Part 43

Gentlemen, I have read to you, I believe, every word of the statement of Mr. Zulueta which is material to the question. I wished to read it, because I wish that there should not be the slightest possible ground for stating that I conceal any thing which he had stated in his own favour. You are perfectly aware, that where you put in the statement of any person against him, you take it all; you examine into the truth of that which is said in his own favour, and the truth of that which makes against him; you examine the correctness or incorrectness of the whole from this. It will be for you to say, how far you are satisfied that he had the means of knowing, and did know, that Pedro Martinez was a slave trader, dealing in slaves at the Gallinas. If you gather from this that he knew it, then the next question you will have to decide will be,--Was this vessel going to the Gallinas for the purpose of supplying the dealers with goods, the materials for carrying on their business, and the materials for the use of the slaves while in that situation? for there is no doubt that that will be an offence within this Act of Parliament. You are to say, whether he did know it or not. The goods sent were partly iron pots used for boiling their rice while in barracoons. Then there are other goods fit for barter with reference to the exchange of slaves, that being, as far as any evidence can be laid before you, the only trade carried on at that place: you will say, whether they were intended to be used for that trade. The question is, Do you know of any other trade in the Gallinas but the slave trade? The prisoner did not know of any other trade; he did not pretend to know of any other. Gentlemen, undoubtedly you cannot look into the mind of any one; you must judge from the facts; and therefore one material question you will have to decide is, Was this trade carried on in the way in which a person would carry on a trade who knew it to be of such a nature--was it carried on _bonâ fide_, or with a most careful concealment of the name of Zulueta throughout the whole of this transaction? If you find there was concealment, you must undoubtedly, as far as you are able, ascertain whether there was a guilty knowledge. If a prisoner had been charged with receiving goods knowing them to be stolen, and it appeared that he had concealed them in the way in which an honest man would not, that is evidence; so if you are satisfied there was a course of concealment, and that the name of Jennings, the man who knew of the affair, was used to cover these goods, they being shipped in the name of Jennings; if you consider that in the fair ordinary course of trade that would be evidence of fraud, then you will consider whether that is not proof that they were sent for the purpose of slave trading. That is the question to which you must turn your attention. I will lay the evidence before you: I have opened a part of the evidence, it will be a question whether any more will be laid before you; if no more is laid before you, you must take the evidence which will be before you, and consider whether the goods being sent to these persons engaged in the slave trade, with the concealment, is not evidence of the intention of sending them. If the other evidence is laid before you, you will take the whole, under the direction of the learned Judge, into your consideration.

Gentlemen, there is one observation I ought to make before I close. My learned friend has thrown out the question, Who is the prosecutor in this case? It is quite immaterial, in point of law, who is the prosecutor; the question is, What is the evidence against the defendant? But you will not for a moment understand that the prosecutor wishes to conceal himself or his name. The name of the prosecutor is the attorney in the case, Sir George Stephen; he is the son of a gentleman whose name has been known as long as any attempt has existed in this country, as one deeply interested in the attempt to overthrow the slave trade, and cause its suppression; and he is the nephew of a man to whom undoubtedly I should say is due very great praise, it would be hardly too much to say the greatest praise, in removing the stain which rested upon this country--I mean Mr. Wilberforce. Sir George Stephen has no fear or apprehension upon the subject; he has felt it to be necessary and proper in his judgment, and the judgment of those with whom he is connected and with whom he has acted, that some person should stand forward to bear all the responsibility which rested upon any individual in bringing a case of this kind before you for your consideration. He has no objection to bear that responsibility; he has performed his duty in this respect. But that is quite immaterial to the question in this case, which is simply this,--Is the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty of that with which he is charged in this indictment? And I mention the name of Sir George Stephen, because he does not wish to shrink from the responsibility which rests upon him. You will attend only to the evidence, and upon the evidence you will give your verdict of guilty or not guilty. I am sure, if the prisoner is innocent, you will give that verdict with great satisfaction; but if he is guilty, you will not shrink from that important duty which rests upon you in giving a verdict--a verdict of the utmost importance to those human beings for whose protection you are now sitting. If he is innocent, no feeling of that description will influence you in giving a feather’s weight to the prosecution; on the other hand, if you feel that he is guilty, you will not shrink from saying so by your verdict.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.

Captain _Henry Worsley Hill_, R.N. sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_.

_Q._ You were formerly the commander of a ship called the Saracen?--_A._ Yes, I commanded her on the coast of Africa.

From what time to what time? Did you command the Saracen on the 1st of October, 1837?--I commanded her from October, 1837, to June, 1841.

