SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was by his authority or under his instructions, or, if not, by whose authority or under whose instructions, that the Public Prosecutor appeared at the Lambeth Police Court, on 11th September 1883, to support a criminal information against two medical men, Dr. Bower and Mr. Keates, for the manslaughter of a child by the improper performance of the operation of tracheotomy, and by criminal negligence connected therewith; whether the medical officer of the Treasury, or any other medical adviser, was consulted before the Public Prosecutor was instructed to appear to support the charge; what were the circumstances which were held to justify the intervention of the Public Prosecutor in the case; whether he is aware that the magistrate, before whom the charge was heard, dismissed it without hearing the witnesses or the counsel for the defence, with the remark that it was "persecution rather than prosecu- 425 tion;" and, whether it is the intention of the Treasury to recompense Dr. Bower and Mr. Keates for the injury they have suffered from the appearance of the Public Prosecutor against them, and for the heavy expenses they have thereby been put to?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, as this matter did not come under the cognizance of the Home Secretary's Department, he would answer the Question. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had no knowledge whatever of the course taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. He acted entirely on his own responsibility, and, he believed, acted rightly. He did not institute the proceedings in any way—in fact, when applied to at first, he refused to initiate proceedings. The father and mother of the child who died, on a sworn information, obtained a summons from Mr. Chance, the police magistrate, to summon these gentlemen before the Court. When that summons had been granted, the persons interested waited on the Director a second time, and stated that they were American subjects, and had no means of employing legal assistance. The facts were brought under the notice of the magistrate, and the Director of Public Prosecutions thought it right that they should have aid in a qualified sense. Special direction was given that a solicitor should attend and see that all the evidence, whether it told in favour of or against the accused, was properly-placed before the magistrate. The view was expressed that the Director of Public Prosecutions did rightly, and was entirely free from blame. There would be no compensation given in the case. As to the observation of the magistrate, that the charge was "persecution rather than prosecution," all he could say was that the witnesses in the case placed all the facts on both sides fully and impartially before him.