THE HOME INDEMNITY BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18875, 30 May 1923, Page 6

THE HOME INDEMNITY BILL.

The discussion in the House of Commons of the Order in Ireland Indemnity Bill, introduced a fortnight ago, m consequence of the discovery of the illegality of the Government’s action in respect to the deportation of Republican Irishmen whom it sent across to the Free State for internment, throws a little more light upon the scope of the measure. While it is the purpose of the Government to protect the Home Secretary and those executing his instructions against action oh the part of the persons who were illegally detained, it recognises that these individuals' have claims to reasonable redress which cannot be ignored. The Prime Minister has made that point clear, and Lord Robert Cecil, speaking on behalf of the Government, to which he is the latest recruit, has stated specifically that it desires to preserve for those who have suffered illegal detention the right to the damages which they are entitled to recover in an ordinary court of law. The announcement that a clause wall be inserted in Bill with this object in view should mean the removal of a ground upon which the Bill certainly seemed open to criticism. Mr Bridgeman, the Home Secretary, frankly took upon his own shoulders the whole responsibility for the blunder that was committed in connection with the arrest and deportations, though he had safeguarded himself as far as possible by previously consulting the AttorneyGeneral, The Attorney-General had but ( an indirect connection with the steps that were taken to give effect to an order which the Court .of Appeal ruled to bo bad, but since no action would havo been taken had he advised to the contrary he cannot have been feeling much more comfortable than the Home Secretary himself over 'the turn which events took. Mr Ramsay Macdonald’s suggestion that Mr Bridgemau acted upon an' order the legality of which laymen must have doubted seems extravagant. The Home Secretary’s position would certainly have been indefensible had he not secured the opinion of the Attorney-General before taking action, but the fact that ho did so and was misled makes all the difference. Since the Government has had to retrace its procedure it is unfortunate that the deportations were ever made, but it may be suggested that the interests of peace in Ireland would probably have been better safeguarded were the persons concerned still safely interned in the Free State.