HC Deb 02 November 1932 vol 269 cc1764-6
6. Mr. STUART

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what action he proposes to take in regard to Mr. Justice Maugham's report, dated 13th July last, following his inquiry into the claims of the North Charterland Exploration Company (1910), Limited?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The inquiry to which my hon. Friend refers was held on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia in order to investigate certain claims affecting land in the Protectorate, which could not be tried in the High Court owing to the Crown having succeeded upon a demurrer that an Order in Council made in 1928 under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act was a complete answer. One of the chief objects of this inquiry was to enable the claim of the North Charterland Exploration Company against the Crown to be fought out and decided as if it were an action between two ordinary litigants. I am advised that the effect of Mr. Justice Maugham's answer to question 4 of his terms of reference is that, if the North Charterland Exploration Company had been in a position to sue the Crown in proceedings in which neither any privilege of the Crown, nor any Order in Council had been relied on, they would have failed in their action. As their claim has been disposed of in law, I, as responsible for the administration and financial control of Northern Rhodesia, am bound to treat the report as a final determination of the matter.

Mr. STUART

Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the commission, which finds that the company had just ground for making complaints and will he agree either to reopening the inquiry or to laying the papers?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the allegation in the Press to-day that the court was misled as to the non-availability of certain material witnesses?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

As to the second supplementary question, if any charge is made against the Attorney-General and the Treasury Solicitor in the conduct of the case, that charge should be made here and addressed to the Attorney-General. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees.

Mr. KNIGHT

I was merely calling attention to the allegations.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I quite appreciate that. If any such question is put here, it should be addressed to the Attorney-General, who had full charge of the case, and it will be dealt with fully. As to the first supplementary question, I think I fully disposed of it in my answer. I decided that on the whole it would be a reasonable thing to let this case be tried out before a commissioner exactly as it would have been tried if it had been a case between two private individuals, each of them being entitled to rely on any rights which an ordinary private litigant would have. That was a very considerable concession for the Crown to make. That has been done. I am advised that the finding of the court in the Inquiry would in an ordinary action have been a judgment for the defendants—that is, the Crown—in the action, and I think the House will agree that that finally disposes of the matter.