I beg to present a petition, on behalf of Richard Patrick Purcell, 14a Purett Road, Plumstead, which represents that he is a British subject, and has been for 12 years resident in this country. It also shows that on the 11th March he was arrested, and subsequently deported, and released on the 17th May; that no charge was made against the petitioner, nor has he been brought before any magistrate; that he has been imprisoned in Ireland, and been subjected to ill-treatment, in consequence of which his health has suffered; that he has suffered otherwise in salary on account of such imprisonment; that he is advised that he has common law and statutory rights to recover damages to the extent of £500; that, in reliance on these rights, he has issued a writ against the Home Secretary in the High Court of Justice; that he learns that a Bill has been introduced into this honourable House, which would deprive him of these rights; and the petitioner humbly prays that he be not deprived, by the terms of the said Bill, or otherwise, of his lawful and just rights to compensation and redress for the wrongs inflicted upon him; and further prays that, in accordance with the usages and practice of Parliament, he may be heard, by himself or counsel, at the Bar of your honourable House in opposition to the said Bill.

I beg to present a petition, signed by Mary Alice Sheehan, 21 A, Bedfordbury Buildings, Charing Cross, who alleges that she was illegally arrested on the 13th March, at 1 a.m., deported to Ireland, where she was interned and incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison, and elsewhere, until the l7th May, when she was brought back in custody to England and released on arrival at Holyhead. At no time has any charge—

The hon. Member is not entitled to read the whole of the petition. He should read the material parts thereof, and the prayer.

Your petitioner prays that she is advised that she has common law and statutory rights to recover damages from the Home Secretary. Your petitioner learns that a Bill has been introduced into your honourable House, the effect of which is to take away her right of action, and she petitions that either she or her counsel may be heard at the Bar.

I beg to present a petition of John Charles Woods, of 62, Rendlesham Road, Clapham, S.E., similar in terms to the petition just presented, and praying that the petitioner may, in accordance with the usual practice of Parliament, be heard by himself or by counsel at the Bar of this honourable House.

I beg to present a petition on behalf of Francis Fitzgerald, a British subject of 23, Khedive Road, Forest Gate, similar in terms to the petitions with which the House is already acquainted, and the petitioner humbly prays that, in accordance with the usages of the House, he may, by himself or by counsel, be heard at the Bar.

I beg to present a petition on behalf of Denis Connolly, 2, Grafton Place, Euston Square, who was arrested on the 11th March and incarcerated in prison until the 17th May, and, fearing that his right of action may be interfered with by the Bill to be dealt with in this House to-day, humbly prays that he be not deprived, by the terms of the said Bill, or otherwise, of his lawful and just rights of compensation and redress for the wrongs inflicted upon him; and further prays that, in accordance with the usages and practice of Parliament, he may be heard by himself or by counsel at the Bar of your honourable House in opposition to the said Bill.

I desire to present a humble petition on behalf of Patrick O'Hart, National Liberal Club, Whitehall Place, a British subject, arrested on the 11th March. The terms are somewhat similar to those just read, and the petitioner humbly prays that he be not deprived by the terms of the said Bill or otherwise of his lawful and just rights of compensation and redress for the wrongs inflicted upon him; and further prays that, in accordance with the usages and practice of Parliament, he may be heard by himself or counsel at the Bar of your honourable House in opposition to the said Bill.

I beg to present a petition of Sarah McDermott, 44, Gladsmuir Road, Highgate, Middlesex. The terms of the petition are very much the same, the petitioner, apparently, not experiencing in gaol that tranquillity which she expected from the present Government, and her prayer is that she be not deprived by the terms of the said Bill, or otherwise, of her rights of compensation and redress for the wrongs inflicted upon her, and that, in accordance with the usages and practice of Parliament, she may be heard by herself or counsel at the Bar of your honourable House in opposition to the said Bill.

I beg to present a humble petition on behalf of Mary Egan, of 16, Kingsbury Road, Dalston, which is in very similar terms to the other petitions. She alleges that her arrest and detention were at the direction of one William dive Bridgeman, Secretary of State for Home Affairs, and that while in prison she was subjected to bodily violence which has permanently injured her health, and she prays that she be not deprived, by the terms of the said Bill, or otherwise, of her lawful and just rights of compensation and redress, and that she may be heard by herself or counsel at the Bar of this House.

