Chapter XX: Part 20

Gentlemen, no doubt this is most important, and if this had been--it is for you to say whether it was--but if it had been a legal trade, would it not have appeared in the ship’s papers that this had been shipped by Messrs. Zulueta the charterers, and consigned to Mr. Martinez? In all this statement it is said, that it is beyond all question that this was not a transaction which ought to be concealed, for that their name would not have appeared in the cockets, the bill of lading, and every thing connected with it. Now, the fact is, that their name does not appear, for it only appears as shipped by Thomas Jennings. Now, Thomas Jennings is the captain; he makes a contract with Zulueta; he is not the person who ships the things; but in all the ship’s papers, and every thing connected with them, it all appears as shipped by Jennings, and their name is not introduced from beginning to end. “Is not there a document, officially published daily in London and at Liverpool, stating the daily entries at the Custom-house of all goods shipped, with the description of the goods, and the name of the port and of the shipper?--Yes, there is.” I am not aware of any such; but there is none with Mr. Zulueta’s name as the shipper on this vessel. “Is not this printed from time to time in the public papers?--It is in general circulation; there is hardly any merchant in Liverpool or in London who is not possessed of one. The Liverpool entries are reprinted in London, Liverpool being such an important place of business. The bill printed in London contains also Liverpool, Hull, and Bristol.” “So that every such transaction is perfectly notorious to every one?--Notorious to every one who chooses to read the public papers. There is another thing which escaped me till I came into the room this morning. As I have been in the business from my childhood, I know every thing that is going on an it. The Arrogante, after we sold her at the Havannah, was sent to Vera Cruz with a cargo of Spanish paper, spirits, raisins, &c., such as is sent for the South American trade, for the purpose of breaking the blockade of Vera Cruz, which she did break and went in. It was asked in Question 7147, whether the Augusta was equipped for the slave trade the second time; the answer was, ‘She was not.’ I wish to state, that before any goods were put on board of her, it was our express wish and order that every thing in her that was fit for that trade should be taken down, and the vessel put in the same condition as any other merchant vessel; and we should not have loaded any thing in her if that had not been done.” Beyond all question: she could not have gone out of the port of Liverpool if that had not been done; if she had been fitted up as a slave trader, she would have been seized before she went out of the port of Liverpool. “It is stated in the evidence that the Augusta was consigned to three notorious slave dealers; now we had never in our lives heard of the name of any one of the parties to whom she was consigned.” That is a most extraordinary thing. You will see how that is, if the letters are put in. Here are persons shipping to the Gallinas for two years; there are five persons there who are slave dealers, and nothing else; the prisoner has consigned goods there for twenty years, and yet he has never known the names of three of them as slave dealers. There is a difficulty in that answer, because he does not remember their names before he sent goods to them. He is asked, “You mean that the first time you heard their names was when the order to ship those goods was given to you?--Yes, and the circumstance of three consignees is a regular thing with distant consignments, such as South America and Africa. There is such an uncertainty attending the residence of parties in those places, that we invariably put a second and a third consignee in addition, in case the first should not be in the way.” Then Mr. _Forster_ says, “Some bills were referred to in your former evidence drawn by Mr. Pedro Blanco upon your house; have you any objection to put those bills before the Committee?--Not any. And I ought to state now, as I have been looking at the bills more closely, that they are not all drawn to the orders of Sierra Leone houses, but to the orders of other Spaniards, and those people endorsed them to the Sierra Leone houses. This does not alter the case materially, but for the sake of accuracy I mention it.” “You will put them in for the inspection of the Committee?--Certainly.--(_The same were delivered in._)” Then it is said, “You only hesitated in giving the names yesterday from motives of delicacy, not from any motive of concealment?--Yes, I do not wish to withhold any thing; but I am indisposed to introduce any name. I have no wish to conceal any thing whatever. I have been consulting with my partners upon this subject, and I have a request to make to the Committee. Our position is one which is certainly an unpleasant one. I think that what I have stated will have proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that we have not in any way intended to elude the law.” Then there is a suggestion that it is not necessary I should state to you, that if there is any difficulty a new Act of Parliament should pass.

