
valid reason, unless we should be able to say, Sir, we cannot fulfil
your order because the law of this country prohibits that we should
ship any goods that are liable to be applied to that purpose, to
persons who may at any time have had any dealings, or are suspected
of having had any dealings of that description. To us it is indifferent
which way the legislation turns upon this subject, so long as we
know what it is. But supposing it legal for a man to ship goods to
a port, are you then to be liable to have the vessels captured, and
what to us is worst of all, to be brought into a kind of notoriety as
being engaged in slave dealing, which is exceedingly unpleasant to
our feelings. That is a consideration which I hope the Committee
will look to.
10480. You wish that the law should be made clear for your
guidance, to enable you to understand what course you are to pursue
with your correspondents?—Yes, in what I have to do with them.
I do not mean to say that if a man ships goods knowingly to slave
dealers, for the purpose of being exchanged for slaves, I do not
mean to say that the law does not reach him now. My own impression
is, that it might do so; at all events the morality of the thing
would be very questionable; but we want something more than that;
that is not enough. Here is my case, which, if true, proves that we
have not done any such thing, and yet we are liable to all this
unpleasantness.
10481. You want something also to plead with your correspondents,
as a reason for not complying with any order they may send?—Exactly.
10482. You feel that at the present moment the law is in an unsatisfactory
state, that doubts have been raised upon the subject, which
as merchants you are desirous of seeing quieted by some declaration,
one way or another?—I do; for instance, I may on going
home find an order; and I assure the Committee that after all that
has occurred, after all this unpleasantness upon the subject, I should
be in an awkward position. I might have to throw up my correspondents
without any valid reason, because of course goods may be
shipped to them by other parties, which I should refuse to do; and
they may do it legally, because they may send those goods to the
Havannah or to any other such place, and then my correspondents
could not say that I had any valid reason to refuse.
10483. If there were any obstruction interposed in the way of
export from this country directly to the coast of Africa, you would
rather desire that it should be at the English Custom-house, before
the goods went out, than that it should be left in uncertainty, to be
decided upon the coast of Africa?—Exactly; that is my impression.
At the same time I am not stating that that would be wise or expedient,
or proper, or any thing of the kind; but I say this simply
because I do not wish it to be brought into question that we elude
the law; not that we break it, because that would be a question
before a court of justice; but before men of honour, I do not wish
to be open to the imputation of eluding the law.
Martis, 22º die Martii, 1842.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the State of
the British Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, more especially with
reference to their present Relations with the neighbouring Native Tribes.
Mercurii, 6º die Aprilis, 1842.
A Committee was nominated of,—
Lord Stanley.
Viscount Sandon.
Lord John Russell.
Sir Robert Harry Inglis.
Mr. E. Denison.
Mr. Forster.
Sir Thomas Acland.
Mr. Milnes.
Mr. Charles Buller.
Mr. Hutt.
Captain Fitzroy.
Earl of March.
Viscount Ebrington.
Viscount Courtenay.
Mr. George William Wood.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for Persons, Papers, and
Records.
Ordered, That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.
Mercurii, 11º die Maii, 1842.
Ordered, That Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Evans, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr.
Aldam, Mr. William Hamilton, and Mr. Metcalfe, be added to the Committee.
The SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to Inquire into the State of the
British Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, more especially
with reference to their present Relations with the neighbouring
Native Tribes, and who were empowered to Report their Observations,
together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before them, to The
House;——Have considered the Matters to them referred, and have
agreed to the following REPORT:
YOUR COMMITTEE, previous to reporting the result of their Inquiries into
the subject which has been submitted to them by Your Honourable House,
think it desirable to state the circumstances which led to their appointment.
In the course of the Year 1839 information was communicated to the Marquis
of Normanby, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, that a Spanish Slaver,
the Dos Amigos, had, a short time previous to seizure, been allowed to trade
freely at Cape Coast, a British Settlement on the Gold Coast, and had been
supplied there by a British Merchant, a Magistrate, with some of the Goods,
not Equipments, requisite for carrying on her unlawful Traffic. This information
led to further inquiry, in the course of which it appeared that such practices
were not unusual, and that Captain Maclean, the Governor, appointed by the
Committee of Merchants in London, on whom the charge of the Settlements of
the Gold Coast had been devolved by Parliament, in the Year 1828, did not
consider himself entitled to interfere with the Traffic of any Vessel of a friendly
Nation, whatever her purpose, coming to purchase Goods, in themselves lawful,
within the waters of a British Settlement. In consequence of this information,
Lord John Russell, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, concurring with
his predecessor, gave strong Instructions for the discontinuance of this practice,
and for the punishment of it as illegal, expressed his opinion that it was desirable
the Government of these Settlements should be resumed by the Crown,
and instructed Dr. Madden, a gentleman who had formerly been employed as a
Stipendiary Magistrate in the West Indies, and subsequently in the Mixed
Commission at Havana, to proceed as Commissioner to the Gold Coast, and the
other British Settlements on the West Coast of Africa, for the purpose of investigating
these and other matters connected with the administration and condition
of these Settlements. He was at the same time instructed to inquire into,
and report upon, the Prospects of Emigration from Sierra Leone to the British
West India Colonies.
The Reports which were the result of this gentleman’s inquiries, involving
materially the interests of Humanity and of Commerce, and impeaching gravely
the character of individuals engaged in the British Trade with Africa, in a
manner which seemed to call for further investigation before any conclusion
could be fairly come to upon the questions at issue, have been laid before Your
Committee, have in fact formed the basis of their proceedings, and are published
with this Report; but in publishing them, Your Committee beg to state, that
while they do full justice to the value of much of the information contained in
them, and to the zeal and diligence of Dr. Madden, they do not concur in all
his conclusions, or intend to warrant the accuracy of his statements. His
inquiries were conducted over a vast surface of Coast in a short period, and
under circumstances of considerable interruption from health disordered by the
climate, and in many instances he apparently found himself compelled to take
his information from third parties, the accuracy of whose statements and the
correctness of whose opinions he had not the opportunity of testing.
In many of his recommendations they concur; on some, and those of no
slight importance, they have come to an opposite opinion; but thinking it would
be more convenient that they should give their own conclusions upon the whole
subject submitted to them in a consecutive form, rather than in the shape of a
commentary upon his Reports, they beg to submit the following statement and
recommendations to The House, as the conclusions at which they have themselves
arrived.
In the first place, then, we recommend that the Government of the British
Forts upon the Gold Coast be resumed by the Crown, and that all dependance
on the Government of Sierra Leone should cease.
We fully admit the merits of that Administration, whether we look to the
Officer employed, Captain Maclean, or to the Committee under whom he has
acted, which, with the miserable pittance of between 3,500l. and 4,000l. a year,
has exercised, from the four ill-provided Forts of Dixcove, Cape Coast, Annamaboe,
and British Accra, manned by a few ill-paid black soldiers, a very wholesome
influence over a Coast not much less than 150 miles in extent, and to a
considerable distance inland; preventing within that range external Slave Trade,
maintaining Peace and Security, and exercising a useful though irregular Jurisdiction,
among the neighbouring Tribes, and much mitigating and in some
cases extinguishing some of the most atrocious practices which had prevailed
among them unchecked before. We would give full weight to the doubts
which Captain Maclean entertained as to his authority, until specifically so instructed,
to prevent vessels, suspected of being intended for the Slave Trade,
but not having Slaves on board, from trafficking in lawful goods within his
jurisdiction; and we do not infer from that circumstance, that the Government
of these Forts had any partiality for an abominable Traffic, which, on the contrary,
they have done much to check; but we think it desirable, for the
sake of enlarging the sphere of usefulness of these Settlements, and of giving
greater confidence in the character and impartiality of their Government, that
it should be rendered completely independent of all connexion with Commerce,
by a direct emanation of authority from the Crown, and that it should be placed,
with increased resources, in direct and immediate communication with the general
Government of the Empire.
We recommend, further, the reoccupation of several of the Forts, such as
Apollonia, Winnebah, and Whydah, abandoned in 1828, when the Government
was handed over to the Committee of Merchants, and the reconstruction of
others, on however small a scale, on other similar points. In some cases the
climate will be found to be not worse, in others better, than on other parts of
the coast of Africa; but this evil may be very much mitigated, if not entirely
removed, by the employment of such Europeans only as are already inured to a
tropical climate, and of British Subjects of African descent, who, we believe,
may now be found, either within our African Settlements or our West India
Colonies, fitted for almost every branch and grade of service[4]; and we look
upon such Establishments as of high importance, not for the extension of Territory,
but of that control over the Slave Trade, and wholesome moral influence
over the neighbouring Chiefs, which we have described as having been
exercised by the existing Forts, and which is much needed at those places to
which we have particularly alluded, as well as others.
The Judicial Authority at present existing in the Forts is not altogether in
a satisfactory condition; it resides in the Governor and Council, who act as
Magistrates, and whose instructions limit them to the administration of British
Law, and that, as far as the Natives are concerned, strictly and exclusively
within the Forts themselves; but practically, and necessarily, and usefully,
these directions having been disregarded, a kind of irregular jurisdiction has
grown up, extending itself far beyond the limits of the Forts by the voluntary
submission of the Natives themselves, whether Chiefs or Traders, to British
Equity; and its decisions, owing to the moral influence, partly of our acknowledged
power, and partly of the respect which has been inspired by the fairness
with which it has been exercised by Captain Maclean and the Magistrates at
the other Forts, have generally, we might almost say, uniformly, been carried
into effect without the interposition of force. The value of this interposition of
an enlightened, though irregular, authority, (which has extended, in some cases
and with advantage to humanity, even to an interference in capital cases,) is
borne witness to, not only by parties connected with the Government of the
Settlements, who might be suspected of a bias in its favour, but also by the
Wesleyan Missionaries, and even by Dr. Madden, who, objecting to its undefined
extent, and to the manner in which, in some respects, it has been carried
out, yet still bears high testimony to its practical value, to its acknowledged
equity, and to its superiority over the barbarous customs which it tends to supersede.
Even the duration of imprisonment, of which he complains, has been
usually adjudged to offences which would have incurred a severer penalty in
most civilised countries, and would certainly, if left to the arbitrary decision
of native chiefs, or to the “wild justice” of private revenge, have been punished
by death, and that frequently of the most cruel kind. Still, however, it is desirable
that this jurisdiction should be better defined and understood, and that a
Judicial Officer should be placed at the disposal of the Governor, to assist, or
supersede, partially or entirely, his judicial functions, and those now exercised
by the Council and the several Commandants in their magisterial capacity; but
we would recommend, that while he follows in his decisions the general principles,
he be not restricted to the technicalities of British Law, and that altogether
he should be allowed a large discretion.
It is to be remembered that our compulsory authority is strictly limited,
both by our title and by the instructions of the Colonial Office to the British
Forts, within which no one but the Governor, his Suite, and the Garrison
reside; and that the Magistrates are strictly prohibited from exercising jurisdiction
even over the Natives and Districts immediately under the influence
and protection of the Forts. All jurisdiction over the Natives beyond that
point must, therefore, be considered as optional, and should be made the
subject of distinct agreement, as to its nature and limits, with the Native
Chiefs, and it should be accommodated to the condition of the several Tribes,
and to the completeness of the control over them, which by vicinage or otherwise
we are enabled to exercise. Their relation to the English Crown should
be, not the allegiance of subjects, to which we have no right to pretend, and
which it would entail an inconvenient responsibility to possess, but the deference
of weaker powers to a stronger and more enlightened neighbour, whose
protection and counsel they seek, and to whom they are bound by certain definite
obligations.
These obligations should be varied and extended from time to time, and
should always at least include (as many of the Treaties now in existence on
that Coast already do) the abolition of the external Slave Trade, the prohibition
of human sacrifices, and other barbarous customs, such as kidnapping,
under the name of “panyarring,” and should keep in view the gradual introduction
of further improvements, as the people become more fitted to admit
them.
In this arrangement we should find the solution of our difficulty in regard
to Domestic Slavery, and a modification of it under the name of “pawns,”
which has prevailed within these settlements, not actually within the Forts,
but within their influence, and even in the hands of British subjects. To
them indeed they have been already prohibited; but although the system of
pawns, which is properly an engagement of service voluntarily entered into
for debt, and terminable at any time by the payment of the debt, is one
which “does not seem abstractedly unjust or unreasonable[5],” yet as liable
to much abuse, and much resembling slavery, it should be the object of our
policy to get rid of it, even among the Natives; and in the places more
immediately within the influence of British authority, we believe there will
be no difficulty in limiting it at once, both in extent and duration, and probably,
ere long, in abolishing it, by arrangements such as we have above
suggested. Some caution, however, must be exercised in this matter on
account of the close intermixture of Dutch and Danish with the British
settlements, though perhaps it might be possible to induce them to co-operate
in such arrangements as might be thought desirable for the improvement of the
neighbouring Tribes; and great facility and advantage would certainly arise
from such co-operation, if it could be secured.
With regard to the judicial arrangements, a plan has been suggested by
which a Supreme Judicial Officer might be placed at Ascension, at Fernando
Po, where no authority of any kind exists, and one is much needed, or at some
other Island off the Coast, visiting, with the aid of a steamer, the various Settlements
on the Gold Coast periodically, as well as the Trading Stations in the
Bights of Benin and Biafra, and exercising in the latter a very wholesome influence
in the adjustment of disputes with the Natives, which, for want of such
interposition, occasionally lead to consequences injurious to the British character
and to the interests of Commerce. But Your Committee are aware that difficulties
might arise in carrying out this suggestion, more especially on account
of the necessity for prompt decision in most cases in which the Natives are concerned;
and therefore are not prepared at present to do more than call attention
to the suggestion.
