Part 33
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.
[10] On this point, however, we beg to refer to the important evidence of Capt. Denman, who thinks that on account of the peculiar character of the Kroomen, emigration, with common precaution, might be conducted from their coast without risk of abuse. _See_ Q. 6995, _et preced._
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.
[11] To prove that this expectation is not altogether even now unsupported by facts, we beg to quote a passage from a letter in the Appendix, from Messrs. Anderson & Co.: “Demerara, 30 April, 1842. The Superior is off to day for Sierra Leone; 68 people have gone in her, including children, and with the exception of three or four, who are old soldiers, the whole of them are people who came seven or eight years ago from the Bahamas, (liberated Africans?) and they return to their native country with a good deal of money; three of them have not less than 5,000 dollars each.”
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.
[12] As an instance of the injustice of this system, we beg to refer to a case cited by Captain Denman (Q. 7099), in which it appears that the capture of two vessels, of the aggregate capacity of 80 tons, which would have held 700 slaves, was remunerated with no more than 576_l._, because they were empty; while that of a single vessel, of little more than half that tonnage, brought in 1,654_l._, because she was full. Thus the least laborious and dangerous, as well as the least effective service, receives the highest reward.
[13] Perhaps one or two vessels might have this specific duty assigned to them, apart from the general operations of the Cruizers connected with the Slave Trade.
IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. REGINA _v._ ZULUETA.
_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.
PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST PEDRO DE ZULUETA, JUN., ESQ.
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.