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?--

Mr. _Kelly_. To that I have no objection, and I do not object to the question of my learned friend; but it is the only way I have of warning Captain Hill not to give us other people’s statements.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you obtain the papers in the first instance?--Yes; on going on board it is my duty to demand them, and I received them on board.

Were there any other papers subsequently given to you by Jennings, or did you receive them all at once?--I received other papers afterwards; I received the ship’s papers in the first instance.

Mr. _Kelly_. Confine your answer to the question.

--It is necessary to explain.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, not at all.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. You received some papers in the first instance?--Yes; the vessel’s papers on demand. I had demanded them, and on being refused by Captain Jennings to answer a question which he was bound to answer to the commander of a British man-of-war, I insisted upon its being answered, and said I should detain the vessel till it was; and that question was to whom did the vessel--

Mr. _Kelly_. Here I must interpose; and unless Captain Hill is to be the sole judge of what is to be admissible evidence, I ask your Lordship to interpose, or to hear me and dispose of my objection. I cannot complain of my learned friend; he puts nothing but perfectly regular questions. Captain Jennings is not my client here.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. You gave back the ship’s papers to Captain Jennings, and afterwards you insisted upon having these papers, or having some more?--I insisted upon having the question answered to whom the vessel was consigned.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. He has a right to ask that; that is a question which the captain is bound to demand of him, to whom he is consigned.

Mr. _Kelly_. I am quite well aware that in your Lordship’s hands I am quite safe; and if Captain Jennings had committed a murder on this occasion, it would not upon your Lordship’s minds produce any influence; but it is impossible to tell, knowing that Jennings was the captain of the vessel, and that the prisoner at the bar may have had some hand in the fitting it up, what influence it may have upon the minds of the Jury if we are to have conversations or recognitions, supposing there to have been any made by Captain Jennings; and all this done in the absence of Mr. Zulueta, who had no knowledge of it or control over it. If I at all understand it to be your Lordship’s impression, that any thing said or done by Captain Jennings is evidence, having made the objection I have nothing further to submit to your Lordships; but I do conceive, that nothing done by Captain Jennings long after the vessel sailed, and long after the offence, if any, was committed, is admissible. I do feel it my duty to ask, whether evidence is to be received of what was said and done by Captain Jennings months after the departure of the vessel from this country?

Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not entertain either of those two opinions. You do not put two cases which exhaust all other possible cases, but you say if I am of opinion that every thing said and done by Captain Jennings is evidence, you say no more; you say nothing. But I do not think that the thing is evidence, because Captain Jennings says it; nor do I think we can say, that nothing that Captain Jennings said can be evidence in the course of the trial. But with respect to what we have to decide, it is not whether there is such a large and general rule as that, but whether this question falls within any rule that excludes it. I think it does; I think what Captain Jennings said on that occasion is not admissible in evidence. If Captain Hill demands some other papers from him, that fact may be given in evidence.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you afterwards receive some other papers from Captain Jennings on board?--Yes, I received a packet.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Is the clerk here from the Court of Admiralty?

Mr. _Kelly_. I take for granted that the papers to be produced in Court are the papers given to this gentleman by Captain Jennings.

Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes, they have been produced before; we shall want them in a moment.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. What steps did you take upon receiving these papers?--I took the papers on board my own vessel on purpose to read them. It was towards the close of the evening I received them, and I sent an order on board the Saracen that an officer and a certain number of men should be sent to me, and I entrusted that officer with the charge of the vessel.

Did you, in consequence of the view you took afterwards, detain the vessel?--Yes, I detained the vessel.

She was afterwards taken, I believe, to Sierra Leone?--Yes.

Did you prosecute her there?--

Mr. _Kelly_. I must object to all this--

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. I thought that that might be taken as a fact; the evidence of Mr. Zulueta before the Committee is in evidence; and there it is stated that the vessel was condemned, because Captain Jennings had no funds to defend her: I thought I might take that as a fact.