What was the general nature of the service you were engaged upon?--The protection of British commerce, and the prevention of the slave trade.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. What was the Saracen?--She was a man-of-war, a brig.

A king’s ship?--Yes.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you become acquainted in the course of that service with the river Gallinas?--Yes.

How far is the river Gallinas from Sierra Leone?--For large vessels navigating it is necessary to go round a large tract of shoals, which makes it 150 or 200 miles; but there is a nearer navigation for smaller ships and boats. It depends so much upon the draught of water of the vessel you are navigating.

Is there any town on the river Gallinas?--On the river Gallinas there are several small towns.

What is the nature of the population there?--The population of the Gallinas consists of the inhabitants, negroes, they are all blacks; and the European population are chiefly Spaniards.

Mr. _Kelly_. The European population is principally Spaniards?--Yes, chiefly so.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. At the time you first became acquainted with the river Gallinas, were there any barracoons there?--Yes.

How many barracoons were there?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. When was this he is now speaking of?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. When was it?--The river Gallinas was part of my station in December, 1838; in fact, it was upon my station from December, 1838, till May, 1841; and I was constantly at Gallinas during that period.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. When were you first at Gallinas?--I called there before that in 1837, but I did not land there.

Did you see if there were any barracoons there then?--I did not land there. I know there were barracoons from hearsay; and I know the slave trade was extensively carried on.

Mr. _Kelly_. Do not tell us any thing you know from hearsay.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. You did afterwards land there, and became acquainted with the establishments there?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Is it merely to ascertain the fact of the existence of barracoons there?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. No; they are destroyed now. They were destroyed by Captain Denman?--It was in consequence of arrangements made by Captain Denman. I was there when they were destroyed. I was there, and saw the whole slave establishments; there were six or seven of them.

When you first knew the Gallinas, were there slave establishments there?--I was merely cruizing off there to prevent the slave trade. The slave vessels took their cargoes from there, as I have every reason to believe.

Mr. _Kelly_. Have the kindness to confine yourself to what you know.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You have been ashore there?--Yes.

What did you see there?--The first time I was on shore there and saw the barracoons was in November, 1840--

Mr. _Kelly_. There is no doubt of the fact of barracoons being there, and that they were destroyed.

--I was cruizing off there for two years for the purpose of preventing the slave trade; but I did not land to see them till 1840, and that was in November.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. At that time how many slave establishments were there at the Gallinas?--

Mr. _Kelly_. Do you know it of your own knowledge? Let Captain Hill distinguish between what he saw and knows to be the fact, and what he has heard.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Barracoons seem now to be changed into slave establishments. Do you make any point of that?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, my Lord, I do not; it means the same thing.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Are these barracoons for the slaves?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Are the barracoons used for the purpose of warehousing the slaves?--They are for confining the slaves before they are exported.

Is this a plan made by yourself? (_handing a paper to the Witness_.)--Yes, it is made from my recollection of the river; it has never been surveyed. I made it from my recollection of the spot.

Does it give a representation of the river Gallinas and the barracoons upon it?--Yes it does, to the best of my ability. Those places which are marked black are where the barracoons were, which were destroyed in consequence of Captain Denman and myself going into them and giving directions for that purpose.

It represents them as they were before they were destroyed?--Yes.

Just mention them one after the other, and whose they were.

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not know how my learned friend intends to show that this is evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. That will be for your cross-examination.

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not wish to charge my Lord’s notes with a quantity of matter that is not evidence. How can this gentleman tell these were the properties of particular parties? How can he say, upon his oath, that these are the properties of particular parties?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Do you know who the parties were who were the owners of these barracoons?--The first place we landed at was Angeline’s, called Dombocoro; to the best of my belief it was his. I may go into a house and not know who is the owner; but that it was Angeline’s I understood from himself.

Mr. _Kelly_. This I must object to. If my learned friend thinks it necessary to address any question to Captain Hill as to facts that took place, from which your Lordship or the Jury may infer that any particular individual was the owner of any particular place or places, I cannot object to it; but when it is sought to be given in evidence against Mr. Zulueta, who was never at the place in his life, and never saw any of the parties, and something is to be built upon the reputation that existed as to the property of these individuals, I submit to your Lordships that direct evidence should be given of the fact; and I must object to the question, what was generally understood as to the ownership of these barracoons. Any thing he saw, from which an inference may fairly be drawn, I cannot object to; but I do object to any thing he prefaces, by saying, “I understood so and so.”

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. The mode of ascertaining who is the owner of any establishment, is by going there and seeing who is taken to be the owner.

Mr. Justice _Wightman_. I understood that Captain Hill had gone in there and seen some person there?--No; I learned at Dombocoro.

