Part 23
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.
_Veneris, 24º die Junii, 1842._
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.