Mr. _Kelly_. No, nothing of the kind; I object to any evidence of the proceedings in Sierra Leone respecting this vessel. Mr. Zulueta, as it appears by what is in evidence, namely, his own statement before the Committee of the House of Commons, was the agent of Messrs. Martinez & Co. for the purchase of this vessel, and afterwards the shipment of the goods, but was no party at all to any proceeding, judicial or otherwise, which took place in Sierra Leone. Now judicial proceedings, in which there is a judicial sentence, are no doubt evidence, and may be very important evidence against the parties to those proceedings; but I apprehend as that was a proceeding to which Mr. Zulueta was no party, they are not evidence against him here.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. We need not argue that; I only put the question in order to trace the vessel.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. At present he says the vessel was sent to Sierra Leone; that was all, I believe?

Mr. _Kelly_. No, he was going on to talk about the proceedings in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. There were some proceedings there?--She was condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court there.

Was she sent to England afterwards?--I have seen nothing of her since.

Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.

Though you were for some two or three years cruizing upon the coast of Africa, it was not till November 1840 you landed at Gallinas--I landed upon the island there for half an hour previous to that time.

With that exception, I believe you had not landed there before that?--No.

You have spoken of slave establishments; are there not villages or towns, whatever names are given to them up the river?--It is necessary to mention--

You will greatly oblige me if you will answer the question. Is it the fact, that there are several towns and villages up the river?--It is necessary for me to explain. If you know nothing of the river Gallinas that question may imply more than I can answer. The river Gallinas extends some distance into the interior as I believe: I have been up it ten or a dozen miles, and I know that there is the native village of Mera, another of Tardia, and another of Tinda.

That is exactly what I am asking.

Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is a very harmless statement.

Mr. _Kelly_. I was going to ask him how far he had gone up the river?--At least twelve miles.

As far as you have gone, there were towns?--There were villages.

Was the river navigable further up?--Do you mean further than I went?

Yes.--I cannot say; I should think not from the appearance of it, except by canoes.

It is navigable for canoes, so that the population of the place can pass further up?--I cannot say.

Did you ever see canoes higher up?--I could not see them.

If you were ten miles up, you can say if you saw canoes beyond that distance?--I did not see any. I think from the appearance of the river as high as I went, it is navigable for canoes; but I never saw any there.

You were upon this coast for the protection of British commerce and the prevention of the slave trade?--Yes.

Did not that British commerce consist among other things of the exportation of the merchandise of Britain to various places on the coast of Africa?--Certainly.

Do you not know that British merchandises, sometimes in British vessels, and at other times in other vessels, were exported to a very considerable extent to various parts of the coast of Africa?--Certainly, I do.

Now with respect to the Gallinas, do I understand you to say that no British merchandises were exported there, except for the purposes of the slave trade?--Any British merchandise exported there from the Gallinas?

No, I said imported into the Gallinas.--That question was not asked me.

Do you not know that British merchandise to a considerable extent was from time to time exported to the Gallinas in a lawful manner?--I have known English vessels arrive at the Gallinas and part with a little of their cargo; but I never knew an instance before the Augusta of a vessel arriving at the Gallinas consigned to deliver her cargo there.

I ask you, whether you have known of various British vessels, containing British merchandise, arriving there for a lawful purpose?--I have known one or two English vessels dispose of a part of their cargoes there; but I doubt its being for a legal purpose, because I am satisfied there is no export from the Gallinas but slaves, and therefore I do not think it could be lawful.

You say you have known them land part of their cargo there?--I have known them sell part of it.

And you gave as your reason for doubting whether it was for a lawful purpose, because you are not aware of any merchandise that is exported from there in return?--I said I should doubt whether it was lawful, because there was no produce in exchange for it.

Have you never known an instance of ivory and palm-oil being exported from Gallinas?--Never, and I believe it never was during the time I was there.

I am asking your experience; I will come to your belief presently. You say you doubt whether British merchandise has ever been landed there for lawful purposes; is that so?--I have given my reason for doubting it.

Is it so, that you doubt whether it was ever landed for any purpose?--I am speaking of the time I was there.