We would here acknowledge the great services rendered to religion and
civilisation on this Coast by the Wesleyan body; they have even established a
friendly communication with the barbarous court of Ashantee, which promises
results important in every way; and, indeed, little in the way of religious instruction
would have been done without them. But we should recommend that
further provision should be made for these objects, by the appointment of a
Colonial Chaplain, and by encouragement to schools of a higher class than any
which are found there at present; to which, among others, the neighbouring
Chiefs should be invited to send their sons to receive an education which might
fit them to be of benefit to their own people directly, if they returned to their
families, or indirectly, if they remained, by entering into connection with
British interests. Some officer also should be appointed, whose duty should be
to take care of the effects of intestate persons, to verify the character of vessels
entering the ports, and to attend generally to the fiscal regulations of the
Settlements.
We beg also to call attention to the suggestion, that we should endeavour
to secure the co-operation of our Dutch and Danish neighbours, in licensing
the canoes which ply along that coast, as they seem to afford considerable facilities
to such Slave Trade as still exists along the Leeward Coast.
The Military also should be somewhat increased in number; and their condition,
as recommended by Dr. Madden, should be improved.
A scheme for an establishment such as we have been proposing, will be
found in the evidence of Mr. Hutton, one of the Council of the Committee of
African Merchants, who now govern these settlements. To the details we do
not pretend to give our sanction; but we beg to call attention to it, as showing
that all the objects which we have been recommending may be attained at an
expense far short of that which was incurred for these settlements when they
protected instead of, as now, controlling the Slave Trade, or even when they
were last under the direct management of the Crown. Indeed in itself it is of
but trifling amount when compared with the objects to be attained, and we are
confident that the increased expense will be well repaid, both directly by the
diminished necessity for naval force upon the Leeward Station, and indirectly
by the increase of commerce, which will be the certain consequence of extended
influence over very important nations, including the kingdoms of Dahomey and
Ashantee, of an improving population, and of the continued and still more complete
suppression of the Slave Trade on that Coast, once infamous as the principal
scene of its operations.
For the purposes of trade and useful communication of every kind with the
interior of Africa, the Settlement in the Gambia seems to possess advantages
far beyond those of any other British Settlement on the Coast of Africa. It
has that which in all countries, but more especially in Africa, where no means
of land carriage exist, save the backs of slaves, is of the highest value, the command
of a noble river, navigable for vessels of considerable tonnage for several
hundred miles into the interior; and it would appear as if a little fiscal
encouragement to its products and those of its vicinity,—together with the
employment of Steamers, which we would earnestly recommend, both for the
suppression of the Slave Trade at the mouths of the neighbouring Rivers and
for keeping up communication, both commercial and official, with the Settlement
of Macarthy’s Island, (which is itself nearly 200 miles up the river) and with
the countries still higher up,—would draw out untold resources for a useful and
honourable commerce, and even restore to us some portion of the gum trade
which we have lately lost.
As in the case of the Gold Coast, we recommend the entire separation of
this Government from that of Sierra Leone. The dependence, which has
hitherto existed, has been the cause of great inconvenience, and seems to
possess no advantage. The Laws of the Settlement have been enacted by those
who are little acquainted with its concerns. Their Gaol has depended for
clearance on the uncertain arrival of a Chief Justice from a distance of 500
miles, and by a voyage of above 20 days; and in the case of the death of one
Chief Justice, two years elapsed before a criminal, confined under a charge of
murder could be brought to trial, and then, owing to the delay, the witnesses
had returned to Europe, and no evidence could be found. Even if a regular
Steam Communication were established, though the amount of the evil would
undoubtedly be thus diminished, yet still the uncertainty of life in such a climate
should not be forgotten; and we would recommend the appointment of a distinct
Judicial Officer in each Settlement, who should have authority to act in
case of vacancy in either.
The Governor should have the assistance of a Council; but under the circumstances
of the Settlement, we recommend that he should have full power
to act on his own responsibility, and even contrary to their advice; every
Member of the Council, including the Governor, in such cases, as in India,
recording the reasons of his opinion for the information of the Government at
home.
We would earnestly recommend to consideration the propriety of reestablishing
the former British Settlement on the Island of Bulama. Its
climate is certainly unhealthy; but we are not aware that it is more so than
that of Sierra Leone or of some other places on the Coast. It might be principally,
if not entirely occupied, by British subjects of Negro race; and its
position, both for checking the Slave Trade of Bissao and its neighbourhood,
and for drawing out the legitimate resources of several noble rivers, would be
invaluable.
We would also suggest the erection of small Blockhouses, whether up the
Gambia itself, or along the Coast, as at Cestos and the Gallinas, on points
where British commerce is superseding the Slave Trade, as they would protect
the lawful trade, and prevent the re-appearance of the Slave Trade where it has
been extinguished, or is dying away.
In regard to the machinery by which this Colony is governed, Your Committee
have no specific recommendation to offer.
In the course of their investigations, questions have arisen connected with
its past management and administration, more especially on the subject of the
party spirit of a peculiar nature, which is alleged to have acted injuriously in
regard to it both on the Colonial Office at home and on the internal transactions
of the Colony itself; questions mixed up with topics of a personal nature, and
which, in spite of the facilities for a full investigation which were offered by
the Colonial Office, Your Committee would have found it impossible, within
their limited time, even if it had been their proper province, to follow out. On
these points, therefore, not having the means either of forming themselves a
satisfactory opinion, or furnishing The House with the means of forming one,
they have thought it due, not less to the questions themselves than to the
individuals concerned, not to report the Evidence; and they are the more induced
to pursue this course, in that they are thus not prejudging any inquiry
into this subject, if in a future Session it should be the pleasure of The House
to engage in it.
In regard to the future, much will depend on the decision which shall be
come to as to several points which have been under our consideration; such as
the continuance at Sierra Leone of the Courts for Adjudication of Prizes taken
in the Slave Trade, the disposal of the rescued Slaves, and the question of Emigration
from Africa generally.
Now it is hardly necessary to remind the House of The Resolution come to
by a Committee which sat upon this subject in 1830, which distinctly condemned
the location of the Mixed Commission Court at Sierra Leone as highly
inconvenient for the purpose, on the ground of its situation, not only at so
great a distance as 800 or 1,000 miles from the places where the Slaves to be
adjudicated were then principally captured, but also so far to windward, that
captured ships were sometimes eight or nine weeks, and on an average upwards
of five weeks, on their passage from the place of capture to Sierra Leone, occasioning
a loss of the captured Slaves amounting to from one-sixth to half of the
whole number, whilst the survivors were generally landed in a miserable state
of weakness and disease. Such undoubtedly was the case then, and had been
the case then for many years, and has been still the case, though in a somewhat
less degree, since the Report of that Committee. We regret that means should
not have been taken earlier to remedy this crying evil. As the Slave Trade
however now exists, that evil is no doubt much diminished. By the provision
introduced into our more recent Slave Trade Treaties, the Cruizers of the contracting
parties are authorised to seize Vessels merely on the evidence of their
equipment, without making it necessary to wait till Slaves are actually on
board, and thus a much smaller number of Slaves is brought for adjudication
and exposed to this kind of middle passage. Moreover the exertions and improved
quality and system of our Cruizers, the depressed condition of the
sugar-planters of Cuba and Brazil, the extension of legitimate traffic, and other
causes, have succeeded in diminishing altogether the amount of Slave Trade;
and the scene of its greatest activity, North of the Line, lies now within a moderate
distance of Sierra Leone, or to the windward of it. The reasons, therefore,
for removing the Courts of Adjudication from that Colony are not what
they were. If, however, one place of adjudication only is still to be assigned,
and only one place of release, to the wretched victims of the Slave Dealer, we
believe that Ascension, or one of the Portuguese Islands, would on the whole
be best adapted for that purpose, as being more convenient than Sierra Leone
to the Bights of Benin and Biafra, and to the Portuguese Settlements South
of the Line, now the principal seats of the existing Slave Trade, and (owing to
the set of winds and currents in that direction) as being easy of access even from
the farthest extremities of the Windward Coast, where any Slave Trade is
carried on. We are aware, however, that these are arrangements which can
only be made in conjunction with Foreign Powers, and that they involve many
considerations which have not been fully before us. They are, however, of high
importance to the interests of humanity, and we cannot do less than invite the
best attention of Her Majesty’s Government to the subject.
The next point we have alluded to, that of the place and manner of locating
the Africans who are liberated from the captured Slave Ships, is so closely connected
with the question of Emigration from Africa generally, that this seems
to be the proper opportunity for discussing that important subject. Before,
however, they go further, Your Committee desire to say a few words as to the
point of view from which they have felt it their special duty to look at it. On
another Committee has been devolved the charge of examining it in its
bearings on the prosperity of the West Indies: we consider it our peculiar
duty to look at it as affecting the interests of Africa only, whether of its
Natives generally, or specially of those who come into our hands and under
our protection in the course of our attempts to put down the Slave Trade.
Now, the investigation alluded to as devolved upon another Committee of
Your honourable House, is no doubt one of the highest importance, even to the
interests of the African himself; inasmuch as we have it on the highest authority,
that the diminished supply of Sugar from our West India Colonies, consequent
on Emancipation, gave an extraordinary stimulus to the Slave Trade
for the supply of Cuba and Brazil; and the best aid for its discouragement, and
the best chance for its total extinction, would undoubtedly be the diminution
of inducement to carry it on, which would arise from the production of Sugar
by Free Labour in the British Colonies on lower terms. But, as more immediately
within our province, we have thought it our duty to confine our inquiries
upon this subject to three points: 1st. Whether, indeed, there are any considerable
materials for a free Emigration from Africa to the West Indies; 2dly.
Whether it would be desirable for the African to make the change; and,
3rdly. Whether it could be carried on, and how, without reasonable apprehension,
or even a possibility of creating or encouraging a new Slave
Trade.
Now, as to the first point, we may briefly say, that on the Gold Coast few
materials for a perfectly free Emigration, or for Emigration of any kind,
appear to exist. The devastations of the Slave Trade, and of the wars connected
with it, though it has now ceased there entirely for nine or ten years,
are yet too recent to allow of the existence of any very crowded Population,
or any adventurous habits; and all, save the Chiefs and a few dwellers on
the coasts, who have engaged in the various pursuits of commerce under the
protection of the British, the Dutch, and Danish settlements, are Slaves,
though their Slavery, like that of Africa generally, is not, as to labour, of a
very grievous kind. As we proceed up the Coast, we fall in, between Cape
Palmas and Cape Mount, with a very singular race of men, consisting of
many small tribes, known commonly by the collective name of Kroomen,
scattered along a considerable range of shore; much given, though not
exclusively, to maritime pursuits; forming part of the crew of every English
man-of-war and merchantman on the coast; known by a distinctive external
mark, and neither taken as Slaves themselves, nor making Slaves of others.
Their numbers are uncertain, but are undoubtedly considerable, and seem to
be increasing, and their confidence in the English character is ascertained.
But it seems doubtful whether permission for large numbers to leave their
shores could be obtained without some present to their Chiefs; and their
attachment to their own country, and their present habits of migrating only
for a period, and without their families, make it also doubtful whether they
would ever become permanent settlers elsewhere, or indeed remain away from
home for a longer period than two or three years. Upon this point we would
refer, in addition to other Evidence, to that which was given before us by two
or three of these men themselves.
Passing by Sierra Leone for the moment, we come to the British Settlement
of the Gambia, and here we find about 1,500 Liberated Africans, whom
the British Government has removed thither from Sierra Leone, from whom
of course not much emigration could be expected, though some, for they have
little employment there. But we find there a periodical Migration from a
considerable distance up the River in two tribes of Serawoolies and Tilliebunkas,
who come in numbers to do all the severe labour of the Settlement,
and having saved their earnings return to their homes, apparently free to
come and go without restraint or obligation of any kind. Their case may be
considered as somewhat resembling that of the Kroomen, and as offering
materials for a temporary Emigration in the first instance, though possibly
hereafter, on further experience, for one of a more permanent character. We
now return to Sierra Leone, and here we find the Liberated Africans and
their descendants, in number from 40,000 to 50,000, a body of Kroomen, in
numbers which are variously stated from 1,000 to 5,000, who, like the Serawoolies
in the Gambia, do all the hard labour of the Colony, and between
1,000 and 2,000 of a mixed population, who, like the Kroomen, have come
into the Colony of their own accord. We have also to deal here with those
who may hereafter be the subjects of adjudication on their release from Slave
Ships, or who may hereafter come into the Colony, if it should be permitted,
for the purpose of Emigration. These are the materials for Emigration to
the West Indies which have presented themselves, and progressively, if it
were permitted, encouraged, and successful, they would probably prove to be
considerable.
The next question is, whether it would be a desirable change for these
people to be in the West Indies rather than in Africa. Now for this object
we desired that statements might be prepared for us, founded principally
on Official Documents, acquainting us with the state of things, the condition
of society, the temporal, the moral and religious advantages which would be
enjoyed in three of our principal Colonies, to which we beg to refer in our
Appendix, but from which we insert here a few Extracts, as sufficient for the
present occasion.
