§ Mr. ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his legal advisers and friends have free access to Dinizulu for the purpose of assisting him in his defence.
§ MR. CHURCHILLI have no information that any restrictions beyond those required by the ordinary regulations are imposed. Under these the access of legal advisers and friends is by the authority of the magistrate.
§ MR. ELLISI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Colonial Office have now received from the Natal Government the information requested by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 2nd January, in Telegram No. 102, Cd. 3888. as to the refusal of the authorities to allow Miss Colenso to visit Dinizulu and in that case what were the grounds of refusal; and whether the Natal Supreme Court made any order in the matter, and what were its terms.
§ MR. CHURCHILLInformation has now been received in a despatch from the Governor showing that the Minister of Justice in an affidavit declared that his reason for refusing to let Miss Colenso see Dinizulu was that he believed that she desired to see the prisoner for the purpose of publishing in newspapers 1352 accounts of her interviews and that in view of a statement with regard to bribing gaol attendants attributed to her, the restrictions should be upheld. He further made various allegations against her action in regard to natives particularly in reference to her school at Bishoptown. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Justice had not the right to overrule the written pass given by the magistrate under a statutory power, but the existing pass being a fortnight old the Judge refused to order that access should be given upon it and directed Miss Colenso to apply again for a pass to the magistrate. Miss Colenso subsequently visited the gaol and saw Dinizulu.
§ MR. ELLISI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, having regard to the fact that the telegram from Miss Colenso to Dinizulu, urging him to surrender and assuring him of fair trial and assistance in his defence, was transmitted through the Colonial Office, any specific steps have been taken by that Department to secure these ends; and, if so, what is their nature.
§ MR. CHURCHILLThe Secretary of State is expecting a telegram on this matter and I had hoped it would have arrived this morning; but it has not, and I must ask my right hon. friend to postpone his Question to a later date.
§ MR. MACKARNESS (Berkshire, Newbury)I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the law of Natal, and especially the Act No. 22, of 1896, governing the procedure in magistrates' courts, prescribes that the proceedings shall be in public; and if so, by what authority having the force of law has the preparatory examination of Dinizulu been conducted in secret.
§ MR. CHURCHILLThe provisions referred to relate to the trial of prisoners, not to the preparatory examination preliminary to commitment for trial. Under Section 4 of the Law No. 16 of 1861, for improving the administration of criminal justice, the magistrate has full power to order that no person shall have access to or remain in the room in 1353 which the examination is held and which is not to be deemed an open court if it appear to him that the ends of justice will be best answered by so doing. I would remind my hon. and learned friend that much the same provision exists in the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, Section 19.
§ Mr. MACKARNESSDid the magistrate give any reason for thinking the ends of justice were served by holding this inquiry in private?
§ MR. CHURCHILLI cannot say without notice. It was purely a matter of magisterial discretion under the law.
§ MR. MACKARNESSI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the law of Natal governing the procedure in criminal cases before magistrates, and especially the Ordinance No. 18, of 1845, prescribes that the preparatory examination of a prisoner shall be based upon a definite charge from information upon oath; whether, in the warrant for the arrest of Dinizulu or at any time since, any definite charge upon a sworn information has been made; and, if not, upon what grounds have the Government of Natal justified the arrest, imprisonment, and prolonged criminal proceedings against Dinizulu.
§ MR. CHURCHILLThe Ordinance contemplates the apprehension of an accused person upon information taken upon oath that there are reasonable grounds of suspicion against him. In the case of Dinizulu the arrest was made on a warrant specifying high treason. Some of the sworn information on which the Natal Government rely will be found printed at length in the Blue-book Cd. 3888.
§ MR. MACKARNESSWhat act of high treason was specified in the warrant?
§ MR. CHURCHILLI do not know if any special act was specified, but of course the evidence would turn on that.
§ MR. MACKARNESSDo the Government intend to assent to the continuance of this practice of investigating charges 1354 against a person without giving him the details of the charges?
§ MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to reply that this was a matter of constitutional procedure. The Government would, of course, do all they could to have it properly carried out.