I am asking you about your own experience; of course that must be while you were there. You say you have never known any British produce landed that you did not doubt the legality of its purpose; is that so?--Yes; because there was no produce to be lawful given in exchange; no produce that I met with.

Allow me to ask you, was there any thing illegal in the landing of British produce for the use of the native chiefs, or the inhabitants of those towns and villages you speak of?--You are asking me my opinion?

Yes; you say you doubt the legality of it?--

Mr. Justice _Maule_. That is a question of law.

--That is a question I cannot presume to answer.

Mr. _Kelly_. As the gentleman has given me his doubts, I wished to know the reason for them.--I have seized this vessel, because I conceived her freight to be illegal.

Do you remember a vessel called the Gil Blas?--I have seen her.

Did she not land goods at the Gallinas?--Yes: if she is the vessel I mean, she was commanded by a man of the name of Serjeant, and he landed some goods there; he gave me to understand so.

Was the Gil Blas there at the time your vessel was there?--Yes.

And you did not think it necessary to seize the Gil Blas?--No.

Do you know for whom any goods were landed?--I am only speaking from what I understood from him when I learned it. I do not know to whom he delivered them; but he gave me to understand he sold them to Pedro Blanco; but I was not present. I am only speaking to my belief.

Did this man, about that time, make you any present?--Serjeant brought out from Pedro Blanco a dozen fowls and a sheep for me, which I was very glad of. I had never seen Pedro Blanco in my life. I had had no fresh provisions for some time, and I was very glad to accept the fowls and the sheep, which he told me had come from Marseilles in a vessel which had taken some slaves. The sheep I gave to the Judge of the Mixed Commission Court.

How long was the Gil Blas off there?--I do not know, perhaps a day.

Tell me the name of any other vessel that was out there landing goods, which you did not seize?--I do not remember any.

Were you there at the time the Star was there?--I do not remember the name. I do not recollect seeing her. I am sorry I have not the boarding-book here, or I could tell you.

Do you remember the Laburnum?--No.

The Milford?--No.

Do you not know that the Milford landed a large quantity of goods at the Gallinas?--Not to my knowledge.

Or the Sublime?--Not that I know of.

How long were you so near to the river Gallinas, or within it, as to be able to know from your own observation what quantity of goods, if any, was landed?--My cruizing ground was extensive. I was a good deal at the Gallinas, because it was a notorious slave place, but I had many other places to visit.

You are not answering my question. I ask you how long you were within the river, or within sight of it, so as to know what quantity of goods were landed?--It was part of my cruizing ground; sometimes I would be there for two or three days at anchor, then I would be away a month or two, and then back again for two or three months; sometimes I was continually there.

Can you give me any idea of the population upon these banks of the river with which you were acquainted? You say you went twelve miles up; what was the extent of the whole population?--I can only answer from guess. I should say, at Tiendo, the population might be eight or nine hundred; at Tardia, one or two hundred; at Mena, seven or eight hundred. There is another native town, which I do not know the name of, further down the river; but it is not thickly populated by any means.

You say you were stationed upon the coast of Africa for the protection of British commerce: as far as your experience goes, was not that British commerce to the coast of Africa exceedingly serviceable to the natives?--That depends upon what way it is employed. If it is to be employed in the slave trade, it is doubtful whether it is serviceable.

I am not asking you a speculative question of that description: you were there for the protection of British commerce, and it is a plain question. I ask you, in your judgment, founded upon your experience, was British commerce serviceable to the natives upon the coast of Africa?--Are you taking the whole of the coast of Africa, or confining it to the Gallinas?

I am confining it to the parts you are acquainted with?--That was all the coast of Africa, from Portendique round to Madagascar; if you are taking in all that, undoubtedly British commerce must be a great benefit to Africa.

Let me ask you another question, and that I may not take you by surprise, I may tell you that I am taking it from the book in which you gave your evidence; I ask you, from your experience upon the coast of Africa, whether, in many places, a lawful trade was not carried on to a considerable extent by some persons, who likewise carried on the slave trade?--By the same persons, or in the same places?

I say the same persons?--I have not seen the persons trading, and I cannot tell.