I beg to present a petition on behalf of Maria Rosina Killen, 372, Camden Road. She is a schoolmistress holding a degree of the University of St. Andrews. She was arrested and deported for nine weeks without trial. She has been a teacher under the London County Council for 17 years, and she presents this petition in order that she may be heard, and that her rights may not be taken away by the Indemnity Bill.

I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of Kate Barrett, 41, Colville Terrace, Bays-water, in very much the same terms as those already read. She alleges violence and assaults with the result that her health has bean very seriously affected and impaired. She also states that she has lost her position as housekeeper and is therefore now unable to get her living. She appeals to this House that she be not deprived by the terms of the Indemnity Bill, or otherwise, of her lawful and just rights, compensation and redress, and further that, in accordance with the usages and practice of Parliament, she may be heard by herself or by counsel at the Bar of your honourable House in opposition to the said Bill.

I beg to present a petition on behalf of Nellie Barrett, 24, Campbell Road, Bow, couched in similar terms to the preceding ones.

called upon Mr. Grattan Doyle, to put the first question on the Paper.

I was about to make a submission to you, Mr. Speaker, in relation to these petitioners. Will it be convenient for me to state it now?

I waited for the hon. Gentleman, and as he did not rise, I called upon the first question.

I regret very much my inadvertence, but if it has not deprived me of my right I would very respectfully make the submission which I intended to make. The petitions which have just been presented are from petitioners praying to be heard in relation to a Bill which is down for Second Reading to-day. I submit that the Standing Orders of the House do allow the said prayers to be granted by this honourable House. The question is determined by the Standing Orders. When the existing Standing Orders were made the number of petitions had very largely grown. At that time it was decided to limit the opportunities of discussion upon petitions presented to the House, and consequently in regard to the great majority of the petitions presented the ordinary form of procedure prevails. In Standing Order 78 an express exception is made. That exception relates to petitions complaining of some present personal grievance. I will read the Standing Order. It says:

"78. In the case of such petition complaining of some present personal grievance, for which there may be an urgent necessity for providing an immediate remedy, the matter contained in such petition may be brought into discussion on the presentation thereof."

I submit that the object of that Standing Order was to reserve the right of discussion in relation to any petition which disclosed a present personal grievance. I am aware that the matter was raised in 1913 with your predecessor by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), who, I see for the first time on the Front Bench opposite, and whom I congratulate on his new political affiliation. On that occasion your predecessor ruled that, on the facts then brought before him, Standing Order 78 did not apply. He said it was superseded by the Sessional Order. He further said:

"I will not give a definite pronouncement upon this point to-day, because it so fortunately happens that the hon. Member will get an opportunity in an hour or two of raising the point to which he desires to call attention.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th August, 1913; col. 2226, Vol. 56.]

That was a question of discussing the petition; that was not a question of the petitioner being allowed to be heard. On that matter there are least two precedents in which petitioners to this House who were affected by a Bill were allowed to appear either in person or by deputy. The first case is that of Smith O'Brien, in respect to whom a Bill was being passed legalising his sentence of transportation. The matter is referred to in May's "Parliamentary Practice," page 555 (Twelfth Edition), where it says:

"On the 18th June, 1849, a petition was offered from W. S. O'Brien and others, attainted of treason, praying to be heard by counsel after the Transportation for Treason (Ireland) Bill. It was objected that no petition could be received from persons civilly dead: but the House, after debate, agreed, under the peculiar and exceptional circumstances of the case, to receive the petition."

The petition was received. There is a more recent case in 1891. On 26th May of that year Mr. Staveley Hill, the Member for Staffordshire, presented a petition on behalf of the Legislative Council of Newfoundland, praying that they might be heard by a member of their delegation at the Bar of the House against the Newfoundland Fisheries Bill standing for Second Reading on the Thursday. The petition having been received at the Table, Mr. A. Staveley Hill said:

"I beg to give notice on the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill being called that I shall move that the delegation be heard by one of their members at the Bar of the House."

On the following Thursday the Motion of which notice had been given was accepted by the House. Moved by Mr. Hill, it read:

"That the petition from the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of Newfoundland in session convened presented on Tuesday last praying that one of their delegates may be heard at the Bar of the House after the Bill be read, and that Sir William Wallace Whiteway, K.C.M.G., one of the delegates, be heard at the Bar in compliance with the said petition."

