§ MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What portion of the Treaty of 1884 it was proved that King Ja Ja broke, and what was the evidence brought against, and what was the name of the person who defended, him on his trial; whether the Government will refrain from confirming the sentence passed by Admiral Grubb till an inquiry has been held into the whole circumstances attending the arrest, trial, and conviction of the King; and, whether he will place Papers concerning King Ja Ja's trial upon the Table of the House?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)The portion of the Treaty of 1884 which was proved to the satisfaction of the Admiral that Ja Ja had broken was Article V., which is as follows:—
The Kings and Chiefs of Opobo hereby engage to assist the British Consular or other officers in the execution of such duties as may be assigned to them; and further, to act upon their advice in matters relating to the administration of justice, the development of the resources of the country, the interests of commerce, or in any other matter relating to peace, order, and good government, and the general progress of civilization.This Article has been held by successive Ministries to require Ja Ja not to hinder trade with markets outside of his own territories, and he has been warned that he would be held responsible for interference with traders going to such markets. Nevertheless, he has continued to do so. The evidence brought against Ja Ja was chiefly that of the Acting Consul, and of the officer commanding Her Majesty's ship Royalist. He was defended by Mr. Edmund 373 Bannerman, solicitor, of Accra, and was fully heard on his own behalf. Her Majesty's Government consider that no further inquiry is necessary, and that the interests of good order render the removal of Ja Ja expedient. With reference to the last Question of the hon. Member, which he has added today, I will inquire whether any of the Papers can be usefully laid upon the Table.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)May I ask whether King Ja Ja is now in prison?
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONHe is not in prison at all. He voluntarily left Opobo with the British Consul. He surrendered himself voluntarily. ["Oh, oh! "] I am speaking of facts within my knowledge. He is not in prison. He has a good residence assigned him at Accra, pending his removal to one of the places within his option.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)asked, whether there was sent from the Foreign Office, on the 10th of November, a letter in the following terms to the Aborigines Protection Society:—
I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo relating to the deportation of King Ja Ja. In reply, I am to state to you that steps have already been taken for securing a full inquiry on the spot on this matter, which investigation would be conducted by the Admiral commanding on the station.He also wished to know whether, as a matter of fact, this friendly Sovereign of territory in Treaty relations with the British Authorities was not inveigled on board a steamer and brought away from the spot, where the promise was made he should be tried, and conveyed 600 miles along the coast to Accra, and there, on the 28th of November, informed that his trial would be proceeded with at 10 o'clock on the following morning; whether he was told by the Admiral he might produce any witnesses he chose; whether it was not true that it was perfectly impossible for him to adduce any witnesses at all; whether his alleged solicitor, Mr. Bannerman, did not apply to the Admiral for information as to the status of Ja Ja; whether he was not referred by the Admiral to the Administrator of the Gold Coast; and whether this officer did not say that he had no information to afford on the subject?
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONWell, Sir, these Questions are somewhat numerous to answer; but it may save the time of the House if I state, as far as I can, what the facts are. I myself received a son of Ja Ja, and others who came with him, at the Foreign Office some months ago. I told them that, on the part of the Secretary of State, the matter would be fully inquired into on the spot by the Admiral on the Station. When the Admiral arrived, Ja Ja had, owing to circumstances which had occurred in the meantime, been removed to Accra; and the Admiral, exercising his full discretion, held the inquiry there. I believe that all the witnesses Ja Ja called were heard. He called three witnesses, and it was as much on his own admissions that the case was substantiated as upon anything else. The facts are as I have stated, that he, being bound to follow the advice of the Consul, obstructed the Consul from establishing free trade in the river, and the traders from trading in the river. I do not understand the Question regarding the Administrator of the Gold Coast. The case was tried with perfect fairness; and I would remind the House that Ja Ja's counsel expressed his full sense of the Admiral's impartiality, and I may say that Ja Ja has just made application to have his son educated in England.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether it was a fact that the sentences were not limited to King Ja Ja himself, but extended to every member of his family; and whether it was true, as he had been informed, that no member of his family would ever be allowed to reside in his native land again?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House that a debate in the form of Question and Answer should be conducted between hon. Members and Ministers across the floor of the House? The Rules require that Notice of a Question shall be given in writing.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOROn the point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you whether it be not true that every single Question that I have put has had relation to a matter of fact?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe only observation which I think it my duty to make is 375 that there is a practice growing up of making counter-statements upon a Question being put, which it is impossible, of course, to deal with, and which practically assume the form of a new Question given without Notice, but which should be the subject of separate Notice on the Paper.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORIf in any way I have transgressed the Rules or established practice of the House I am very sorry. I did not intend to do so, and I do not think that I have done so. I limited my Question—I may be allowed to say this in justification and explanation—carefully to those matters which the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must have been acquainted with, if he were duly informed on the matter.
§ MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)To close this matter for the present, may I ask whether it is not the fact that King Ja Ja was not informed—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! Sir Robert Fowler.