“Of the actual condition of the labouring population of Jamaica, and consequently
the condition which would be accessible to the African immigrants,
Sir C. Metcalfe gives the following description, in his dispatch to Lord Stanley
of the 1st November, 1841:
“With respect to the labouring population, formerly slaves, but now perfectly
free, and more independent than the same class in other free countries,
I venture to say, that in no country in the world can the labouring population
be more abundantly provided with the necessaries and comforts of life, more
at their ease, or more secure from oppression than in Jamaica; and I may add,
that ministers of the Gospel for their religious instruction, and schools for
the education of their children, are established in all parts of the island, with
a tendency to constant increase, although the present reduction of the Mico
schools is a temporary drawback.”
“Of the means afforded for the religious and moral instruction of the
population of Jamaica, Sir C. Metcalfe, in this dispatch, makes the following
statement:
“I turn from the cheerless prospects of proprietors to a more pleasing
feature in the present order of things. The thriving condition of the peasantry
is very striking and gratifying. I do not suppose that any peasantry
in the world have so many comforts, or so much independence and enjoyment.
Their behaviour is peaceable, and in some respects admirable. They
are fond of attending Divine service, and are to be seen on the Lord’s day
thronging to their respective churches and chapels, dressed in good clothes,
and many of them riding on horseback. They send their children to school
and pay for their schooling. They subscribe for the erection of churches and
chapels; and in the Baptist communities they not only provide the whole
expense of the religious establishment, but by the amount of their contributions
afford to their ministers a very respectable support. Marriage is general
among the people. Their morals are, I understand, much improved, and their
sobriety is remarkable.
“For these very gratifying circumstances we are indebted to the Ministers
of Religion in the Island of all denominations. Church of England,
Church of Scotland, Moravians, Wesleyans, Baptists, Bishop, Clergy, and
Missionaries, all exert themselves, and vie with each other in amicable rivalry
to do good to their fellow-creatures. The number of Churches, Chapels, and
Schools built and being built in every part of the Island, affords a most
pleasing and encouraging sight. In this respect the prospects of the Island
are very cheering, and the liberal support afforded to useful Institutions, and
the encouragement given to Religious Teachers, without any bigoted exclusions,
are creditable to the Island Legislature, and every part of the Community.”
The Reports of the Magistrates[6], which will be found in the Parliamentary
Paper 1842, concur in representing the great efforts which are made in promoting
Religious Instruction.
“The annual charge defrayed by the Colony of Jamaica, for the support
of the Ministers and Schools of the Church of England, was, in 1836,
53,260l. 14s. 5d. currency, or 31,956l. 8s. 8d. sterling money, as will appear
by a Paper laid before Parliament in 1837, and which will be found referred
to in Evidence before the Committee of The House on the West India
Colonies. Since the Year 1836 an increase has been made; and in the
Years 1839 and 1840, an addition of 14,000l. sterling per annum was made
to the charge. The total annual charge, therefore, defrayed by the Colony
for that part of the Ecclesiastical and School Establishment, connected with
the Church of England, exceeds 45,000l. sterling money. But this Establishment
is still further extended by occasional Grants by the Assembly
of Jamaica, by Parliamentary Grants, and by certain Religious Societies in
England, and by individuals there and in Jamaica. In addition to this
Establishment, very extensive means of Religious Instruction are afforded
by the Presbyterian, Moravian, Wesleyan, and Baptist Missions, established
in Jamaica, and those schools and places of worship are thickly spread over
the Colony, and large contributions for supporting and extending these
Schools are derived from Parliamentary Grants, from Grants by the Assembly
of Jamaica, by charitable institutions, and by private individuals here and at
Jamaica.”
“If I were not convinced that the unhappy Africans are benefited by the
transfer to this colony, I should not so urgently press the continuance of the
countenance of Her Majesty’s Government to that effect. I have, in my residence
on this coast, seen that the Africans from Sierra Leone are far from
being in the civilised state I should have anticipated; that their condition must,
therefore, here be improved; how much more so then must the pure savage be
raised by being brought amongst his own colour, who are in a high progressive
state of civilisation[7].”
“Religious instruction administered at 57 places of public worship.
Each parish has at least two parochial schools under the superintendence of
the minister. Each missionary has a school attached to his domicile, and
nearly all the principal plantations in the colony, if at a distance from the
schools, maintain a school for the instruction of their labourers’ children, free
of expense.
“An annual grant has been made by the colony in aid of the education
of children of the labouring population in the rural districts, amounting to
13,333 dollars.”
“The average rate of wages for agricultural labourers is about 5-12ths of
a dollar per task; a day’s task is understood to be seven hours, but is generally
performed in four or five hours by an industrious man; any extra time or
labour is paid for additional.”
“House-room, garden ground, medicine, and medical attendance, have
hitherto been granted free; all other requisites are provided by the labourers
themselves[8].”
“By Mr. Latrobe’s Report in 1839, it appears there were 35 Day and
Evening Schools, and 14 Sunday, of all denominations; whereas, by the Return
of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, the Established Church
alone has now 28 Schools, and it is calculated that the present number in all
is not less than from 50 to 60. As regards Churches and Chapels, there are
no less than 18 connected with the Established Church, 11 Roman-catholic,
4 Wesleyan, and 1 Presbyterian, together 34, for a population of from 50,000
to 60,000 souls; this would give a School for every 1,000 souls, and a Church
for every 2,000.
“In the Colonial Estimate for this year, there is a provision of 1,660l.
for the Established Church, and for the Roman-catholic 3,236l., as fixed expenditure,
besides 5,865l. towards building Churches, and 1,937l. towards
Education.”
“The soil of Trinidad is a rich marl that requires no manuring whatever,
and of such soil there are fully one million of acres in brushwood and forest.
Were there only a sufficiency of labour every British market might be amply
supplied with Sugar from this one Island; hence, Foreign Sugars would be
excluded, and the Slave Trade, as it refers to Great Britain at least, would be
practically discouraged.
“In Trinidad too, Christian Ministers can live and labour with far less
risk of health and loss of time. Government is also extremely willing to give
half the amount required for the erection of Chapels, School-houses, Teachers’
Salaries, &c. in any part of the Island where we may have even a small
Society of Emigrants.
“It is therefore my deliberate conviction that the people would gain an
accession to their religious privileges by quitting any part of Western Africa
for the Island of Trinidad.
“But again I think that the worldly circumstances of the Emigrants
would be considerably advanced. The labourers may very easily earn half a
dollar per day on their arrival here, and in a couple of weeks, that is, as soon
as they fully understand the nature of the work, the able-bodied may make
a dollar. A house and garden are given to every labourer. On these particulars
Mr. David and the labourers who have returned with him will be able
to satisfy you[9].”
Now after looking at such a picture, drawn from the most unsuspected
sources, we cannot doubt that, whether for the homeless Negro just rescued
from the hold of a Slave Ship, or for the ignorant and uncivilised African
who comes down to our Settlements to pick up a small pittance by the hardest
labour, and to return with it to his barbarous home, it would be of the highest
advantage, it would be the greatest blessing, to make such an exchange. But
how is it with the Liberated African of Sierra Leone, who has been enjoying
perhaps for years the fostering care of the British Government? Now to
that Government, beyond his rescue from the Slave Ship, and emancipation
from future Slavery, and a temporary sustenance, and his being placed within
the reach of Missionary efforts, to which it has not contributed, the Liberated
African cannot fairly be said to owe much. To the invaluable exertions of
the Church Missionary Society more especially, and also to a considerable
extent, as in all our African Settlements, to the Wesleyan body, the highest
praise is due. The former expend nearly 7,000l., the latter nearly 2,000l.
annually upon the Religious Instruction of the Colony. By their efforts
nearly one-fifth of the whole population, a most unusually high proportion in
any country, are at school, and the effects are visible in considerable intellectual,
moral, and religious improvement,—very considerable under the peculiar
circumstances of such a Colony. But a few ill-supported Schools and one
Chaplain is all that has been contributed by the Government to the religious
and moral improvement of those of whom she has undertaken the protection,
and their social improvement has been unattempted. No Model Farm has
been established, no instruction in Agriculture has been afforded. The rate of
wages, when any are earned, which is chiefly by a few in the neighbourhood of
the towns, is 4d. to 7d. a day, and with this and a little cultivation a sufficient
subsistence, though nothing more, is gained. The extent of good soil is limited;
the inhabitants wander out of the Colony for the subsistence which they cannot
find within it. There is little industry, there are small facilities for trade, as
the Colony itself produces little to export save a little arrow-root and ginger,
and the River which it commands is only navigable for 30 or 40 miles to any
useful purpose, and supplies no article but timber and camwood. With such a
climate, therefore, and thus circumstanced, the Colony can never invite the
residence of planters or of merchants of considerable capital, or become a favourite
with officers, either civil or military, of a higher order. What elements
of prosperity, therefore, can it have? The Government has not done much, but
under any circumstances the Colony must be an artificial creation. The Government
ought to have established a Model Farm, or in some way communicated
agricultural knowledge; and we would recommend that it should be
attempted even now. But, after all, what is that to the magnificent Model
Farms which would surround the African in the West Indies?
We need hardly add more to prove that it would be well for the African,
in every point of view, to find himself a Free Labourer in the free British
West India Colonies, enjoying there, as he would, higher advantages of every
kind, than have fallen to the lot of the Negro race in any other portion of the
globe.
We pass the question, though not absolutely to be lost sight of, that, in
Sierra Leone, the newly liberated African is a burden to the British Government
as well as to himself; and that, in the West Indies, not only would his
own condition be improved, but he would become a source of wealth and prosperity
to the Empire. But we must not omit the advantage to Africa, of the
probable return to her soil of many of her own sons, enriched with civil and
religious knowledge, and bringing back with them wealth, and the means of
wealth and civilisation; “that reflux of the West upon the East, in moderate
numbers, and managed with caution,” in the words of Sir John Jeremie, “to
which we must look for the civilisation of the East.”
But Your Committee had next to consider, whether, in achieving this object,
any danger existed of creating a real, or plausible suspicion of a real, Slave
Trade under another name.—Under proper regulations, they think there is
not. A free passage may be offered to the African already settled within the
colony, and to the Free Settler or other Native, who shall have remained long
enough in the Colony to give the authorities sufficient time to ascertain the
circumstances under which he came, and to assure themselves that they were
entirely free from all suspicion of fraud or force. To such as thus leave their
homes, a free passage back at the end of a certain period, say three or four
years, might be promised, with full permission to them to return at any time
at their own expense. To the homeless African, newly liberated, the option
should be given of settling at once in the West Indies, if he please, with
permission to return hereafter at his own cost, or of removing from Sierra
Leone, or of remaining in it on the first adjudication, if he undertake for his own
maintenance, or can find friends or relations who will undertake it for him.
With regard to the Kroomen, however desirable they may be as labourers,
and however advantageous the object may be to themselves, we are not prepared
in the first instance to recommend other facilities for emigration than
those which we have suggested to be offered to other Natives who might desire
to make use of a British Settlement as a point of departure[10]. If they should
desire, as it appears that it is not improbable they may, to make a Migration
across the Atlantic, with their habits they will find no difficulty in making their
way, for the purpose, to Sierra Leone, where some hundreds or even thousands
of their brethren habitually reside, some of whom have already emigrated to
Guiana, and seem to be as active in the field, as we have long found them to be
on the sea, and to be well pleased with the experiment.
If it should hereafter be thought desirable to form any Settlement on the
Kroo Coast, however small, it might facilitate arrangements similar to those
which we have recommended for the other Settlements. Or they might possibly
hereafter be embarked from the Coast itself under the superintendence of a
man-of-war. (See Capt. Denman.)
The same door might be opened, under the same precautions, from the
Gambia; but with regard to the Gold Coast, the supply of labour there not
appearing to be more than necessary for the wants of the country, we would
not recommend any peculiar facilities to be afforded.
The expense of the Emigration would of course be defrayed by the Colony
to which each successive band of Emigrants was directed.
All this of course cannot be secured from abuse without the strictest superintendence
of some Government authority; which we believe, dealing as it
would do only with British Settlements, would be substantially effective. But
we would earnestly recommend, that it should rather be undertaken altogether
by the Government itself. In that way only can perfect security be given and
felt against the abuses which might arise from the competition of the Agents of
rival Colonies; in that way only can perfect confidence be given, whether to
the African himself, or to the public opinion of England and the civilised world,
that nothing shall be done which shall even bring suspicion upon a reputation,
of which we are justly jealous, of which we can still be proud, and which it is
of the highest importance that we should sustain. But under these sanctions,
whether we look to the effect of the prosperity of our Free Colonies in discouraging
the Slave Trade, or to the advantage of placing the African in that
position where he will be most likely to raise himself in the moral and social
scale, and to react beneficially upon the destinies of his Mother Country[11], Your
Committee cannot but strongly urge upon Parliament not only not to prohibit
the Emigration of Free Blacks from our African Settlements to our West India
Colonies, but to encourage and promote it by the authority of Government,
under the sanctions and regulations above suggested, or such other as further
consideration may supply.
As we have said before, the way in which this question is disposed of will
affect materially other questions connected with the internal administration of
the Colony.
If Emigration should go on to any great extent from the settled Population
of Sierra Leone, which we believe it might without in any way injuring
the condition of the Colony, but rather the reverse, (for the rate of Wages
would probably rise, and it appears that it is not the successful and thriving
who are inclined to go), it will probably be possible to dispense with some of
the Establishment which is now requisite for watching over the interests of the
Liberated Africans. If, on adjudication, they are mostly located in the West
Indies, the much-discussed question of the best means of disposing of them, of
the necessity of maintaining them, as now, for six months, or the expediency
of leaving them at once to their own resources and the charity of their countrymen;
the question of the best means of disposing of the Children, and the
ever-new devices of successive Governors for escaping from the inevitable evils
of apprenticing them to persons on whose character no dependence can be
placed, will be got rid of; and the British Government will be relieved from
the necessity of attempting to overcome the obstacles which nature seems
herself to have interposed at Sierra Leone, in the way of ensuring a prosperous
condition to the objects of its humane care.