Therefore there is, Sir, a Resolution of the House as recent as 1891 which indicates that it is well in accordance with the practice of the House that a petitioner may be heard at the time. Under these circumstances, the only question, I submit, that arises is whether the petitioners who have presented the present petitions come within Standing Order 78 and the precedents which I have just quoted. I submit that they do. I submit that their case represents a present personal grievance in a peculiar-degree, because the Bill which is under discussion in the House to-day is a Bill which applies to only a few people, namely, the hundred or so deportees who, are being deprived of their rights. In considering such a Bill as that before us, this House is to a certain extent usurping the judicial function in relation to the common law and statutory rights of British subjects. I submit that it is the duty of this House, in the circumstances, as the guardian of the liberties of the people, to give effect to traditional rights, and consequently I submit that opportunity should be given, which may be offered on the Motion for the Second Reading, that those concerned should be heard at the Bar of this honourable House either by themselves or by counsel.

May I make a few observations which may be of ser vice to you, Mr. Speaker? The Indemnity Bill, which is the basis of these petitions, is not an uncommon one, and if my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pringle) will turn back to the precedent of 1801 he will find a Bill in precisely the same terms, only with a little more verbiage, under which personal deprivation of personal rights took place just as it is claimed that deprivation of personal rights may take place under this Bill. That Bill has been followed on other occasions, and, so far as my researches go, I can find no precedent where, in these cases, there were petitioners heard at the Bar in reference to these particular Bills.

With regard to the precedent of 1891 you, Mr. Speaker, will have observed and taken note that the case in which the petition was allowed to be presented at the Bar was one presented by a representative of one of the Dominions, the representative of Newfoundland, to whom this House may have desired to accord special and particular consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I also understand from the report of what was said on that occasion that he spoke on behalf of the Legislative House of Newfoundland at that time. It may well be that in this Assembly the representative of one of the Legislatures of the Dominions may be held to have had a particular position. But with regard to the particular matter now before us, if it be suggested that those who have, or are likely to suffer, a personal grievance have a right of audience, I suggest that it is necessary to examine precedents which may be found, because the particular Bill before the House is one which is not unprecedented. In these circumstances I suggest to the Chair that, before any ruling is given, inasmuch as the ruling might be of wide application, it is necessary to be fortified with a greater number of graver precedents than the present occasion affords.

The hon. and learned Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) raises two points. First of all, the application of Standing Order 78, in particular with regard to the words

Then the hon. and learned Member has raised the further point of a direct right of these petitioners to be heard by themselves, or by counsel, at the Bar of the House. I cannot admit that either of the two precedents which the hon. Member has quoted govern the present occasion. There are many public Bills brought before this House which in one way or another affect the rights of individuals or groups of His Majesty's subjects, and were it possible on all these occasions that claims could be made to be heard at the Bar, we should be listening all day to claims of that kind, rather than listening to the speeches delivered from the benches in the House. I am quite sure it would be an impossible position to uphold that right to be heard.

May I put one further point? In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the matter can be brought into the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill before the House this afternoon, will an opportunity be offered to any hon. Member who may so desire it of raising the specific issue as to whether counsel can be heard on the Second Reading? May I submit that in Erskine May, on page 361, it is stated that

"The Second Reading is the stage at which counsel have been heard, when the House has been of opinion that a public Bill was of so peculiar a character as to justify the hearing of parties whose interests, as distinct from the general interests of the country, were directly affected by it "?

I submit that there could be no Bill which more fully comes within that definition than the Measure which is to be discussed in the House to-day. The question I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is, would there be an opportunity given by Motion on the Second Beading to raise the issue as to whether counsel can be heard on behalf of these people who are to be deprived of their rights in the law, and as to whose circumstances the House ought to be informed before they deprive them of those rights?