Mr. _Kelly_. That is not evidence.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. If you wish to show that A. B. is the owner of any house, you must show it by specific evidence; but there is no point here as to parties being the owners. One is called Señor Antonio’s, and another by another name. I do not see why any dispute should be made about it. If you wish to charge the prisoner with the specific fact of a particular party being the owner of a building or piece of ground, it must be proved by legitimate evidence.

Mr. _Kelly_. I wish to deal fairly by my learned friend, and to save time, which is the object of us all. My learned friend, in his opening speech, stated that certain parties were notorious slave dealers: now what may be notorious to any gentleman who hears all the tittle-tattle that may be spoken at the place is one thing, but what was known to the prisoner is another thing. The notoriety there is not evidence against the prisoner. The question will arise, if the fact is proved, whether it was known to Mr. Zulueta in this country? Let us have the fact there, and not what was known there?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. How many barracoons were there at this time?--I had better explain that the barracoons are extensive buildings of themselves; and the buildings, necessary for the parties to live in to attend upon the slaves, are numerous. At Dombocoro there may be fifty or sixty houses, storehouses, and places for the people to live in who look after the slaves. Tiendo covers a very large space of ground.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I may take it that each barracoon is a slave building, and that there are storehouses for stores?--Yes; the barracoons themselves are like large barns to keep the slaves in, and they contain five or six hundred slaves sometimes.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Are there any other buildings but the barracoons and the houses for the attendants?--At Dombocoro there are none other. At Tiendo there is a town just adjoining it: the slave establishment is towards the point. At Jaiera I saw nothing but the slave establishments. At Carmatiendo there is a large slave establishment, and the reputed owner is--

Mr. _Kelly_. Never mind the reputed owner.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Any body might prove that an island was called Juan Fernandez without proving that he was seized of it in fee.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Is there any thing but a slave establishment there?--No, I saw nothing else: and the same at Camasuro; and I saw the same at Paisley: and at one or two of the islands there were some small slave establishments likewise.

Do you know of any other trade or commerce which is carried on there but the slave trade?--None other; and I think I was in the whole of the slave establishments I have mentioned. I went over the whole of them before they were destroyed, and saw no signs of any trade but the slave trade.

Having been cruizing off there for some years, should you have known it if there had been any other commerce carried on but the slave trade?--

Mr. _Kelly_. I object to that question, it is asking the witness to come to a conclusion, from being on the coast of Africa, that he had become acquainted with the whole of the commerce. I am quite sure that the last answer of the witness cannot be correct.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. I submit to your Lordships that my learned friend cannot be correct in stating that the witness is not correct.

Mr. _Kelly_. I will prove it.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I have taken down the substance of what he has been saying, and it is this: He mentions five or six places where there are barracoons with the appurtenances; and “except at one or two, where native towns are near, I saw no sign of any other trade but the slave trade.” You were cruizing off there to watch the trade?--Yes.

Did you know of any trade but the slave trade?--No, the native king told me there was no other.

Mr. _Clarkson_. Never mind what the native king told you.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. We cannot even take the word of a king, so extreme is our repugnance to hearsay evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Do you know a merchant there of the name of Ignatio Rolo?--He was on board the Saracen for some two or three days. Captain Denman had taken a slave vessel--

Do you know of your own knowledge what his occupation was there?--I never saw him buy a slave, nor did I see him sell one; but as far as knowing the course of trade, I should say he was a slave dealer, and solely and only a slave dealer; but I never saw him buy one. Jaiera was his slave establishment, and there was no sign of any thing but the slave trade.

And there he resided himself?--I never saw him there. I understood from him that he did: in the first instance he denied it.

Mr. _Kelly_. Do not tell us what he denied. I must once for all take his Lordship’s opinion whether this course of evidence can be persisted in. I am extremely sorry to consume time, but it is essentially necessary for the interests of justice that the prisoner should be protected from answers of this kind. It seems that Captain Hill thinks it his duty, instead of answering the question put to him, to state any thing that occurs to his own mind.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I cannot say that he seems to give answers quite connected with the subject; but he is not so well acquainted with what we exclude in evidence as you are.

Mr. _Kelly_. I only wish once for all, if he would be good enough to understand, that he is not to repeat what he heard; what he saw no one can object to; what conversations he had with other people can form no ground of charge against a party not upon the spot. --I was speaking of a conversation I had with Ignatio Rolo himself, he acknowledged to me he lived there.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. We cannot admit that.

Mr. _Kelly_. I am not blaming Captain Hill, but I am only reminding him of his duty as a witness not to repeat whatever he heard.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. He has not stated whatever he learnt from any party: if you push that to the extreme point, how is a witness to be allowed to say that he was examined in Court by Mr. Kelly?

