asked whether the Government have contracted with any of the vendors of land in Wiltshire required for the purposes of their new flying ground not to charge him Increment Value Duty in consequence of the sale of such land to the Government at a profit of £20,000; and, if so, what is the reason for the exoneration of such vendor from a tax imposed by the Government upon other citizens?

No such contract was made.

asked what was the price per acre paid, respectively, by the War Office to Lord St. Aldwyn for his property at Netheravon and Fittleton, in the county of Wilts, and more recently by the same Government Department for their flying ground, to St. Katherine's Hospital, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and Mr. Maton for their respective estates in parishes adjoining the above; and whether the first-mentiond proprty included less hill land and more buildings than either of the other three estates?

The prices per acre were approximately as follows:—

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the statement made as regards Lord St. Aldwyn's land before the Marconi Committee to the effect that he was overpaid is not justified on those figures?

The hon. Member realises that the lands are different lands, and that there may be a great difference in price.

Do not these figures show that the Liberal Government is far more generous to the landlords than the Conservatives?

I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can state the number of prisoners now being forcibly fed in consequence of indulging in a hunger strike; whether Hugh Franklin is among these, and, if so, has he received any special report on the state of his health; and what length of time this forcible feeding has been applied in each particular case?

I only received the hon. Member's notice after three o'clock, and consequently I am not in a position to answer all his points. The number of prisoners now being forcibly fed is four. Mr. Hugh Franklin is among the number. I saw a report as to his health this morning and there was nothing in the report to suggest alarm. I cannot say how long the process of forcible feeding has been carried on in each case.

Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to facilitate the delivery of communications? This was handed in at the door to the messengers at one o'clock, and marked "Urgent."

If the hon. Member will be so good as to address questions to the Home Office I shall always receive them earlier.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man died the other day in Stafford Asylum through being forcibly fed?

I heard of the case this morning.

I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether Mr. George Lansbury has been summoned to give sureties and be bound to the peace under Section 1 of the Act of 34 Edward III.; if so, will he state the words of the Act under which the powers of binding to the peace are conferred upon the magistrates, and is he aware that the Act as it stands in the Statutes of the Realm is a mistranslation of the original French?

I understand that the answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The variation between the Norman-French text and the ancient translations has been set out in all the authorised editions of the Statutes since 1810. In view of the numerous cases which have come before the Courts, it is hardly likely to give rise to any difficulty.

Are we to understand that this High Court of Parliament makes the laws of this country or that some transcriber in the fifteenth century is to make the law by which we are to be governed?

I am not fully familiar with the facts of the case, but I understand that in one of the copies of this law the word "not" has been omitted, but it appears in others—the more reliable editions.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will refer to the original text of the Statute, which is to be found in the Statute Roll (Chancery), Number 1 roll, Membrane 10, which, after referring to those who have been

"pilours et robeurs es parties de dela,"

goes on

"et de prendre de touz ceux qi sont de bone fame souffisant seurete de lour bon port, et les auters duement punir,"

and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House an authorised copy of this original document in the Record Office, coupled with an authorised translation of the same?

I will consider the point brought forward by my hon. Friend, but I could not without notice answer any question on the construction of my hon. Friend's early French.

May I ask whether the Home Secretary has referred to the article which appeared in the "English Historical Review," of April, 1912, by two officials in the Record Office, making the case perfectly clear, and showing that the Act was only intended to refer to those persons who had come back from France after the long French war.

Notwithstanding the authority of the officials of the Record Office, this is really a matter to be settled by decisions of the Courts.