What I have already said covers that point. I must look, not at the particular case of to-day only, but at all parallel cases which would be arising frequently. There will not be an opportunity on the Second Beading for such a Motion as the hon. and learned Member has described.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House will bear with me for a few minutes whilst I take advantage of precedents that have already been set on occasions such as this in which we are now met. The great hilarity on the other side of the House must have shown to the most uninstructed observer that something has recently happened. Unfortunately, on such occasions it is not only that a new leader has been elected, but that an old leader has dropped out. I am sure that I shall speak not only as the Leader of the Opposition, but that I shall express the feelings of every Member of this House, irrespective of parties, when I say that we are all full of profound regret that the late Prime Minister and Leader of this House has had to pause by the way and to give up the very high office of which he was possessed. During the Recess, it-was with the most profound regret that we heard the news. I have known the right hon. Gentleman when he was an inflamed and inflaming party leader— the very last man either to ask for or to get sympathy from his opponents; but during the last month or two the late Prime Minister won from us a strange mysterious sympathy, because we saw in him much less of a party leader than of a strong, courageous, devoted man, doing his duty in almost impossible circumstances.

This is not the time to appraise his work or to review it or to pass even a temporary judgment upon it, and that for the very best of all reasons, because we hope that it is far from finished. We hope that after the healing rest the late Prime Minister will return, and in his own special and unique way join in our councils and help us to attain to the political wisdom that we all desire. I hope that that may be conveyed to the late Prime Minister, and that it may at any rate be part of the balm which, we all hope, will restore him to a tolerable measure of good health again. Still pursuing precedent I must remind myself that whoever goes there is always somebody who must come. The King is dead, long live the King. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new office. I am afraid that I cannot promise to give him any easier time than I can help. I congratulate him not only personally, but, if I may, I would congratulate this House on the fact that the Leader of this House has been chosen as the Prime Minister of this country. I happen to have heard expressed some ideals of his, some academic and some bucolic ideals which, I regret, I cannot join in the conspiracy to enable him to carry out. His fate is against him. I shall do my best to "frustrate his politics" and to "confound his knavish tricks," and I hope that he will agree with me—and I am sure that he does—that that does not take one jot or tittle from the sincerity of the congratulations which I have to offer.

I wish to associate myself and my. Friends with everything which has fallen from my hon. Friend beside me. In regard to the present and new Prime Minister, he has already established a foothold in the respect and affections of this House. I do not know whether it is altogether kind to recall the saying of a political cynic that there are only two happy days in the lifetime of a Prime Minister—the first, the day when he assumes office and the other the day when he gets rid of it. I trust that my right hon. Friend—I do not know any other exception—may prove to be a conspicuous exception to that rule. I was not aware until about an hour ago that any reference of what I may call a ceremonial kind was going to be made to-day to the resignation of the late Prime Minister and to his temporary removal from our ranks. I say, as my hon. Friend has said, temporary, because I hope that it is only for a time, and I feel, and I think that the Whole House feels, that it would be altogether premature and inopportune this afternoon to attempt anything like a general survey of his career and his services to the State. But, for myself, I can say, and I will content myself with speaking of my own personal experience, that after many long years of close, first-hand knowledge of him, both as an antagonist and as a colleague, I have only the kindliest recollections of him in both these capacities. I think that I have as good reason as anyone in this House to bear testimony to the great qualities which he consistently displayed alike in conflict and in comradeship, not only to his rare and almost uncanny power of grasp and assimilation, not only to his admirable and, indeed, in some ways unique faculty of debate but, what is more important than either—for after all these are merely intellectual qualities—to his fine sensitiveness to the Parliamentary atmosphere, his genuine devotion to the House of Commons, and his strong unfailing sense of public duty, and his entire personal unselfishness. That is a rare combination which we in this House cannot afford to lose. I am sure that I am speaking the opinion, indeed giving voice to what is more than an opinion, the feeling, the emotion, of everyone in the House, when I say that we hope that that loss will not last long, and that we wish for him complete physical restoration, and as speedy a return as may be to his old comrades and friends.

I wish to associate myself entirely with the sentiments which have been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend who has just sat down in reference both to the late Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister. I shall say what I have to say in a very few words. I have already expressed my genuine sentiments with regard to the late Prime Minister's disablement, the disablement which has forced his retirement a few days ago. He and I were friends from the moment he entered this House. We worked against each other, we worked together, we have differed, we have agreed and we have differed again, but nothing has interfered for a single moment with our continuous friendship. I have the most genuine regard and admiration, and I may say without affectation, genuine affection, for the lute Prime Minister There is no man in this House who will rejoice more to see him restored to health and strength than I will, and I am sure that it is the general wish of everyone, not merely in this House but throughout the country, that the temporary rest which he is now receiving from the labours of his very anxious office will enable him to recover his full health and strength. With regard to the present Prime Minister, he will permit me to congratulate him upon his elevation to his high office. I am not quite sure that "congratulation "is the right word, having regard to the very anxious problems with which he has to deal. But in dealing with them he will have the sympathy—it may be that he will have criticism, but even when he receives the criticism he will have the deep sympathy—of everyone here and throughout the country; and he will have no more genuine sympathy than from those who realise from experience the greatness of the task which he has undertaken.

