HC Deb 11 December 1902 vol 116 cc907-9
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY () Derbyshire, Chesterfield

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give a full statement of the concessions granted to either persons or companies in Uganda.

(Answered by Lord Granborne.) Returns on the matter of concessions have already been called for but have not so far been received. His Majesty's Government are not aware of any concessions being granted either to persons or companies in Uganda, except in the case of the East Africa Syndicate, who have been granted by His Majesty's Commissioner an exclusive permit for one year, with power to extend permit for an additional period of six months subject to approval of His Majesty's Commissioner, to prospect for precious stones and minerals over a tract of country 100 square miles in extent, with its centre at Butiaba Station in the province of Unyoro. As regards the East Africa Protectorate a concession for working certain pearl fisheries off the coast of the Protectorate has been granted to Mr. Rule for a period of ten years. The East Africa Syndicate have been granted certain prospecting rights for minerals under the mining regulations. Besides these certain small concessions have been granted locally for the development of Mombasa and other districts.

Criminal Law—Compensation to Acquitted Persons—Case of Mr. R. M. Newton.

MR. SCHWANN () Manchester, N.

To ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr R. M. Newton, of Manchester, who was arrested and put in prison and tried, for alleged extensive fraud, at the Old Bailey, although, at a previous trial of the same case at the Mansion House, Alderman Ritchie dismissed the charge against him without calling upon the defence; and whether, having regard to the remarks of the Judge regarding the trial and this man's imprisonment, the age of Mr. Newton, and his previous character, he will consider his claim for compensation.

Mn. HARWOOD (Bolton): To ask Mr. Attorney General, if he will consider the advisability of forwarding papers, in the case of Mr. R. M. Newton, of Manchester, who, in connection with the recent trial for alleged extensive frauds, was dismissed by the magistrate before offering his defence, yet was indicted at the Old Bailey, and was again dismissed without being called upon for his defence, to the Treasury, with a view to some compensation being made to him.

(Answered by sir Robert Finlay.) It is only under very special circumstances that the Treasury would be justified in awarding compensation in respect of a prosecution which has resulted in an acquittal. If such a practice became common it is obvious that it would unduly hamper the Director of Public Prosecutions in the discharge of his very arduous and responsible functions, which involve the duty of prosecuting in what appear to him to be proper cases, and might tend to prevent due investigation. The question of compensation rests not with me but with the Treasury. I ought, however, perhaps to add that on the materials before me I should not be prepared to advise the Treasury to make the present case an exception to the general rule.

Shandangan Petty Sessions—Lynch v. Howard.

MR. SLOAN () Belfast, S.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of Lynch v. Howard at Shandangan Petty Sessions, on 18th November last, where, according to evidence, the defendant's solicitor wrote a letter and on the eve of sessions sent to telegram to the clerk of sessions to have Mr. John Barrett, J.P.,Macroon, to attend for this particular case: and whether he will state on what arounds the clerk of sessions received instructions from the defendant's solicitor to summon certain magistrates.

(Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The clerk of petty sessions was instructed by the resident magistrate to notify the magistrates of the district to attend on the 18th November to adjudicate in the case mentioned. The clerk, however, omitted to communicate with Mr. Barrett, who, although a justice for the district, had never previously attended these petty sessions. But, at the request of defendant's solicitor, he telegraphed to Mr. Barrett to attend on the day preceding the hearing.