We now come to the question which has of late excited so much
interest and feeling, that of the facilities which British Commerce is
charged with having furnished to the Slave Trade, and to the extent
and nature of the connexion which exists between them; a question
which must be considered dispassionately and soberly, rather with a
view to what is best for the object upon the whole, and to what is
practicable, than to what might at first appear to be desirable, and
what might be perhaps a partial good, producing possibly, in other
ways, a greater evil. Now, in the first place, it is fair to state that
we have no evidence, or reason to believe, that any British Merchant
concerned in the trade with the West Coast of Africa, either owns or
equips any vessel engaged in the Slave Trade, or has any share in the
risks or profits of any Slave Trade venture. The charge is this, and
it must be admitted, that whether by selling condemned Slave Vessels
back to Slave Dealers, which is the rarer case, or, which is the more
common, by selling to Slave Dealers lawful goods, which are afterwards
employed in barter for Slaves (whether circuitously by sale to
Merchants in Cuba and Brazil, or directly on the Coast of Africa),
the British Merchant and Manufacturer does, in common with the
Merchants of other nations, furnish very considerable facilities for the
Slave Trade.
It must further be admitted, that owing to the equipment article
in our recent Treaties, which has prevented the actual Slaver from
hovering on the Coast in safety, a large portion of the goods necessary
for the Slave Trade is driven into Vessels innocent in their
apparent character, but subserving the purposes of the Slaver; and
that, in consequence, a somewhat larger portion of this kind of traffic
may possibly now pass directly from the English or other Merchant
to the Coast of Africa, than heretofore, when those supplies went
round by Cuba and Brazil in the Slavers themselves, without risk of
capture.
Now an opinion has prevailed, and that in very influential
quarters, and it runs through Dr. Madden’s Report, that at least
such direct dealing is illegal, and punishable under the Statute of
the 5 Geo. IV, c. 5; and if not so already, the same parties would
urge on Parliament to make it so by new enactment; and some
even would extend it to all connexion, however indirect, in which
a guilty knowledge of the destination of the goods or of the Vessel
could be presumed. Now this view of the Act is not unnatural,
owing to the general and comprehensive nature of its language, and
to the desire which must naturally exist to understand it in as
comprehensive a sense as possible for the obstruction of so odious
and detestable a traffic as the Slave Trade. But looking closely at
the language of the Act itself, and to the interpretation put upon it
by the Law Officers of the Crown, as alluded to by the Under Secretary
of the Colonies, in his letter to Dr. Madden, April 1842, and
to the opinion of the Attorney General in the case inserted in the
Evidence, we cannot affirm it to be illegal now, and we shall presently
state to The House why, however reluctantly we may come
to the conclusion, we are not prepared to recommend that it should
be made so.
Now in the first place, it is difficult to consider or to make that
illegal, which is and has been done at Sierra Leone for years, by a
Court of Judicature, (in doing so, acting under Treaties and under
the sanction of an Act of Parliament, namely,) selling publicly, and
to the highest bidder, Prize Vessels and Prize Goods condemned
for Slave Dealing, indiscriminately, and without precaution or restriction,
to persons of all descriptions, including Slave Dealers
themselves, and which, in regard to vessels at least, had been practised
in that Colony by persons of high character and station unreproved.
But if it should be made illegal hereafter to sell a Vessel
to a party concerned in the traffic in Slaves, the next question, and
one that a Legislative body must consider, is, in what manner shall
such a prohibition be enforced? A bond that the Vessel shall not
be disposed of to a Slave Dealer has been proposed; but how shall
the Vessel be prevented from passing very shortly from hand to
hand till it reaches an unlawful owner? and is it not unwise for the
Law to attempt that which it has so little means of effectually
enforcing? There seems no remedy for this, which at Sierra Leone,
in the heart of the Slave Trade, and where the Vessel is often sold
for half its value, is an evil substantially as well as in feeling, but
that of extending the provisions of those Treaties which direct that
a Slave Vessel shall be broken up, not sold, and altering our own
Municipal Law to the same effect.
But in regard to goods and merchandise, should the Committee
advise The House to make such dealing illegal? Now all the witnesses,
even those who advocate this view most strongly, admit
that legitimate trade, by which is meant the exchange of merchandise
for produce, is most beneficial to Africa, and co-operates
materially with the cruizer in his operations, whether directly by the
assistance and information with which the British trader supplies
him, or indirectly by diminishing the necessity of a trade in Slaves,
as the means of procuring European or other goods; they admit
that nothing therefore would be more injurious to the interests of
Africa, than to interfere materially with the operations of lawful
commerce. It appears, moreover, that in every place on the Coast
North of the Line, (to which limits our inquiries have mainly been
confined,) with the exception of perhaps two or three points, a
lawful trade of more or less extent is or has been carried on contemporaneously
with, and often, nay generally, by the same persons
as, the Slave Trade: they have told us that the same goods, such as
cottons, rum, tobacco, guns and gunpowder, are employed in both
trades; and that, although those employed in the Slave Trade are
often of an inferior description, yet that quality alone will not
furnish the means of distinguishing between one and the other, and
that, practically, there are no means of making such a distinction;
they have told us that any restriction on traffic which they would
recommend, must therefore be confined to places or persons solely
or principally concerned in the Slave Trade, and that the law should
not attempt to interfere with any other. The question still remains,
how this is to be carried out?
With regard to those places, where the Slave Trade has been
extinguished, no difficulty will arise; but with regard to those places,
not few in number nor of slight importance, where, as in Bissao
now, and as it has been and may be again, in the Brass and Bonny
Rivers, the most important marts for lawful trade upon the Coast of
Africa, a trade in produce and slaves is carried on together and by
the same persons; or where, as in Whydah and Popo, a trade in
produce has been gradually growing up and gaining upon the
Slave Trade in proportion as the enterprise of the British merchant
pushes on the one and the vigilance of the British cruizer checks
and cripples the other, how should the Legislature deal with them?
Shall they be lawful or unlawful ports or persons? What is to
legalise the traffic in such cases? What proportion, or what positive
amount, of lawful traffic? But, indeed, how is the lawful traffic to
spring up at all under such circumstances of exclusion?
Some witnesses have argued, that this question of degree need not be
defined but may be left to be solved by the practical sense of a jury. By what
jury? In England or at Sierra Leone? Under what uncertainties and obstructions
would the most scrupulous trader deal with the Coast of Africa, if, for the
misinterpretation of such instructions, as the nature of such a case will admit,
by a supercargo, his vessel and goods are liable to be brought some hundreds or
thousands of miles out of their course, to have the question decided by a jury,
whether some person or some factory dealt with was principally or not engaged
in the Slave Trade, it being unlawful if principally, lawful if partially, in some
unknown and varying proportion, so engaged.
The question for the Legislature to consider is, whether it is worth while to
do all this, to infuse so much risk and uncertainty into a trade which it wishes
to encourage, which it looks to as one of the main instruments for the civilisation
of Africa, for the sake of interfering with so small a proportion of the facilities
which commerce, permitted at all with Africa, under her present circumstances,
must of necessity afford more or less to the Trade in Slaves. For
unless all other countries can be persuaded to take the same view, it must
indeed be a small proportion, and little indeed will have been done towards the
object; an obstruction will merely have been raised for such length of time as
may be required for conveying the same goods from England or from foreign
countries through other channels. It would be merely a transfer, and a transfer
to parties less friendly to the object, and less under control. We have had
ample evidence, that foreign vessels already carry on this trade to a considerable
extent; nor is there any right by existing treaty with foreign nations, nor can it
be expected, that we should obtain it, to interrupt foreign vessels engaged in
such a traffic. But indeed, how would it be carried out? The right of search,
in any shape, is one, as we know by experience, that requires the greatest delicacy
in carrying out with the ships of friendly nations. But what kind of
search must that be, which would seek to ascertain, on board of an apparently
innocent vessel, innocent in her build and in her equipment, and freighted
with innocent goods, whether the destination of such goods was not made unlawful
by some document hidden in the most obscure recesses of the vessel?
How prolonged, how minute, consequently how irritating at all times, how
vexatious, if unsuccessful; how likely to be unsuccessful, if not guided by more
obvious indications; how likely consequently to lead to disputes and collisions
among nations, most injurious, if not fatal to that harmonious co-operation
for the common object which is so absolutely essential to success. It must not
be lost sight of how large a share of these evils must be inflicted on those who
are engaged in our own lawful commerce, if such a search be applied to them.
Now if we were bound by a rigid principle to do this, these arguments must
be rejected, as not affecting a case of conscience; but in this case we are not
trying the value of a rigid principle. The principle would be intelligible which
dictated the absolute interdiction of all commerce with every place from which
a single Slave was exported; or, further still, with every place from which a
Slave Trade was carried on, such as Cuba and Brazil; or if it dictated a prohibition
to send goods where there was a probability that they might be exchanged
for Slaves. But this arbitrary and uncertain limitation, so little capable of
being referred to strict principle, and yet so injurious to lawful commerce, can
only rest on the ground of its expediency, of its tendency to attain or promote
the object; must submit to be tried by that test, and so tried will be found
wanting. It is no doubt galling to a zealous and gallant officer, engaged in the
service of his country and humanity in watching anxiously a well-known
slaver’s haunt, to see foreign vessels, still more vessels bearing his own country’s
flag, passing inwards and supplying those goods, though innocent in themselves,
which are the medium of an atrocious traffic; it is not surprising
that under such circumstances that feeling should have arisen which appears in
Dr. Madden’s Report, and in the Evidence of several, especially the naval,
Witnesses. It is a feeling natural and honourable in itself; and we hope that
the English merchant, animated as he is by the same feelings of horror for the
Slave Trade, will endeavour to extend the influence of those feelings through
the whole circle of his transactions. But we cannot recommend that a provision
so difficult to be carried out, so vexatious and yet so ineffectual for its
object, should be made the subject of Legislation.
Happily in this great work we need not despair. The measures lately adopted
have done much. The evidence of all the Naval Officers as well as Commanders
of Merchant Ships, concurs in stating, that North of the Line, over a coast of
many thousand miles, the Slave Trade, with the exception of a few points in the
neighbourhood of Sierra Leone and the Gambia, is virtually extinct. And the
continuance of these measures, well guarded and considered in all their details,
as well as extended, together with such as we have recommended in different
parts of our Report, give fair ground for hoping for ultimate success. Under
this head we would venture to recommend that none but the swiftest vessels
should be employed; that some of the best Prizes should be converted to the
purposes of the service; that Steamers should be engaged in watching the intricacies
of Islands, and the mouths of Rivers; that the system of paying by Head-money,
so unjust to gallant men[12], or, perhaps, by Bounty at all, should be
reconsidered, and possibly replaced by higher pay and the prospect of promotion.
Encouragement and ample protection, at the same time, should be given to
lawful trade in every shape[13];
and the Settlements which we hold, or which we
may form, upon the coast, should be kept open indifferently to all nations as
to ourselves, that they may see, and be compelled to acknowledge, that in all
we are attempting for Africa, we are only endeavouring to provide a feast of
which all may equally partake; and seeking, as the reward of our exertions, no
advantage to ourselves save that which may fairly fall to our lot from a proportionate
share of a more abundant table, spread out for the common benefit
of all.
Counsel for the Prosecution.
MR. SERJEANT BOMPAS.
MR. SERJEANT TALFOURD.
MR. PAYNE.
Counsel for the Defence.
MR. FITZ-ROY KELLY.
MR. CLARKSON.
MR. BODKIN.
Attorney for the Prosecution.
SIR GEORGE STEPHEN.
Attornies for the Defence.
E. J. & H. S. LAWFORD.
From the moment I left the Committee of the House of Commons,
on the 23d of July, 1842, I never again heard of this matter until
Wednesday the 23d of August, 1843.
On that day, between two and three o’clock in the afternoon, I
was sitting at my desk in the private room of Zulueta & Co.’s office,
22, Moorgate Street, in the City of London, when a clerk came into
the room to announce that a gentleman of the name of Scoble wished
to see me. “Do you know him? He says that he is not known to
you.” Upon this I went out into the clerks’ office and found the
individual, thus calling himself, standing outside the counter. I
asked him his business, and he replied that he did not call upon his
own business. He asked me, in a pointed and distinct manner, if my
name was Pedro de Zulueta, which of course I instantly acknowledged.
“I do not call on my own business, but to introduce a person
who wishes to speak with you. Shall he see you here, or at your
house?” “I should like to know first who he is; what is his name?”
“You do not know him, his name is Brown.” “I do not recollect any
person of that name,” I replied. “He is below, if you like to see
him.” The first impression on my mind was that the whole was some
ridiculous mystery about some great trifle, and I thought I could not
dispose of it better or more quickly than by seeing the man, so
suiting the action to the word, I said, “I will go and see who he is,”
and opened the door which leads from the office into the landing-place
at the top of the stairs. No sooner was I outside the door than
the individual, calling himself Scoble, addressed me in a tone different
from the insinuating manner in which he had done before—not
rude, but solemn—“The fact is, Sir, that a true bill has been found
by the Grand Jury against you for felony, and there is an officer
below to take you into custody. I did not like to state this before
the clerks.”
