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.