Though you have not seen them trading, you may be able to answer the question?--I do not hesitate in telling you, that in many places on the coast of Africa, the same trade was carried on both for slaves and in exchange for the produce of the country, but at the Gallinas I do not think there was any trade of that kind.

In many places, the same trade was carried on in the lawful trade and the slave trade by the same persons?--Yes; lam speaking of hearsay; but I am as confident it was not so at the Gallinas, as one can be confident from having been at the place.

The experience which leads you to think it has not been so at Gallinas is from your own knowledge, being on the spot?--I have already stated I have been a great deal there, and during that time I saw no other trade, nor the sign of any other trade, than the slave trade.

We are here dealing with a gentleman who was never at the Gallinas, and I am asking you a question founded upon your experience: you say you believe no lawful trade was carried on there, as there was at other places; I ask you, whether the knowledge you have acquired, which leads you to suppose that European trade was carried on, was derived from your own knowledge of the persons?--Yes.

Allow me to ask you, are the officers of the navy in your own distinguished situation entitled to share in the value of the vessels which they seize, and which happily for them are condemned?--Yes they are; certainly.

To what extent: suppose you were to seize a vessel and cargo of the value of 10,000_l._, what would be your own share?--I should imagine the vessel in question--

I want to know, if you seize a ship and cargo of the value of 10,000_l._, 5000_l._ each, what is the share, if that vessel is condemned for being engaged in the slave trade, that the commanding officer seizing it is entitled to?--You must tell me the port she is to be condemned in; it makes a considerable difference; if it is in the Mixed Commission Court, that makes a very considerable difference, or if it is in the Vice-Admiralty Court.

Take it as being condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court?--Half the proceeds go to the Crown, and the other half to the captors, after all the expenses are paid.

You say half goes to the Crown, if condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court?--This vessel--

I am not asking you about any particular vessel.--It depends upon the different Acts under which she is condemned.

Forget for a moment this vessel the Augusta, if you can, and suppose a vessel under British colours is seized in the African seas by an officer in your own situation, and is condemned in the English Vice-Admiralty Court for a breach of the English law, how is the value divided?--Half goes to the Crown, and the other half, after the expenses are paid, is divided amongst the captors; the admiral gets one-sixteenth, and the captain one-eighth of the remainder.

Suppose she is condemned by the Mixed Commission Court?--I believe it is nearly the same in the Mixed Commission Court; but half goes to the nation under whose flag she is sailing.

The Mixed Commission Court is a court composed of commissioners of two nations, or various nations, and who have to determine the cases of foreign vessels not British, Spanish for instance?--Yes; I think that is the division after the nation under whose flag she is sailing; but under the Act that was passed authorising us to seize Portuguese vessels, and to prosecute them in the Vice-Admiralty Court, I do not know how the proceeds were divided.

It is a Mixed Commission Court which decides upon the Spanish or Portuguese ships; and the British Vice-Admiralty Court decide upon a vessel under the British flag?--Yes.

Are not Spanish vessels prohibited from being navigated by British captains? Did you ever see a vessel under the Spanish flag navigated by a British captain?--I never recollect seeing one.

Now, as to the vessel in question, the Augusta; you say when she bore the name of the Gollupchik, she was in every respect fitted up for the slave trade?--Not in every respect; I do not think she had a slave-deck laid.

I correct myself: she was in many respects fitted up for the slave trade?--Yes.

And that led you to seize her?--Yes.

When she came to England, and was claimed by the Russian authorities, do you know whether they succeeded in their claim?--I know nothing of her; I sent her to England.

You do not know whether she remained in English hands, or was delivered up to the Russian government?--I was on the coast of Africa at the time. I have received nothing from the Vice-Admiralty Court in respect of her.

To a certain extent, to the extent to which you have described her, she was, when you seized her under Russian colours, fitted up for a slave vessel?--Yes.

When she bore her name of the Augusta, and was in the hands of Captain Jennings, was she then fitted up for the slave trade?--Not in my opinion; and I did not seize her for that, but for her freight: at least I saw nothing; I do not know what might be under her cargo.