The first impression I received at hearing these words I cannot give
any account of, but it certainly struck me as the whole thing being
a trick. “What do you say, Sir?” I asked; and the assertion was
repeated, adding that the charge was slave trading. Then I was
still more confirmed that there was some trick in the case. I asked
the policeman, who was within the house and apparently in the act of
ascending the stairs, to be called up, which Mr. Scoble did, and both
were shown by me into the private through the public office. My
father was sitting in the next room, and when I tried to make him
understand the case, seeing the policeman and Mr. Scoble, he received
the same impression of the whole being a trick, which raised
his indignation at the audacity, and made him address Mr. Scoble
very angrily. Mr. Scoble was evidently anxious to leave the room;
and the policeman, to whom he gave strict directions about what
was to be done with me, having assured me that the thing was in
earnest, that I must go with him, I opened the private door for
Mr. Scoble, who left the office repeating his injunctions to the officer,
that I must be taken directly to the station-house, where Sir
George Stephen would immediately go.
We had never before heard Sir George Stephen’s name, and my
father thought he might be a magistrate. He tried to ascertain from
the policeman by whose authority he was acting, but we could not
obtain from him any thing that we could understand. He waited
until Mr. John Lawford, of the firm of Messrs. Lawford, of Drapers
Hall, our solicitors, arrived, and then we proceeded to the Garlick
Hill Police Station-house. There Sir George Stephen appeared: he
did not know me, and asked which was Pedro de Zulueta. When
my name was mentioned, I answered to it, and then he preferred the
charge as will be found in the succeeding page.
Mr. Lawford spoke aside with Sir George Stephen, for the immediate
and pressing question was the bail. Sir George expressed a
firm determination to resist bail to any amount. Then the dreadful
thought was, what was to become of my family, since it never has
happened, that I have been absent without their being acquainted
with all the circumstances; and I do not think I have slept one
night out of my house while in town. The late hour made it quite
unlikely that with opposition to the bail, and as counsel must be
heard, that I could escape passing the night in Newgate. Mr. John
Lawford, with the greatest kindness and feeling, expressed to me
that such was his fear. My reply was, that they might do what they
pleased with me, only that my wife should be seen to, for I was quite
sure of the result of her hearing suddenly of such an occurrence,
together with my not going home. Sir George coldly remarked,
that “it must already be known at home, for he had sent there to
take me, in case I had not been taken at the office.” The agony,
which such a statement caused, was perceptible, and one of the
officers in the room remarked, that I needed not apprehend any
thing, as all the officers could do, would be to watch the house.
I was conveyed very late to the Court at the Old Bailey, where I
sat until nearly nine o’clock in suspense as to what would be the
result of the application for bail, and next whether the persons
approved of could be found at so late an hour. It was not until
late, that the former was granted; and after considerable difficulty,
and the impossibility of finding one of the two bail offered, the
other was accepted as sufficient by the Court, together with my own
recognizance. I then went home at about half-past nine o’clock at
night to my afflicted family in a condition, which, as I believe it
unprecedented when all the circumstances of my case are considered,
so I hope and trust may never fall again to the lot of any man who
lives in that happy and undescribable feeling of habitual security,
which in this country we so dearly value as the precious privilege and
the certain possession of every man who has not contemplated and is
not aware of a breach of the law. Thus will it have been reserved
to me, in the British dominions, to experience this peculiar method
of receiving a wound in the heart, which, although time and the
sympathy which has been so kindly expressed may allay, I alone can
know how unlikely it is that any lapse of time can altogether cure.
As I would not state a fact with any greater appearance of certainty
than what I really possess, I ought to add, since I now have
seen the name of Mr. John Scoble mentioned as that of the Secretary
of the Anti-Slavery Society, that as I never saw before or have seen
since, that I am aware of, the Scoble, who acted in this to me ever
memorable occasion, I cannot tell whether they are both one and the
same person.
Hour 3. 50.—Pedro de Zulueta (32), 22, Moorgate Street,
brought in by P. C.[14] 489, —— Tye, charged by Sir George Stephen,
17, King’s Arms Yard, Coleman Street, with Felony (Slave Trading);
also with Conspiracy, a true Bill having been found against him at
the C. C. Court on both of the above charges.
(signature of person charging)
“George Stephen.”
The Grand Jury having, in the course of the day, returned true
bills against Pedro de Zulueta the younger, of the parish of St. Mary-le-Bow,
merchant, Thomas Jennings, and Thomas Bernardos, late of
the same place, mariners, for felony,
Mr. Clarkson applied to his Lordship under, as he said, circumstances
of a rather peculiar character. Two bills had been found
against Mr. de Zulueta for felony and misdemeanor. He was a highly
respectable merchant of the City of London, and he was charged with
conspiring, with other persons, to fit out a ship for the purpose of
trading in slaves. The proceedings before the Grand Jury were of
course entirely ex parte, and no application had been made to any
magistrate. The first intimation which Mr. de Zulueta had of the
fact was his being taken into custody, and he knew nothing of the
nature of the charge beyond what was entered in the police-sheet.
The Recorder asked, was the defendant present?
Mr. Clarkson said he was in custody, and was on his way to the
Court.
The Recorder asked, what was the application which Mr. Clarkson
wished to make?
Mr. Clarkson said he wanted the defendant to be allowed to give
bail.
Sir G. Stephen, who, it appeared, was the solicitor for the prosecution,
stated that the charge against Mr. Zulueta was founded upon
the Act of the 5th of Geo. IV, which declared the offence imputed
to the prisoner to be felony. In answer to the Court, he added that
the charge was framed under that section of the Act which rendered
the party convicted liable to the penalty of transportation for fourteen
years.
The Recorder said that if the learned counsel intended to enforce
his application for bail, he apprehended that it would be incumbent
upon him to show more reason for such a course than the mere statement
that the party had been taken by surprise.
Mr. Clarkson trusted that the circumstances he had stated would
be considered sufficient by the Court. The fact of the defendant
being so suddenly arrested and placed in confinement would cause
the greatest distress to his family. He was prepared to put in bail
to any amount.
The Recorder inquired if there was any objection to bail being
taken?
Sir G. Stephen was understood to say, that in consequence of the
circumstances of Mr. Zulueta, there was some doubt whether he ought
to be admitted to bail.
Mr. Clarkson assured the Court that Mr. de Zulueta had not the
slightest indisposition to take his trial; but, on the contrary, he had
the greatest anxiety to have the matter investigated. His only wish,
in applying to be admitted to bail, was to prevent the misery and
inconvenience to which his family would be subjected by his being
prevented from returning to them. He especially wished to save the
anxiety of the female branches.
The Recorder suggested that the case should be dealt with in the
ordinary manner, and that affidavits should be prepared in support of
the application.
At this stage of the proceedings the prisoner entered the Court,
in custody of an officer.
Mr. Clarkson, after some communication with Sir G. Stephen,
addressed the Court, and said that he believed no objection would be
offered to bail in the sum of 5,000l.
The Recorder said he thought that would be quite sufficient.
Mr. Clarkson said the defendant would enter into his own recognizance
in 3,000l., and give two sureties in 1,000l. each.
It was then arranged that this amount of bail should be put in
upon the indictment for felony; and with regard to that for misdemeanor,
the defendant should give his own recognizance in 100l.,
and two sureties in 50l. each.
The indictment was then read. It charged the prisoner and the
two other persons with having feloniously equipped and employed a
certain vessel, called the Augusta, for the purpose of trading in
slaves. In other counts the parties were charged with equipping the
vessel for the purchase of slaves, and for the purpose of purchasing
persons to be dealt with as slaves.
Mr. de Zulueta pleaded not guilty to both indictments.
He then, in default of two sureties, entered into his own recognizance
in 6,000l., and one surety in 2,000l., to appear when
called on.
The Queen,
v.
Zulueta & others. |
} |
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
To wit.—The jurors for Our Lady the Queen, upon their
oath present that Pedro de Zulueta the younger, late of the parish
of Saint Mary-le-Bow, in the City of London, merchant and commission
agent; Thomas Jennings, late of the same place, mariner;
and Thomas Bernardos, late of the same place, mariner, heretofore
and after the 1st day of January, in the year of the reign of our
Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of
the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms,
to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said
Court, did illegally and feloniously man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use,
and employ a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or vessel called the
“Augusta,” in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a
certain Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the
reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to
amend and consolidate the laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave
Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, to deal and trade
in slaves, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown
and dignity;
2. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the
4th year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with
force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction
of the said Court, did illegally and feloniously, and against the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, fit out, man,
navigate, equip, dispatch, use, and employ a certain ship or vessel,
called the “Augusta,” in order to accomplish a certain object, which
in and by a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the 5th year
of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled
“An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition
of the Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, to
purchase slaves, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made
and provided, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her
crown and dignity;
3. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force
and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of
the said Court, did illegally and feloniously, and against the form
of the statute in such case made and provided, fit out, man, navigate,
equip, dispatch, use, and employ a certain ship or vessel, called
the “Augusta,” in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and
by a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the 5th year of
the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An
Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of
the Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, to
deal and trade in persons intended to be dealt with as slaves, contrary
to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
4. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force
and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction
of the said Court, did illegally and feloniously, and against the form
of the statute in such case made and provided, fit out, man, navigate,
equip, dispatch, use, and employ a certain ship or vessel, called the
“Augusta,” in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by
a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the 5th year of the
reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act
to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the
Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, to purchase
persons intended to be dealt with as slaves, contrary to the form
of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace
of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
5. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January, in
the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the
4th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force
and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of
the said Court, did illegally and feloniously, and against the form of
the statute in such case made and provided, ship on board a certain
ship or vessel, called the “Augusta,” divers goods and effects, to wit,
29 hogsheads of tobacco, 6 cases of arms, 1 case of looking-glasses,
10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise, 1,600 iron pots,
and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in accomplishing a
certain object which was in and by a certain Act of Parliament, made
and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King
George the 4th, intituled, “An Act to amend and consolidate the
laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” declared unlawful,
that is to say, to trade and deal in slaves, contrary to the form of the
statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of
Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
6. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of January in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and
arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the
said Court, did illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the
statute in such case made and provided, ship on board of a certain
ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” divers
goods and effects, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of
arms, 1 case of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales
of merchandise, 1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to
be employed in accomplishing a certain object, which was and is in
and by the said last mentioned Act of Parliament declared unlawful,
that is to say, to purchase slaves, contrary to the form of the
statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of
Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
7. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present, that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of
January, in the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of
November, in the 4th year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady
Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid,
and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, did illegally and
feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such case made
and provided, ship on board a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or
vessel called the “Augusta,” divers goods and effects, to wit, 29
hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, 1 case of looking-glasses,
10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise, 1,600 iron pots,
and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in accomplishing a
certain object, which was and is in and by the said last mentioned
Act of Parliament declared unlawful, that is to say, to deal and
trade in persons intended to be dealt with as slaves, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
8. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of
January, in the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of
November, in the 4th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady
Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid,
and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, did illegally and
feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such case made
and provided, ship on board of a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a
ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” divers goods and effects, to
wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of arms, 1 case of looking-glasses,
10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales of merchandise, 1,600
iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be employed in accomplishing
a certain object, which was and is in and by the said last
mentioned Act of Parliament declared unlawful, that is to say, to
purchase persons intended to be dealt with as slaves, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.
The Queen
v.
