QUESTION. (Hansard, 10 May 1861)

§ MR. HADFIELD

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the yearly Indemnity Bill will be brought in, whether the form and purport of it will be the same as have been used annually since 1828, and whether he will cause it to be printed in the way usually done on the introduction of other Bills for consideration and discussion? The late Government had neglected to take the test required, and, therefore, all their subsequent acts while in office were, in point of fact, void. He wished the Bill should be brought in regularly, and printed, circulated, and discussed. At present it was brought in a manner which precluded any hon. Gentleman from expressing an opinion upon it—it had certainly never caught his eye.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he was afraid it was his unfortunate fate to dispute both the facts and the law of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had said the Indemnity Bill was not brought in a manner before the House that any Gentleman could 1895 express an opinion upon it; that he had never been able to keep bis eye upon it as it passed through the House; and that Parliament passed it without any knowledge of its contents. His hon. Friend was entirely mistaken in that supposition. The Indemnity Bill was annually brought in by the Under Secretary for the Home Department. It was a short Bill and was printed at full length. It was by no means treated like the Mutiny Act or the Appropriation Act, which were sometimes not presented in a printed form, but was presented in such a form that every Member had an opportunity of fully considering its contents. With regard to the law of the case, his hon. Friend spoke of the neglect of the late Ministers to take what he called an obsolete test. There was no test now in force; there was only a declaration, and no doubt persons were required annually by law to make it when they took office. But if they did not make it, they were saved from the consequences by the annual Indemnity Act, which relieved them from all penal consequences. No doubt it only saved them for the year; but, practically, it afforded entire exemption, as the Bill was passed annually. If the House should be desirous of making any alteration in the Bill they would have abundance of opportunity while the Bill was before the House.