The House will not expect me to say much about the late Prime Minister on an occasion such as this. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). I am thankful to feel that the time has not yet come for us to say what we might say were his work finished, but I cordially endorse and sympathise with every word that has been said about him, and I hope to have the pleasure of conveying to him in person this afternoon what has passed in this House. I feel sure that nothing will bring him more comfort at this time than to have once more in tangible form a record of the feeling which his fellow-Members have for him. He was more to me than a party leader. We have worked together almost as brothers, and it has been the greatest satisfaction and happiness to me to feel that perhaps in some way I have been able to relieve him under the growing burdens of the last few months.

If I may say one word on the other subject which has been raised, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kind words. I am grateful to the House for their reception of me to-day. I am grateful for the cheers, which come as though encouraging a new knight entering the arena. I know quite well, should he be unhorsed, though possibly he may receive sympathy, that there are many who will rejoice. But that does not detract for one moment from the chivalrous welcome that every man, who in turn has to stand here and take upon his shoulders, whether he desires to do so or not, the heaviest burden in the Empire, receives, and I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley said. I have always read of those two happy moments. I do not know that I have experienced the one, but I am certain that I shall experience the other. I assure him that, being no exceptional man, I shall not prove an exception. I thank the House, I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for his kind words, which I assure him I appreciate, and I can only say to the House that while I am now the leader of the party I shall never forget that at a time like this the leader of the party in power is the leader of the country, and so far as in me lies I shall try and carry on the traditions of this office, and I ask the support of this House.

I am very conscious that when on such occasions as this the leaders of the different parties have expressed on behalf of the whole House their feelings, it is very unusual for a private Member to intervene, but I would ask the indulgence of the House for I have been intimately associated with the late Prime Minister for so long. I have acted with him in close counsel and friendship in so many difficult situations and at more than one stage of our career our fortunes have been so curiously interlaced that I could not sit silent and refrain from saying how deeply I share the grief of the House and how profoundly I feel the loss of the country in his withdrawal from office at this time I have known my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister from the moment when he entered this House of Commons. I remember a little time after his entry sitting with him in the old smoking room, when, in a rather disconsolate mood, he said that it was all very well for men who, like myself had been able to enter the House of Commons young to adopt a Parliamentary career, but that if he had known what the House of Commons was he would never had entered it at his age and would never have attempted to cross its portals. Within, I think, a few weeks he had made his maiden speech from that bench and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, next whom I was sitting, said, "This is a very remarkable speech. We shall have to do something for him.'' I do not mean for him personally, but, "We shall have to meet his case." From that moment, he was one of the marked figures of the House of Commons. He proceeded from honour to honour, and he advanced in public confidence and respect until he had achieved all but the highest position in the State. Then illness overcame him. It was my fate to succeed him. Again, it was his fate to succeed me, and this time to make an appeal in his own name to the country and for the Government which he himself had formed.

There is a peculiar tragedy in his enforced retirement at the present time. The victory at the last Election was in a special degree his victory. The confidence that was given by the country was in a marked degree personal confidence in him. This House of Commons is his House of Commons, and without him and without his guidance we are no longer the same body. I am no more going to try and measure the public services of my right hon. Friend on this occasion than the speakers who have preceded me. It is of his personal and private character that I speak—that simplicity, that unselfishness, that devotion to work and duty which won the affection and confidence alike of his colleagues here and of his countrymen outside. I am happy to think that in our long association only once, and that now some years ago, did an angry word pass between us. I am happy to think, and a little ashamed to admit, that within an hour of that angry word it was at his instigation and on his advance that the difference was healed.

