THE INDEMNITY BILL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 30 May 1923, Page 9

THE INDEMNITY BILL.

Read in Commons.

BY CABLE—PRESS ASSN.— COPYRIGHT London, May 28.

Mr Baldwin announced that tlie Government has decided to receive claims from the Irish deportees for loss in consequence of arrest. Several petitions have been presented to the House of Commons on helialf of the Irish deportees, pra.ying to be heard by* counsel at the Bar of the House in opposition to the Indemnity Bill. Tlie Speaker said many public Bills, one way or another, affected tlie rights of individuals, and if claimants appeared at the Bar of the House on all such occasions they would be listening all day to them.

On the motion to read the Indemnify Bill, Mr Baldwin said the House would recognise that as far as compensation was concerned, all legal claims were barred by tlie Bill, but the Government had decided to receive claims for actual expense or direct loss sustained by the deportees. The Home Secretary would make a statement, after which he would not take further part in the debate, and not vote on the Bill.

AEi- W. C. Bridgemnn met with a hostile reception from the ■ Labour benches. He said he hoped that whatever the House decidedd to do those who acted under him should not be allowed to suffer, nor .should they seek to exonerate him by blaming the Attorney-General.

, “The responsibility is mine,” added Mr Bridgemnn: “I claim to bear the full weight.” Mr Bridgemnn said he- had consulted the Attorney-General and took his advice, and believed lie was right. Tlie organisation with, which he had had to deal Was a very dangerous one, which might haveo been disastrous, both for ill is country and Ireland. Mr Bridgeman then left the Chamber.

Mr Macdonald, after the Home Secretary’s statement, said he was not sure whether he should no longer hold office. He did not believe the action he took was of any value. ITe did not believe that due consideration was given to the constitutional rights of the people arrested. He acted on an order of legality, which a layman must have doubted. The House ought to censure everybody concerned in the transaction. He moved the rejection of the Bill.

MR LLOYD GEORGE AGAIN. By Cable—Pras.i Association—-Copyright. (Deceived 8.5 p.m., May 29.) London, May 29. Mr Lloyd George continued: “If an appeal had come from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa, we should have been bound to takestern action. Doubtless tlie Commons would’ have been only too pleased to give the Government the powers necessary to cope with the conspiracy; but it would have been very serious if the British people were deported to the Dominions.”

That was- a precedent which should never have been set up. Lord Robert- Cecil replied to the debate. He said that the Government had no desire to reverse the decision of the Court of, Appeal, and was strongly of opinion that the country ought to rid itself of war legislation as soon as possible. Tlie Government desired to secure for those who liau suffered illegal detention damages which they were entitled to recover in an ordinary court of law. He was quite ready to put the clause in the present Bill, which would make that clear. (Cheers.)

Mr McCurdy intimated that the National Liberals had accepted Lord Robert Cecil’s pledgee, and would support the second reading. Tho amendment was rejected and the Bill read a second time.—A. and N.Z. Cable.