Zulueta & Others. |
} |
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
To wit.—The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath,
present that Pedro de Zulueta the younger, late of the parish of
St. Mary-le-Bow, in the City of London, merchant and commission
agent; Thomas Jennings, late of the same place, mariner; and
Thomas Bernardos late of the same place, mariner, heretofore and
after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on
the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of the reign of Our
Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, to wit, at
London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, did
covinously conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together illegally
and feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such case
made and provided, to fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, and
employ a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or vessel called the
“Augusta,” in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by
a certain Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the
reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act
to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the
Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, to deal
and trade in slaves, contrary to the form of the statute in such case
made and provided, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen,
her crown and dignity;
2. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas
Jennings, and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force
and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of
the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together
illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such
case made and provided, to fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch,
use, and employ a certain ship or vessel, called the “Augusta,” in
order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of
Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late
Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and
consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,”
was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, to purchase slaves, contrary
to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
3. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of
our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November in the 4th year
of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and
arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the
said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together
illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the statute in such
case made and provided, to fit out, man, navigate, equip, dispatch,
use, and employ a certain ship or vessel, called the “Augusta,” in
order to accomplish a certain object which in and by a certain Act
of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his
late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend
and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave
Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, to deal and
trade in persons intended to be dealt with as slaves, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
4. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas
Jennings, and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the
4th year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with
force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction
of the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree
together illegally and feloniously, and against the form of the statute
in such case made and provided, to fit out, man, navigate, equip,
dispatch, use, and employ a certain ship or vessel called the “Augusta,”
in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a
certain Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the
reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An
Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of
the Slave Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, that is to say, to
purchase persons intended to be dealt with as slaves, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
5. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas
Jennings, and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of
January, in the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of
November, in the 4th year of the reign of Our Lady the now Queen,
with force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the
jurisdiction of the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate, and
agree together knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously to ship on board
of a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or vessel called the “Augusta,”
divers goods and effects, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco, 60 cases of
arms, one case of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware, 134 bales
of merchandise, 1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder, to be
employed in accomplishing a certain object, which was and is and by
a certain Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the
reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An
Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition
of the Slave Trade,” declared unlawful, that is to say, to trade and deal
in slaves, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, and against the peace of Our Sovereign Lady the Queen,
her crown and dignity;
6. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of
January, in the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of
November, in the 4th year of the reign of Our Lady the now Queen,
with force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the
jurisdiction of the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate,
and agree together knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously to ship on
board of a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or vessel called the
“Augusta,” divers goods and effects, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco,
60 cases of arms, 1 case of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper
ware, 134 bales of merchandise, 1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of
gunpowder, to be employed in accomplishing a certain object, which
was and is in and by the last mentioned Act of Parliament declared
unlawful, that is to say, to purchase slaves, contrary to the form of the
statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of Our
Sovereign Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
7. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of
January, in the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of
November, in the 4th year of the reign of Our Sovereign Lady the
now Queen, with force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and
within the jurisdiction of the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate,
and agree together knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously to
ship on board of a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or vessel called
the “Augusta,” divers goods and effects, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco,
60 cases of arms, 1 case of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper
ware, 134 bales of merchandise, 1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of
gunpowder, to be employed in accomplishing a certain object, which
was and is in and by the said last mentioned Act of Parliament declared
unlawful, that is to say, to deal and trade in persons intended to
be dealt with as slaves, contrary to the form of the statute in such
case made and provided, and against the peace of Our Sovereign
Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
8. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, heretofore and after the 1st day of
January, in the year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 10th day of
November, in the 4th year of the reign of our Lady the now Queen,
with force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the
jurisdiction of the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate,
and agree together knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously to ship on
board of a certain ship or vessel, to wit, a ship or vessel called the
“Augusta,” divers goods and effects, to wit, 29 hogsheads of tobacco,
60 cases of arms, 1 case of looking-glasses, 10 casks of copper ware,
134 bales of merchandise, 1,600 iron pots, and 2,370 kegs of gunpowder,
to be employed in accomplishing a certain object, which was
and is in and by the said last mentioned Act of Parliament declared
unlawful, that is to say, to purchase persons intended to be dealt with
as slaves, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, and against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her
crown and dignity;
9. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the
4th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with
force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction
of the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree
together feloniously to engage in the trading and dealing in slaves, contrary
to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and
against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
10. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings, and
Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the year of our
Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th year of
the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force and
arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the
said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together
feloniously to engage in the trading and dealing in persons intended to be
dealt with as slaves, contrary to the form of the statute in such case
made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen,
her crown and dignity;
11. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta, the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the
4th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with
force and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction
of the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree
together feloniously to engage in the purchase of slaves, contrary to the
form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the
peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity;
12. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further
present that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, Thomas Jennings,
and Thomas Bernardos, after the 1st day of January, in the
year of our Lord 1825, to wit, on the 1st day of November, in the 4th
year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, with force
and arms, to wit, at London aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of
the said Court, did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together
feloniously to engage in the purchase of persons intended to be
dealt with as slaves, contrary to the form of the statute in such case
made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen,
her crown and dignity.
| Sir George Stephen. |
[Solicitor.] |
| John Brown. |
[Clerk of the Admiralty.] |
| Lieutenant Henry Worsley Hill, R.N. |
|
| The Honourable Captain Joseph Denman, R.N. |
|
| Colonel Edward Nicolls. |
|
| Emanuel Emanuels. |
[Of Portsmouth.] |
| William Thomas. |
[A Clerk at Messrs. Glyn & Co., Lombard Street.] |
| Abraham de Pinna. |
[Notary Public.] |
Mr. Clarkson applied to their Lordships to take the bail for
Mr. de Zulueta, arranged by the Recorder on the previous evening. He
explained that only one of the sureties having been present, and the
hour too late to obtain the other, Mr. de Zulueta had been enlarged
upon giving his own recognizance in 6,000l., and one security in
2,000l. He was now in Court with Mr. Glyn, the well-known
banker, and Mr. Wilcox, who were ready to enter into the sureties
of 1,000l. each, Mr. de Zulueta himself being ready to give his
personal recognizance in 3,000l.
Mr. Payne, who was retained for the prosecution, had no objection.
Mr. Clarkson then applied to have the trial, both for the felony
and the misdemeanor, postponed to the next session.
Mr. Payne consented.
Mr. de Zulueta then entered into the requisite securities.
Regina
v.
Zulueta. |
} Sworn, 8th Sept. 1843. |
IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH.
Pedro de Zulueta the younger, of the city of London, merchant,
and Edward Lawford, of Drapers Hall, in the same city,
gentleman, attorney for the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger,
severally make oath and say, And first this deponent, Pedro de
Zulueta, for himself, saith, that he, this deponent, is a merchant of
London, and has been so for the last eight years, and as such engaged
in large mercantile transactions with houses in different parts
of the world, but particularly at Cadiz, and the Havannah. And
this deponent saith, that he is engaged in such business in partnership
with his this deponent’s father and brother, and that this deponent’s
said father and grandfather were engaged in such business
for seventy years and upwards, and that their said house of business
is and always has been of good repute as honourable merchants,
and that this deponent has always occupied the rank and station of
a gentleman, and has always associated with gentlemen and merchants
of the first respectability. And this deponent further saith,
that on Wednesday, the 22nd day of August last, while this deponent
was sitting in his counting-house in Moorgate street, in the
city of London, he was, about three o’clock in the afternoon, to his
great surprise taken into custody by a policeman, in consequence,
as he was then informed, of a true bill having been then found
against him for felony at the sessions then being held of the Central
Criminal Court. And this deponent saith, that upon being taken
to the said Court, and the said indictment being exhibited to him,
he found it to be an indictment against this deponent, and against
one Thomas Jennings, mariner, and one Thomas Bernardos, mariner,
for illegally and feloniously manning, navigating, equipping, dispatching,
using, and employing a certain ship or vessel called the Augusta,
in order to accomplish a certain object, which in and by a certain
Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 5th year of the reign of
His late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend
and consolidate the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave
Trade,” was and is declared unlawful, and for other illegal offences
against the said Act of Parliament. And this deponent saith, that
he is not guilty of the offences charged against him by the said
indictment, or of any or either of them, and that he never did,
directly or indirectly, man, navigate, equip, dispatch, use, or employ
the said ship, or any other ship, to accomplish any of the objects
declared by the said Act to be unlawful, and that he is not, nor ever
was, directly or indirectly, in any way or manner interested in the
said ship or her earnings, or the profits of any voyage made or to
be made by her. And this deponent saith, that when he was so
taken into custody he was altogether ignorant that any proceedings
whatever had been, or were about to be, taken against him in reference
to the said ship, or to the offences charged by the said
indictment. And this deponent saith, that there had been no previous
examination or inquiry before any magistrate in reference to
the said charges, and that he was then, as he is now, altogether
ignorant of the evidence upon which such true bill was found, and
has no means whatever of ascertaining, except as appears by the said
indictment, what facts he is charged with. And this deponent saith,
that upon his being so taken into custody and removed to the
Central Criminal Court then sitting, upon a representation of the
facts made by his counsel to the Recorder of London, then presiding
as judge of the Central Criminal Court, it was ordered that
he, this deponent, should be admitted to bail himself in the sum of
3000l., with two sureties in the sum of 1000l. each, to take his trial
upon the said indictment, and that he forthwith pleaded Not Guilty
to the said indictment; and that inasmuch as by reason of the lateness
of the hour in the evening at which such order was made, he
was unable to procure two sufficient persons as bail, the Recorder
permitted him to enter into his own recognizance in 6,000l., with one
surety in 2,000l., conditional for his completing the bail on the
following morning pursuant to the said order, which this deponent
accordingly did. And this deponent saith, that the said indictment
now stands for trial at the next session of the Central Criminal Court.
And both these deponents say, that they believe that this is the first
instance of an indictment for felony preferred in this country under
the said statute, and that they believe that questions upon the true
meaning and construction of the said statute, and other and difficult
questions of law will arise upon the trial thereof. And these deponents
say, that in the judgment and belief of these deponents this
is a case which ought to be tried by a special jury of merchants.
And this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, saith, that he is
desirous of having the assistance of the most eminent counsel upon
the trial of this indictment, and that he has retained for that purpose
one of the most eminent of Her Majesty’s counsel learned in
the law, but that he is informed and believes that such counsel will
not attend at the Central Criminal Court. And this deponent saith,
that if he shall be permitted to remove this indictment by certiorari
into this honourable Court he will have the assistance of such
counsel, and he will apply for a special jury, and will take all necessary
steps for having the same tried by a special jury, and for being
defended therein by such eminent counsel as aforesaid, with the least
possible delay. And this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger,
further saith, that the facts and circumstances relative to the using
and employing the said ship or vessel called the Augusta, upon the
occasion to which the said indictment has reference, formed one of
the subjects of an inquiry in the year 1842, by a Select Committee
of the Honourable House of Commons appointed to inquire into the
state of the British possessions on the West Coast of Africa, and that
three of the witnesses whose names appeared on the back of this
indictment, (that is to say) Captain the Honourable Joseph Denman,
Captain Henry Worsley Hill, and Colonel Edward Nicolls, were examined
before such Committee. And this deponent saith, that it
appears by the printed minutes of the evidence taken before the said
Committee, and this deponent believes the fact to be, that the said
Henry Worsley Hill captured the ship Augusta off the Gallinas,
on the coast of Africa, and that the said Thomas Jennings, then the
owner and master of the said ship, was tried in Her Majesty’s Court
of Sierra Leone upon a charge similar to that now charged against
him and against this deponent, and that the said Thomas Jennings
was by such Court on such trial acquitted. And this deponent
saith, that he is one of the mercantile correspondents in London of
the mercantile house of Pedro Martinez & Co., of Cadiz and the
Havannah, and that the nature of his commercial dealings with the
said houses of Pedro Martinez & Co. is confined to the usual mercantile
business of purchasing and selling, in this country, for the
said Pedro Martinez & Co., lawful goods and merchandise, and
usual mercantile banking transactions, and that he has no sort of
connexion with him or with any other house, either here or abroad,
as to any dealings in, or in relation to, slaves or the slave trade.
Sworn by both the deponents, Pedro de
Zulueta the younger, and Edward Lawford,
at my Chambers, Rolls Garden, Chancery
Lane, this 8th day of September, 1843,
Before me,
T. Erskine. |
} |
Pedro de Zulueta, Junior.
Edward Lawford. |
Note.—The learned Judge, to whom the application was made for a Writ of
Certiorari, did not see fit to grant it.
Proceedings at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey,
before the Honourable Mr. Justice Erskine and the
Honourable Mr. Justice Cresswell.
(Thursday, 21st of September, 1843.)
Mr. Clarkson. My Lords, I consider it my duty to take the
earliest opportunity of bringing under your Lordships’ consideration
the case of the Queen v. Zulueta.
Mr. Payne. My Lords, Mr. Serjeant Bompas leads me for the
prosecution in this case: he is not here now, but will be here in a
moment.
Mr. Justice Erskine. This is an application only.
Mr. Clarkson. Yes, my Lord; I will give my learned friend every
advantage I can. We have given him a copy of our affidavit, in
answer to which an affidavit has been sworn, I understand the effect
of which is this, that Captain Hill—
Mr. Justice Erskine. What is the ground of your application?
Mr. Clarkson. The absence of material witnesses. I do not mean
to trouble your Lordships at any length. My application to your
Lordships is to postpone the trial of these indictments, upon the
ground of the absence of material witnesses from Spain, without
whose evidence the defendant cannot safely go to trial, and that
application is founded upon an affidavit, a copy of which has been
supplied to the gentleman on the other side some days ago. It was
supplied immediately upon the sitting of the Court. One of the
witnesses who had been sent for, and who was not expected to
arrive, having arrived within the last two days, and this indictment
having been preferred without any application being made to a
magistrate, or without any notice to the gentleman himself. My
learned friends have made an affidavit in reply; and in order to save
your Lordships hearing two speeches from me, it will be better for
your Lordships to hear what my learned friends have to say in opposition
to this application and then to hear me in reply.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. My learned friend seems to assume that
the trial will be put off as a matter of course.
Mr. Justice Erskine. He has stated the ground of his application,
namely, the absence of material and necessary witnesses, and he leaves
you to state his affidavit, and comment upon it as you please.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. My learned friend has not quite correctly
stated his affidavit when he says his application is founded upon the
absence of material witnesses.
Mr. Justice Erskine. The affidavit had better be read.
Mr. Justice Cresswell. Have you got a copy of it?
Mr. Payne. Yes, my Lord.
[A copy of the affidavit was handed to his Lordship.]
The affidavit was then read by the Clerk of the Arraigns as
follows:—
In the Central Criminal Court.
The Queen
v.
Pedro de Zulueta the younger, and others. |
} |
On Indictment
for Felony. |
The same
v.