May I say one word of another friend whom I have known and respected ever since he entered the House of Commons —the now Prime Minister and leader of my party. May I, too, offer him, as I do as an old friend and a sincere friend, my congratulations on his high appointment. Within the last few months, if those who differ from me will permit me to say so on an occasion which should in no sense be controversial, he has placed two great achievements to his oredit. He is the author of a Budget which I, at any rate, think a wise and a sound and a great Budget. But he has done a greater thing. He is, more than anyone, the author of the settlement of the American Debt. I hope that my right hon. Friend will guide his Government with the same courage and with the same initiative that he has shown in these high matters, and I heartily wish him success.

I propose to say only a few words in introducing this Bill and to clear up one or two points before the Debate begins. The Bill, as the House is aware, consists of only one Clause, and the purpose of it is to indemnify a Minister of the Crown for having taken action, bonâ fide and acting under advice, but which, after having been supported in one Court, has been declared illegal in the Court of Appeal. So far, the issue is a very simple one, but one or two points were raised before the Adjournment by way of questions in the House, and I think it will be for the convenience of Members if I state now what is the intention of the Government so that the House may be acquainted with it before proceeding further to-day. Of course, the House recognises that, so far as compensation is concerned, all legal claims will be barred by the Indemnity Bill, and, therefore, the Government has decided that they are prepared to receive claims in respect of any actual expense or direct loss sustained by any of the deportees in consequence of their arrest and deportation to Ireland, and, in the event of any such claims being disputed, to refer the matter to some impartial person of judicial experience for adjustment. Further, the Government have decided to set up a small and expert Committee, with a judicial Chairman, to consider the Regulations made under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920, and to advise as to the amendment or cancellation of any such Regulations. I am sure that it will be the desire and expectation of the House that the Home Secretary should make a statement at the beginning of the Debate upon this Bill, but, having made that statement, he will take no further part in the proceedings, nor will he vote. I have no more at the moment to say beyond those few words.

I rise, not to take any part in the discussion as to whether or not I shall be indemnified, but merely to state, if I may, to the House the facts which led me to take the action I did and to give what explanation I can of my reasons. I do not think there is any man in this House who has greater reason to be grateful for the personal kindness he has received at the hands of hon. Members on all sides of the House, but I should not think of making any claim to-day for that personal indulgence which I so much appreciate. I propose to leave this matter to the calm and cool judgment of hon. Members and to ask no indulgence on this occasion. I should like, if I may—I am not going to discuss the question of indemnifying myself—to add my hope that, whatever the House may decide, those who acted under my direction will not be allowed to suffer in consequence. I think I heard you, Mr. Speaker, give a ruling that we must not refer to the motives which actuated or which one thinks actuated other people, but I do hope you will allow me to impute one or two motives to myself while I am explaining the course of action which I took. Before I come to that, I want to say one thing very emphatically, and that is I hope the House will not seek to exonerate me by putting blame on my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, with whom I consulted on this matter. The responsibility I is mine and I claim to bear the full weight of it. I did consult him1; I took his advice, and I felt that it was right. A good many other people thought so too. Now for the facts. Some weeks before the arrests were made, I became aware of the existence of an organisation conducted on a quasi-military basis and directed by a gentleman who failed himself "Officer Commanding in Great Britain."

I wish to raise a point of Order which I think the House will appreciate. I want to submit that, having regard to the fact that a vast number of these unfortunate people are still to go through the process of trial, their case may very likely be prejudiced by information given in connection with this Bill.

I do not think that that is a point which calls for my inter vention. I am not capable of deciding the question, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will do nothing unfair.

Obviously, I would be the last to suggest that the Home Secretary would do anything unfair, but it may have escaped his notice that, in giving his reasons for his action, the case of these men may be prejudiced by his explanation.

We have had some experience of the Courts of Law, and know that they do not take much notice of what is said in the House of Commons.

That may be so, but we ire here dealing with cases in which a jury may take notice.

I shall certainly endeavour not to say anything which will in any way prejudice anybody's case in the Courts, but I do not think I can give the House my reasons without referring, anonymously, of course, to some of these people who, according to my information, were very much concerned—

The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted his difficulty is surely in itself sufficient ground for the House to assert that the matter ought not to be discussed until these people have been tried.

If I am to under stand that nothing will be said in defence of these people from the benches opposite —nothing that may prejudice the jury in their favour, then, perhaps—

We do not occupy your position.

If hon. Gentlemen do not occupy my position, they surely can appreciate my difficulties.

