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.