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.