May I be permitted to ask whether we are not discussing now the action of the Minister and not the guilt or innocence of these persons? If we are discussing the action of the Minister, how can it be relevant to make animadversions on the deportees?

It depends on what the Minister says. It seems to me that this matter is relevant to the question whether or not the Bill should be passed.

I want to submit that I the Attorney-General is present and that he should be the best judge of the legal aspect of the case, whether the information which the Home Secretary proposes to give to the House would prejudice the case of and prevent these people from having a fair trial. I submit, seeing that the Attorney-General was consulted on the original question which has caused the introduction of this Bill, he should be consulted on this more important question as affecting these individuals.

How can the House come to a just decision on the Bill before us unless we have the facts put before us by the Home Secretary?

May I, as a point of Order, ask, Is not this a question as to the legality of the action of the Home Secretary and not whether these men were guilty or innocent?

We cannot now argue the question. The Home Secretary has risen to make a personal explanation to the House, and he is doing so in good faith. I think it is most relevant to this Bill.

Is not the relevant point this—whether the Home Secretary, in judging the guilt of these men, took the right course in deporting them, rather than bringing them before the Courts in this country? That is the only question, I take it, which the Home Secretary has to answer.

May I call attention to page 296 of Erskine May, where we are told that

"Matters awaiting the adjudication of a Court of Law should not be brought forward in debate."

I submit that the fact upon which the right hon. Gentleman is going, namely, as to this alleged conspiracy, is at the present time a matter under judicial investigation, at any rate in the case of Art O'Brien, the gentleman who was referred to as Commander-in-Chief in Great Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] His case is one of the cases at any rate which is at present under judicial investigation, and I submit, therefore, that no hon. Member in the course of this Debate is entitled to say anything which bears upon a case under adjudication in a Court of Law. It is upon that ground I submit the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has submitted a good point of Order.

I have ruled that it is a matter for the discretion of Members of the House, and no one, I think, is a better judge of that than the Home Secretary himself.

May I humbly submit that the matter should be regulated in accordance with the records. The sentence I have quoted is followed by this other sentence:

"This rule was observed by Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell…regarding Mr. O'Connell's case and has been maintained by rulings from the Chair."

Is it not a fact that the question in issue at this moment arises from the action of the Home Secretary, and how can hon. Members refrain from commenting on these men who are awaiting their trial if this Debate goes on?

I can only say again that I must trust the Home Secretary, as I trust every hon. Member, not to say anything which would prejudice cases that are sub judice.

If the Home Secretary does infringe that statement of yours, will it be open to any other hon. Member to object, and will the right hon. Gentleman then have to refrain?

I cannot say more than I have already said.

Right hon. and hon Gentlemen opposite seem to have anticipated what they thought I was going to say, and not what really I was going to say. So far as I had gone, when I was interrupted, I had done nothing more than repeat what I said on the Debate which took place when the arrests were made. I do not think there can be any harm in my referring to a statement such as that. As regards Mr. O'Brien, he is not the man who is known as the "Officer Commanding in Great Britain," and so that point does not arise. I do not want, and indeed I should be very sorry, to prejudice in any way the cases of any of the people concerned, but it is necessary for me to show that, in my opinion, at any rate, this was a very dangerous organisation. It was very dangerous in the view of the Free State Government of Ireland—so dangerous because it was contemplating immediate action which might have been disastrous both in this country and in Ireland. Therefore, I was obliged to exercise the special powers which I believed were given in the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations. I will not quote more than one or two sentences which were given in the late Debate, showing first:

I am very sorry to interrupt again, but the House wants to do the fair thing, and I submit that reference to the evidence which was given during the last Debate is not admissible to-day for this reason: There was no trial then pending. There is a definite trial now pending, and, so far as the Indemnity Bill is concerned, the Minister is in no worse position by the Bill being deferred until after the trial, so that nothing shall be said here to prejudice the cases of these men.

To please the right hon. Gentleman, I will avoid quotations. That is making a very considerable sacrifice from the point of view of explaining my action. It means that I am not allowed to quote passages which I quoted to the House before, and which everyone has read.

Further to the point of Order. As the Home Secretary perfectly justly says, that, under the restrictions of debate, he will not be able to make an adequate defence, I wish to put the question whether under the circumstances you would not allow a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate?