Lords Sitting of 7 March 1873

MINUTES.
Sat First is Parliament—The Lord Carysfort, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Poor Allotments Management (20); Local Government Provisional Orders* (26).
Committee—Intestates Widows and Children* (33).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (25).

CRIMINAL LAW—NEWBURY MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he desired to call their Lordships' attention to an article which appeared in The Pall Hall Gazette of the 4th inst. on the case of a poor woman, named Elizabeth Vokins, who had been sentenced by the bench of magistrates at Newbury to 14 days' imprisonment for stealing some brass fittings of a thrashing machine out of a barn. Upon this conviction The Pall Mall Gazette added some sarcastic comments. It appeared that the husband of the woman was employed at the low wages of 11 s. a week, and as there was no broach of trust or other circumstance to aggravate the larceny, he thought the sentence excessive, especially as the Criminal Justice Act gave a discretion to magistrates in such cases. He had given the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) private notice of the Question which he now begged to ask, Whether the Government would cause any inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the conviction of the woman and the sentence passed upon her?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that on the face of the article there did not appear to be any case for inquiry. The punishment did not seem to be excessive; for whether the woman's husband earned 11 s. a week or only 2s. the offence would be the same, and the amount of those earnings would make no difference in the sentence. The Criminal Justice Act gave a discretion to magistrates on hearing the charge, but before the plea was entered. At that stage of the proceedings they might, if they so thought fit, discharge the accused; but once there was a conviction, they must direct punishment. The magistrates generally had a knowledge of the prisoners brought before them and of other circumstances which the writers of articles in newspapers could not have, and if there were inquiries into all the cases on which newspapers made comments, such inquiries would be endless. If, however, his noble Friend thought an inquiry was desirable in this particular case, the Government would direct one to be made.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDrose to enter his protest against Questions such as that put by the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) being asked without Notice being regularly placed upon the Paper.

1515
There was an understanding among their Lordships that, except in cases of pressing and paramount importance, questions should not be asked in their Lordships' House without formal Notice.

POOR ALLOTMENTS MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.] (No. 20.)
(The Duke of Richmond.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to make better provision for the management in certain cases of lands allotted under local Acts of Inclosure for the benefit of the poor. Under the general Act which at present regulated these allotments—the 2 Will. IV. c. 42—the management was entrusted to open vestries. When the Act was passed those bodies were usually composed of a small number of persons; now they were sometimes composed of as many as 500 or 600. Such bodies were too numerous for the management of allotments, and the object of the Bill was to provide that where the number of persons entitled to attend such vestry exceeded 20 such vestry might annually appoint a Committee of Members of their own body, not exceeding 12 nor fewer than six, who should exercise all the powers of the authority appointing it. Should the proper authority fail to appoint a Committee as required by this Bill, the Inclosure Commissioners, on application of any person interested, might do so. The Bill applied not only to allotments for the poor under In-closure Acts, but to field-gardens, recreation grounds, and grounds set apart for any public purpose. He begged to move the second reading.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he approved the Bill, and would support the second reading.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

WEST COAST OF AFRICA—THE KING OF THE ASHANTEES.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEdesired to direct their Lordships' attention to a statement which had appeared in The Evening Standard of yesterday. That
1516
paper adverted to the occurrence of another "little war," referring to the fact that few people might be aware that Great Britain was at present engaged in war, and that British territory had been invaded, though it was a comfort to know that in this case the invader was neither France, nor Germany, nor Austria, nor Russia, but the King of Ashantee, and the territory invaded was a portion of our West African possessions in the neighbourhood of Cape Coast Castle. As this statement was not in any of the morning papers it might not be correct; but as he had been a little among those people he wished to know whether it had been verified and whether what had been stated was true, in whole or in part. There had been several affairs with the Natives on the coast lately, especially in the neighbourhood of the Gambia our colonists had been obliged to ask the French to protect them The Ashantees were the most formidable tribe on the whole coast of Africa. We had already waged two wars with them, and they were wars which were carried on in great part by ourselves against ourselves, for our merchants supplied our enemies with powder and muskets until war was actually declared, and these wars had been accompanied by disasters. He desired to ask Whether the report is true that the King of the Ashantees has declared war against the Queen of England, and crossed our frontier at Cape Coast Castle with 12,000 men?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was not quite true that the King of the Ashantees had declared war against Her Majesty; for he was sorry to say that the King had made an incursion into British-protected territory without having declared war or given any notice whatever. The statement referred to by the noble Earl was therefore substantially correct. But he must observe that there was a distinction between British territory proper and the protected territories. What had been invaded was not British territory in the strict sense of the word, because we only held ports on the coast; but we had a very undefined protectorate over a considerable tract of country lying between the Gold Coast and the country inhabited by the Ashantees. He was by no means disposed to diminish the gravity of the attack, for we had had frequent experience of Ashantee invasions, which were always

1517
accompanied by a great destruction of property and loss of life. He could not at present tell what was the cause of the invasion. Their last account from the Gold Coast was dated February 4. It stated that the Administrator of the Gold Coast, Colonel Harley, who had recently gone there, and had had considerable experience on that Coast, was not able to satisfy himself as to the cause of the sudden attack. Ever since his arrival on the Gold Coast he had had most friendly communications with the Ashantees, and there was reason to hope that the long course of unfriendly relations with them which had continued ever since the last war, was about to terminate, when the agents of Her Majesty's Government heard that the King had crossed the river into our protected territory with not fewer than 12,000 men. One of the causes assigned for this measure was that a Fetish oath had been sworn by the King of Elmina and the King of the Ashantees that they would attack our territory. That might be true; but it did not explain why the oath had been sworn. Then it was said that the King of Ashantee claimed possession of Elmina, which was ceded to us by the Dutch. That point had not, however, been neglected by us. We had ascertained from the Dutch that they acknowledged no such claim, and we had communicated to the King of Ashantee that no such claim was recognized. The King said he was satisfied, and it was arranged that he should receive a stipend in consideration of keeping the roads open. Then it was said there had been some misunderstanding between the King of Elmina and Colonel Harley. Another and more probable cause was that there had been a disagreement about the payment of certain dues. The fifth cause, and one which he believed most likely to be true, was that a certain chief who had great influence with the King of the Ashantees had been sent away from Elmina and stirred up the King to avenge some supposed injury. Whatever might be the cause, it was unnecessary to say that the attention of Her Majesty's Government was directed to the matter. Several ships of war were on the station or in the vicinity, and he hoped that active preparations had already been made to repel the attack. In reference to the rumour that owing to the want of proper precaution
1518
the British Administration at the Gambia had been obliged to apply for the assistance of a French ship of war, he had to say that according to the last account two of Her Majesty's ships had arrived in the Gambia for the protection of the Settlement. He could not therefore admit that there had been any want of due care, or that this Settlement had been exposed to any danger which could be avoided. From the latest accounts he was led to hope that no further attack would be made.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEfeared men-of-war would be of little use, as it was necessary to have gun-boats specially fitted up for the purpose of going up the rivers of that coast.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that the ships of war were not intended to fight the Ashantees, and it was never supposed that they could repel an invasion by that tribe; but the presence of men-of-war, from which marines could be landed in case of necessity, would be valuable. There was at the Gold Coast a detachment of a West India regiment as well as a body of armed police.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.