Mr. _Kelly_. I do not push it to that extent.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Did you see Ignatio Rolo in any occupation--No; the way I saw him was this, Captain Denman had seized a slave vessel, and he had sent it up in charge of a prize officer and crew.

Mr. _Kelly_. If I cannot induce Captain Hill to confine himself merely to answering the questions, I must object. It is singular that when your Lordship puts a question, and Captain Hill has answered it, he goes on to enter into a story about Captain Denman and a slave vessel. I object to that; we cannot go into evidence of what Captain Denman had done about a slave vessel; all he knows is mere rumour.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. When was it you first saw Ignatio Rolo?--I myself landed there in the month of November, a day or two previous to our going into the river Gallinas, in order to make some arrangements with the chiefs, owing to the interruption that had been offered to us.

Was there any establishment there called by his name?--None; but Jaiera was the name of the establishment.

Did you ever see him there?--No.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You saw him somewhere?--Yes, he came on board a slave vessel, and was there detained by the prize officer.

What is Ignatio Rolo?--To the best of my belief he is a Spaniard; an European, to the best of my knowledge. I never saw him in Spain.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Do you know a person named Don José Alvarez there?--I was not personally acquainted with him; I only knew him by name.

Did you know a merchant named Don Ximenes?--I saw him at Sierra Leone; and I learnt from him--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Are you going to prove that the river Gallinas was a slave trading place?

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Yes, my Lord.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. There is enough evidence of that.

_Foreman of the Jury._ We are quite satisfied of that.

Mr. _Kelly_. There is no doubt that where there are barracoons, there is slave dealing; but whether these individuals were slave dealers I do not know. Let that be proved in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you fall in at any time with a vessel called the Golupchik?--Yes.

When was that?--I fell in with her several times, and chased her; and ultimately captured her in April 1839.

Under what colours was the Golupchik then sailing?--Russian.

Who was it had the command of her?--It was Thomas Bernardos.

Of what nation was the crew composed?--They were Spaniards principally; there might be a few Portuguese.

Was there any thing in the fitting up of that vessel, which enabled you to judge in what trade she was engaged?--She was fitted up for the slave trade.

Have you any doubt of it?--No.

What was the nature of the fittings up?--I have the report of the Mixed Commission Court, which would be the best evidence.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, it would not.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. What were the fittings up, which to your eyes indicated her as a slave vessel?--She had more water-casks than are necessary for an ordinary trading vessel.

What is the size of them?--They are large vessels; they are called leagers.

They are called leagers?--Yes; but any vessel may have a leager; but she had a larger quantity than any ordinary merchant vessel, and that is one of the articles prohibited to be used by our treaties with foreign powers.

What else did you observe?--She had a sliding caboose to hold a very large copper; that is another of the prohibited articles. She had also gratings covered over with temporary planks; and a few other trifling things, quite sufficient, according to our treaties with foreign powers, to authorise me to seize her as a vessel fully equipped for the slave trade, had she been under the Spanish flag. I seized her, believing her to be a Spanish vessel, though under the Russian flag.

The crew were principally Spaniards?--Yes; and it did not appear that she had been in a Russian port for two years.

What did you do with the vessel?--I sent her to Sierra Leone, and tried to prosecute her in the Mixed Commission Court as a Spanish vessel; but she was not received into that Court, being under the Russian flag, and with Russian papers. I afterwards determined to send her to England, that the Court of Admiralty might dispose of her, as I felt satisfied she could not be a Russian vessel.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You sent her to England to be condemned?--Yes, and before that I obtained from Bernardos--

Mr. _Kelly_. You are not asked what you obtained from Bernardos.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did Bernardos go in her?--Yes. I tried her a second time in the Mixed Commission Court.

We cannot enter into that. Did you afterwards see the same vessel again under another name?--Yes.

When was that?--In February 1841.

Where was she at the time?--Close to the Gallinas; at anchor at Gallinas: she anchored as I went on board.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Under what name?--The Augusta; and under the English flag.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Are you quite certain it was the same vessel you had captured before?--Yes, quite certain.

Who did you find in command of the vessel at that time?--A man of the name of Jennings.

In consequence of any suspicions you entertained, did you make application to him for the ship’s papers?--I asked for the ship’s papers directly I went on board--

Mr. _Kelly_. I must object to any thing that passed between the witness and Captain Jennings; the fact I do not object to.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You do not object to the fact of his asking for and getting the papers?

Mr. _Kelly_. No; but it must be the fact alone. I never interpose when the Captain states facts.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. Did you ask for the ship’s papers?--