The same |
} |
On Indictment for Misdemeanor. |
Pedro de Zulueta the younger, of No. 22, Moorgate Street, in
the City of London, merchant, and John Lawford, of Drapers Hall,
in the said city, gentleman, attorney to the said Pedro de Zulueta,
severally make oath and say,—And first, this deponent, Pedro de
Zulueta the younger, for himself saith, that the above mentioned
indictments are preferred against this deponent, and against one
Thomas Jennings, mariner, and one Thomas Bernardos, mariner, the
first mentioned of such indictments being for illegally and feloniously
manning, navigating, equipping, dispatching, using, and employing
a certain ship or vessel called the “Augusta,” in order to accomplish
a certain object, which in and by a certain Act of Parliament, made
and passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King
George the Fourth, intituled “An Act to amend and consolidate
the Laws relating to the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” was and is
declared unlawful; and the last mentioned of such indictments for
conspiring to do, &c. And this deponent saith, that he was taken
into custody on the 23rd day of August last in consequence of the
said indictments having been found against him. And this deponent
saith, that upon his being so taken into custody and brought to the
Central Criminal Court then sitting, the Recorder of London then
presiding as judge of the said Court, ordered that he this deponent
should be admitted to bail himself in 3,000l., with two sureties in
the sum of 1,000l. each, to take his trial upon the said indictments;
and that he thereupon pleaded “Not Guilty” to the said indictments,
and entered into the said recognizances. And this deponent
further saith, that when he was so taken into custody he was altogether
ignorant that any proceedings whatever had been or were about
to be taken against him in reference to the said ship, or to the
offence charged by the said indictments (there having been no previous
examination or inquiry before any magistrate in reference to
the said charges), and that he was then, as he is now, altogether
ignorant of the evidence upon which such indictments were found,
excepting that this deponent has been informed that the charges
contained in these indictments arise out of transactions in respect of
which this deponent was examined in the year 1842 before a Committee
of the Honourable the House of Commons. And this deponent
further saith, that Joseph Toplis, who was the managing clerk
of this deponent’s house of business at Liverpool at the time of the
transactions in question, was and is a most material witness for this
deponent, and most essential to enable this deponent to prepare his
defence to these indictments. And this deponent saith, that at the
time when these indictments were preferred the said Joseph Toplis
was at Gibraltar. And this deponent saith, that on Saturday the
26th day of August last, being the third day after the said indictments
were preferred, and being the first possible opportunity which
this deponent had of communicating with the said Joseph Toplis,
this deponent’s house of business wrote and sent a letter to him the
said Joseph Toplis, requiring him to repair to England immediately,
as well for the purpose of giving his evidence on the trial of these
indictments as in order that the said Joseph Toplis might enable this
deponent to procure such other necessary evidence for the defence of
this deponent, as the knowledge of the said Joseph Toplis in relation
to the transaction out of which these indictments arise might enable
him to obtain. And this deponent, John Lawford, for himself saith,
that in consequence of the absence of the said Joseph Toplis, and
in consequence of this deponent’s belief that the said Joseph Toplis
could not arrive in time to enable this deponent to prepare for the
trial of these indictments, this deponent, under the advice of counsel,
wrote and sent a letter to Sir George Stephen, the attorney for the
prosecution, in the words and figures following:—
The Queen v. Zulueta.
Dear Sir,
Drapers Hall, 11th September, 1843.
You will probably not be surprised to hear that it will require considerable
time to collect and prepare the materials for Mr. Zulueta’s defence,
and you will therefore be pleased to consider this as a notice of our intention
to apply to the Court for a postponement of the trial. We think it right thus
early to inform you of our intention, that neither you nor your witnesses may
be put to unnecessary expense or inconvenience, and we anticipate no objection
on your part to a proceeding so manifestly reasonable.
We are, dear Sir,
Your very obedient servants,
(signed)
Ed. Jno. & H. S. Lawford.
And this deponent saith, that in reply to such letter, this deponent
received a letter from the said Sir George Stephen, in the words and
figures following:—
The Queen, v. Zulueta.
Collins, 12th September, 1843.
Prince’s Risborough.
My dear Sirs,
Personally I should have no objection to deferring the trial, and so far as
your own convenience is involved in the delay, it would give me much pleasure
to consult it. But this is a case in which I feel restrained from exercising the
least discretion, and must therefore leave the matter to the decision of the
Court. My briefs are delivered, and, with one exception, my witnesses are
subpœnaed; but that exception is the most expensive, and therefore to save
you that expense, I will not subpœna him until Monday, if you will write me
word that you will consent to the trial being at all events deferred till Thursday.
I put it thus, because I apprehend that the Court will only accede to your application
on terms of your paying the costs of the day. Have the goodness to
address your answer to me here.
Yours very truly,
Messrs. Lawford, Drapers Hall.
George Stephen.
And this deponent, Pedro de Zulueta the younger, further saith
that the said Joseph Toplis, in consequence of the aforesaid requisition
on the part of this deponent, came away from Gibraltar forthwith,
and arrived in London on Sunday evening last, the 17th day
of September instant. And this deponent further saith, that it will
be absolutely necessary for the said Joseph Toplis to repair to Liverpool
for the purpose of procuring the attendance of divers persons
who are necessary witnesses on behalf of this deponent, who are not
known to this deponent, and whose names this deponent had not the
means of procuring until he had communicated with the said Joseph
Toplis. And this deponent saith, that by reason of the shortness of
the time since the arrival of the said Joseph Toplis, and the necessity
of his repairing to Liverpool and elsewhere, to seek for and procure the
necessary evidence in support of the defence of this deponent, it will
be impossible for this deponent to be prepared with such evidence in
time for the present session. And this deponent, John Lawford, for
himself saith, that he has been retained as the attorney of the said
defendant, and that he has diligently applied himself to the preparation
of the defendant’s case, and that he is advised by counsel, and
verily believes that it will be absolutely necessary for this deponent
to procure the attendance of the witnesses above referred to, and of
others who he is informed and believes are resident at Manchester,
Liverpool, and Glasgow, and also of some of the crew of the said ship
Augusta. And this deponent saith, that he has been informed and
believes that the defendant, Thomas Jennings, has been already tried
for this offence at Sierra Leone, and acquitted thereof. And this deponent
saith, that he has reason to believe that it may be necessary
to procure the attendance of witnesses from that settlement as well as
from Spain, and other distant places. And this deponent saith, that
by reason of the shortness of the time which has elapsed since the
said indictments were preferred, and by reason of the entire ignorance
of this deponent of the evidence against the defendant, Pedro de
Zulueta the younger, it has been utterly impossible for this deponent
to complete the preparations for the defence in time for the
present sessions. And this deponent further saith, that from the
time of the said bills being found to the present time this deponent
hath been in constant communication with the said other deponent
with a view to his defence, and that no time whatever has been lost
in preparing for such defence; but this deponent saith, that by the
reason of the circumstances hereinbefore stated this deponent hath
been wholly unable to prepare the brief for the defence.
Pedro de Zulueta.
John Lawford.
Sworn in Court, 19th September, 1843.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Your Lordships will probably wish to hear
the affidavit in answer, before I make any observations upon that
which has just been read.
Mr. Justice Cresswell. Have you a copy of it?
Mr. Payne. Yes, my Lord.
[A copy of the affidavit was handed to his Lordship.]
The affidavit was then read by the Clerk of the Arraigns as
follows:—
In the Central Criminal Court.
The Queen,
v.
Pedro de Zulueta, and others. |
} |
For Felony. |
The same,
v.
The same. |
} |
For Misdemeanor. |
Henry Worsley Hill, of Great Rider Street, in the parish of St.
James, Esquire, a Commander in Her Majesty’s Navy, and Sir
George Stephen, of King’s Arms Yard, in the city of London, the
solicitor for the prosecution, severally make oath and say,—And first,
the said Henry Worsley Hill for himself saith, that he is under orders
to proceed to the Gold Coast on the western coast of Africa, to assume
the government thereof with the least possible delay, and that
arrangements are now in progress for this deponent to depart by the
end of this present month. And this deponent also saith, that the
public service will sustain considerable inconvenience by any delay on
the part of this deponent in proceeding to Africa as aforesaid at the
time now appointed, and that he this deponent has no expectation or
hope of obtaining further leave of absence. And this deponent, Sir
George Stephen, for himself saith, that the said Henry Worsley Hill
is a most material witness on behalf of this prosecution, and that
without his evidence this deponent cannot safely proceed to trial;
and this deponent, Sir George Stephen, further saith, that he has
perused a copy of the affidavit of Pedro de Zulueta the younger, and
John Lawford, made in these matters, and that in consequence of the
misdirection of the same, as this deponent believes, he, this deponent,
did not receive a reply to his letter of the 12th of September, 1843,
set out in the said affidavit, and therefore proceeded in his preparations
for trial. And this deponent saith, that he is ready to proceed
to trial at the present session of this Court. And this deponent
further saith, that he has caused another witness in this matter to
come over from Paris, where such witness is permanently domiciled,
and that such last mentioned witness incurred much inconvenience
and expense in so coming, and that as he habitually resides out of
the jurisdiction this deponent has no means of compelling him to
appear again, should the trial of these indictments be deferred. And
this deponent saith, that the evidence of such last-mentioned witness is
most material. And this deponent further saith, that he has subpœnaed
three other witnesses to come to London from a great distance,
one of whom is a sailor, and another of whom is an officer of
rank in Her Majesty’s navy, and that the evidence of all the said
last mentioned witnesses is most material, and that the said indictments
cannot be safely tried in their absence, but that from the
nautical profession of two of them, this deponent believes it to be
very doubtful if he will again be able to compel their attendance.
And this deponent further saith, that he has also subpœnaed another
witness who habitually resides at Seville in Spain, and who is about
to return to Seville, as this deponent is informed and believes as soon
as the trial is over, and this deponent is informed and believes that
the evidence of such last mentioned witness is material. And deponent
saith, that he has no hope of again collecting together so many
important witnesses whose professional avocations necessarily render
their simultaneous presence in this country very uncertain. And
this deponent further saith, that the said defendant, Pedro de Zulueta
the younger, cannot have been taken by surprise by these indictments,
because the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, volunteered,
as this deponent is informed and believes, to be examined as a witness
before the Select Committee on the West Coast of Africa, and
was so examined on the 22nd and 23rd days of July, 1843, when the
nature of the case upon which this prosecution is founded was stated
to the Committee, and the said Pedro de Zulueta admitted that he
had received copies of the evidence given by Captain Hill on the 29th
of June, the 4th of July, and the 6th of July previously. And this
deponent saith, that the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, did upon
such examination admit that the house to which he belongs had been
charged with criminality, and with having for a length of time been
agents to slave dealers, and the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger
avowed his reason for wishing to be examined before the Committee
to be, that the statements contained in the said evidence were incorrect.
And this deponent lastly saith, that in another part of such examination,
the said Pedro de Zulueta the younger, in answer to the
question, “Is there any other part of the evidence which has been
given that you wish to observe upon?” after denying all knowledge
of a person of the name of Kidd, adds, “With regard to my
partners, I can say the same. I have been making inquiries about
it; my father knew there was such a man, but I did not know even
that, though I have managed all this business.”
H. W. Hill.
George Stephen.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. My learned friend, Mr. Clarkson, has
called upon me to make some observations upon this affidavit. I
should not in addressing your Lordships at all wish to object to the
postponement of this trial, if it could be considered even by the
defendant or his counsel more advantageous to him that it should be
postponed, could I consent to it without feeling that the trial could
not fairly take place at any other period. I cannot help thinking,
while your Lordship is looking at this affidavit, that it is one such as
has been rarely produced before a Court, in order to found an application
for the postponement of a trial. This indictment was preferred
above a month from this time; that is, four weeks from this time. It
is true, as has been stated, that no inquiry took place before a
magistrate, but when long before that period at which the inquiry
could have been instituted, if such had taken place, this matter had
been inquired into before a Committee of the House of Commons,
when Mr. Zulueta appeared before that Committee, and stated that
he had had the management of all the business, and appeared in order
to explain the transaction—
Mr. Clarkson. No.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. I will refer to the words of the affidavit.
Mr. Clarkson. I beg pardon.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. When it appears that that inquiry had
taken place before a Committee of the House of Commons, this proceeding
cannot have been instituted without ample notice of all that
is to be now inquired into, as far as any party, under the circumstances,
charged with felony, can be supposed to know the nature of
the evidence to be brought against him. And what is the foundation
of this application? Not that some material witness is absent—some
material witness whom they have subpœnaed, and whom they know
to be material, and whose attendance they cannot obtain; that is not
the foundation of the application. The ground of the application is,
that a person of the name of Toplis, who was managing clerk to Mr.
Zulueta, was absent at Gibraltar, at the time the indictment was
found. It is not even that he has not arrived: he arrived on Sunday
and is now able to give any evidence that the defendant may require.
It is said, that he is able to make communications in respect to the
evidence of persons, whose names were not known to the defendant
till he arrived, and upon whose absence the application was founded,
and that it is now requisite to send for some witnesses from Liverpool,
and I hardly know where. The affidavit is very singularly
sworn; and when my learned friend says, “from Spain,” and so on,
there is no such statement to be found in it. That which is stated
is, that it may be necessary to send for various witnesses, that it may
be necessary to procure the attendance of witnesses from the
settlement of Sierra Leone, as well as from Spain. My learned
friend, in citing it, said, that they were to obtain witnesses
“from Spain.” The affidavit is, that it may be necessary to
have witnesses from Spain—that it may be necessary to have
witnesses from Africa, so that there is no statement whatever
that there is any witness in Spain who would be wanted or can be
expected, or that there is any witness in Africa who will be wanted
or who is expected; there is no such statement at all. The statement
is, “That it will be absolutely necessary for the said Joseph
Toplis to repair to Liverpool for the purpose of procuring the attendance
of divers persons, who are necessary witnesses on behalf of this
deponent, who are not known to this deponent, and whose names
this deponent had not the means of procuring until he had communicated
with the said Joseph Toplis.” Certainly that is a statement
of a very extraordinary kind: no doubt it was put into the affidavit,
believing it to be true, but the statement made by Mr. Zulueta
before the Committee of the House of Commons was, that he had had
the management of the whole of the business; and to suppose
that there is a witness in Spain, that there is a witness in
Gibraltar, Mr. Toplis, and that they can make no inquiry as to the
names of the individuals till he comes over, is the most extraordinary
statement ever laid before a Court. As far as this affidavit goes, it
does not appear that they have taken the slightest steps in order to
ascertain by any inquiry as to any witnesses or any transactions; but
Mr. Toplis is to go to Liverpool to hunt out for witnesses. Who
they are does not appear: not any persons who are certain to be
witnesses, but that he is to go to Liverpool to hunt out for witnesses
who may be—
Mr. Justice Cresswell. And whose names the deponent could not
procure till Mr. Toplis came.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. “And whose names this deponent had
not the means of procuring until he had communicated with the
said Joseph Toplis.” He could hot tell certainly who Joseph Toplis
would require till he had communicated with him; but that he could
not have ascertained whether any witnesses were necessary for his
defence would not appear satisfactorily to your Lordships. It is a case
that will require examination by the Court, in order to do that which
would be the object of the Court, to have the case most fairly and
properly inquired into. Your Lordships see of necessity that the
witnesses for the prosecution are witnesses in a situation not easy to
be obtained upon any future occasion. There is one who is under
orders to proceed abroad in order to take the government of the
Gold Coast: there are others who are officers in the navy.
Mr. Justice Erskine. What was the date of the inquiry before
the House of Commons?
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. 1842, my Lord.
Mr. Justice Erskine. Your affidavit states 1843.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. It is a mistake, my Lord. It should be 1842.
Mr. Justice Erskine. Subsequently to that inquiry was any notice
given to the defendant that it would be made the subject of a prosecution?
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. No notice, my Lord, till the bill was found.
Mr. Justice Erskine. What was the date of the transaction to
which the indictment refers?
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. There was then an appeal pending before
the Privy Council.
Mr. Justice Erskine. What was the date of the transaction to
which the indictment refers? I want the date of the occurrence.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. 1840; the end of 1840 and the beginning
of 1841. The capture of the vessel, to which reference was made,
was in February, 1841. She left England on the 9th of November,
1840. She was captured: there was a proceeding in the court
abroad; she was condemned, and there was an appeal before the
Privy Council.
Mr. Justice Cresswell. The ship sailed from Liverpool?
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Yes, my Lord.
Mr. Justice Erskine. With a cargo of some sort. One question
will be, whether it was a cargo adapted to the trade upon the African
coast, or for dealing in slaves.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. No doubt.
Mr. Justice Erskine. Was Mr. Toplis the managing clerk at
Liverpool?
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. Yes, my Lord. It is stated that he was the
managing clerk at Liverpool; but to suppose that the shipment of
any firm at Liverpool to say that they can obtain no evidence of that
shipment except by a managing clerk, is such a statement as can
hardly be credited of any merchant. That is the statement; but
they do not state any circumstances to explain it. That it is necessary
to have his managing clerk to state the names of the parties
concerned in the shipment, it is one of the most extraordinary statements
ever made. Upon this statement your Lordships will have to
consider the foundation of the application, and your Lordships will
take into view all the circumstances of it. This case is to be proved,
as it must necessarily be, by various officers in the navy besides Captain
Hill, who is about to go out as governor of the Gold Coast; by
officers in the navy, and sailors, and foreigners, now here ready to
give their testimony.
Now, my Lord, there is one circumstance singularly deficient in
this case, and without which there has never been a case in which
the trial of any cause has been put off. The affidavit does not give
the slightest suggestion when they are likely to be ready to take their
trial; so that it is utterly impossible that the trial can be available, if
they are to come when the witnesses for the prosecution may be scattered
over the whole world: the prosecution may be gone through, but it
would be a mere formal statement. I am willing to give due weight
to every argument on behalf of a person charged with an offence, in
order that the charge may be fairly and properly tried in respect to
him; but at the same time there are duties on behalf of the prosecution.
The crime cannot be inquired into unless there are the means
to procure the evidence. If these witnesses are here, and this party
has not taken the means which he might have done to have the trial
now take place, and if he does not give us the slightest information
when it is to be tried; if a person charged with an offence is to choose
the time for trying it, every trial of this kind would be an utter abortion,
because unless the witnesses for the prosecution are here it is
impossible there can be a fair trial.
Now there is not a statement, there is no pretence, why the witnesses
for the defendant could not have been here at the present
time. To say that there were no means of knowing the general
nature of the charge, and knowing the whole substance of the
defence, and having the whole matter fairly considered and put into
form before the Court, is what you cannot believe. Your Lordships
cannot believe, that though Mr. Toplis may have been an important
witness, that the general subject of the charge inquired into was not
generally known, and that all the witnesses for the defence, such
witnesses as were thought necessary, must not have been generally
known to the defendant. There may have been a witness whose name
was known only to Mr. Toplis; there may have been one or more,
but it is impossible that the case might not have been got up with
the exception of Mr. Toplis’s evidence, and might have been ready
for trial on this day. But if they have utterly neglected to take any
step till last Sunday, the time as I understand it, they have no right
to come now and ask your Lordships to put off the trial. There is
no statement of any sort or kind of any individual witness necessary,
except those suggested to be at Liverpool. Mr. Toplis could not
know the witnesses abroad more than any other gentleman. Suppose
there are witnesses abroad—have there been any, the slightest
step taken to bring them here? What steps have been taken? He
says there are witnesses from Africa: when are they to be here?
when will they come? when is the trial to take place? There is not
a single intimation of the time when they will be ready to take their
trial. It is to be put off till the witnesses for the prosecution are
scattered, and it is impossible to have the trial. Undoubtedly it is
difficult to have a number of witnesses of this description ready
before the Court, and to get their testimony together. But what do
they say? They say that it may be necessary to get some of the
sailors of the Augusta. Was Mr. Toplis necessary for that? Why
have they not taken any step to get the evidence of those witnesses?
They do not appear to have taken any one step to be prepared for
this trial, although then knowing that it was a matter of difficulty to
collect a number of witnesses like these. If it is to be held that
they can at their discretion from time to time put off the case, it is a
mere abortion to attempt to prosecute any person, however guilty, in
the situation of Mr. Zulueta. However important it is for the
defendant—and I would not wish to withhold that from the consideration
of your Lordships—it is equally important for the public
good, and as well worthy of your consideration. It would be with
the utmost difficulty, if there is any probability of doing it at all,
that the witnesses could be got together again. If they had taken
every step, and gone down to inquire at Liverpool, and proceeded as
far as they could and had the means in their power, and yet could
not be ready, that would be some ground for the application; but
they do not appear to have taken any step—they appear to have
relied upon putting off the trial, considering that that would be as
good a protection as any witnesses could possibly give them.
I certainly do feel that there is a ground of opposition to this
application which has never failed when there is no suggestion at
all in the affidavit of what time they expect to be ready for trial. I
believe there has never been a case in which a party has not given
the Court some reason to believe that, if the trial is put off, they will
be ready to try at a given time: on the contrary, here it is put as if
it was quite loose—there may be some witnesses from Spain and
Africa, though they have had a month during which they might
have made inquiries.
I have thought it right to submit these observations to your Lordships,
both for the sake of the prosecution and the defendant. If
the prosecution is well founded, it is of the utmost importance that
it should proceed; on the other hand, it is no doubt of importance
that the other side should have an opportunity of bringing the case
before the Court in all the views of which the case is capable: but
the case is one in which your Lordships must see the great inconvenience
to the prosecutors, and the difficulty of getting the witnesses
together, and I trust your Lordships will feel that it is one
which ought not to be adjourned; but if it be adjourned, it must be
to some fixed time at which it must be understood that the case will
come on.
Mr. Payne. My Lords, I will add but two or three words to what
Mr. Serjeant Bompas has already addressed to your Lordships. I
must say that I never in the course of my experience met with a
paragraph in an affidavit to postpone a trial similar to the first paragraph
in this affidavit; it is merely this, “That it will be absolutely
necessary for Joseph Toplis to repair to Liverpool for the purpose of
procuring the attendance of divers persons who are necessary witnesses
on behalf of this deponent, who are not known to this
deponent, and whose names this deponent had not the means of procuring
until he had communicated with the said Joseph Toplis.”
Now it is generally required, in affidavits of this description, that if
you do know the names of the witnesses, and where they are to come
from, that you should state them to the Court, that the opposite side
may be in possession bonâ fide of the nature of the defence. If
Mr. Zulueta had sworn that he did not now know the names of the
witnesses, there would be some reason for not putting in the names;
but he does not say that—he says he did not know them till
Mr. Toplis came. Mr. Toplis came last Sunday night: he could
furnish the names; and if he had put the names of the witnesses and
the places they were to come from in the affidavit, instead of “divers
witnesses,” it might be in the usual form upon which the Court may
sometimes postpone a trial. I say that that expression is not sufficient.
I say that the Court are entitled to have information of the
names of the persons necessary as witnesses, in order to bring the
case within the ordinary rule.
Then, my Lords, the only other part of the affidavit which has not
been noticed by my learned friend, and which may be touched upon
on the opposite side, is the affidavit of the attorney that he has not
been able to prepare the briefs. Mr. Zulueta having stated that he
was the person who managed all this business, he must have possessed
information sufficient to enable the attorney in four weeks to
prepare the briefs; and if he has not furnished that information, it
is owing to neglect on the part of Mr. Zulueta. Their affidavit is
loose and defective—ours is precise. We say we do not think we
can get Captain Hill again: he states, that he is under orders to sail.
Under these circumstances, we must bow to what the Court think
right to decide; but we consider that a case has not been made out
to justify the Court in granting this application.
Mr. Clarkson. My Lords, in answer—
Mr. Justice Erskine. You cannot ask for any further postponement
beyond the next sessions.
Mr. Clarkson. I did not think that your Lordships would assume
jurisdiction to postpone it beyond that.
Mr. Justice Erskine. We cannot listen to that part of the application
with respect to the witnesses from Spain or Sierra Leone; they
are not stated with sufficient accuracy.
Mr. Clarkson. I quite feel that, my Lord; I only wish to say this,
that if my learned friend comes here to ask for the costs of the day,
or for what my learned friend calls terms—
Mr. Justice Erskine. That is not necessary.
Mr. Clarkson. There is some mistake about it; such a thing was
never heard of here: but there is this observation to be made in
answer to the greater part of what my learned friends have said—for
twelve months and more have these parties who are prosecuting been
taking steps, and yet to this hour nobody knows who they are, no
name has been furnished: for twelve months have they been about
that which they now call upon a respectable merchant of London to
meet in a month; and two or three years have elapsed since the
vessel was condemned.
Mr. Justice Erskine. It is the duty of the Court to take care that
the ends of justice shall not be defeated by too easily yielding to
applications of this nature; but it is equally the duty of the Court to
take care that a man charged with a felony shall not be brought to
his trial until, he is able to present such an answer as the circumstances
of the case will admit of.
It appears that the offence with which the defendant is charged
is alleged to have been committed in 1840. The grounds for charging
Mr. Zulueta with participation in that offence may have originated
in the examinations before the Committee of the House of
Commons in 1842. If it did then originate, the parties who conduct
this prosecution must have known what the foundation of that accusation
was, and if they intended to charge Mr. Zulueta with that
offence, and particularly if they meant to support it upon the testimony
of witnesses who might be absent at a future time, they ought
to have taken steps by which to have secured the attendance of the
defendant, and have taken him before a magistrate, and examined
the witnesses there. But it appears, though this examination took
place in 1842, no steps are taken in the prosecution till August 1843,
and that is just upon the eve of the departure of one of the witnesses,
from which circumstance the Crown, it is said, cannot avail itself of
his presence, because he is going upon a public mission to some
other part of the world. This is a prosecution of a singular character,
and the Crown will take care that the ends of justice are not defeated
by their sending away an officer whose testimony is necessary for
the establishment of such a charge. I do not believe there is any
risk of the ends of justice being defeated by his absence.
Then is it fair to call upon the defendant now to present himself
to the Court? It appears that a person of the name of Toplis had
the management of this business at Liverpool, where the circumstances
are said to have originated which form the foundation of this
charge; he is abroad, and from the year 1842 no notice is given.
Mr. Serjeant Bompas. The Privy Council did not decide.
Mr. Justice Cresswell. We have nothing to do with the Privy
Council.
Mr. Clarkson. There is no decision by any body. It is no prosecution
by the Crown.
Mr. Justice Erskine. I was not saying any thing imputing improper
motives to the prosecutors, but stating facts, that no notice
had been given to the defendant. If, in the year 1842, any notice
had been given to Mr. Zulueta that this prosecution was to be instituted,
then if he had sent Mr. Toplis abroad, he would have no
right to avail himself of that circumstance; but in the absence of any
notice of that sort, he had a right to assume that the evidence before
the House of Commons was satisfactory, and that there was no
ground to institute a prosecution, and he might then fairly send his
clerk abroad. Then it appears, that, having been sent abroad, immediately
the prosecution was instituted a letter was sent to him, in
consequence of which he returned to this country: he only arrived
on Sunday last; and it is impossible, from the state of the facts, that
Mr. Zulueta could be in a state to prepare the requisite instructions
for counsel, and get those witnesses necessary to enable him to proceed
with his defence. We therefore think that this trial should be
postponed till the next sessions. We do not yield to the necessity
suggested of sending to Spain or Sierra Leone; there is no sufficient
ground for that laid in the affidavit.
Mr. Clarkson. The form will be, that your Lordships will be
pleased to respite the recognizances of Mr. Zulueta and his bail to
the next sessions.
Mr. Justice Erskine. Yes.
(The recognizances were enlarged, and the parties left the Court.)
