CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE. (Hansard, 28 February 1887)

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
This is a Vote for the cost of an official assignee. There was a gentleman who was an official assignee to the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland some years ago whose proceedings appeared to be not very justifiable. I moved for a return showing the position in which we stood in regard to different bankrupt estates which came under the influence of that gentleman. That Return was furnished and is in the library of the House, though it was never printed. A short time after that gentleman had furnished that Return, after he had had time to arrange matters for himself, he disappeared. At any rate, a considerable investigation of the accounts of assignees in bankruptcy has taken place principally by reason of the defalcations of this particular assignee. In examining how matters stood, a certain number of gentlemen were put on the accounts of this official assignee. I find there were no less than four gentlemen drafted from the Paymaster-General's Office in connection with this service. Another gentleman was taken from the Public Works Office, and also employed in the examination of these accounts; and then there are two officials of the Court of Bankruptcy itself, who have received several additions to their salaries in connection with the same work. Now, I notice that this Vote is worded in a very peculiar manner. At the bottom set forth as the details of the charge are two items. The first is "the excess of indemnity ordered by the Court over the amount of the sub-head." I doubt if there is any non-official Member of the House who has the least idea what is meant by these words. What "excess of indemnity" is there, what "indemnity" is it, and why was it "ordered by the Court?" It is an item of £307, and from that is deducted £20, being savings 821 under other sub-heads. Though I have a suspicion of what this means, I should be unable to explain my idea of it clearly by means of the materials set forth here. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), whom I presume is responsible for this Vote, what is the meaning of this phrase? I should like also to ask what was the nature of the investigation which caused such an upset in connection with the official assignees in Dublin. How many gentlemen were employed to audit the accounts?

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
I think I can explain how this Vote came to be asked for at all. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that by Act of Parliament the Court is empowered to pay official assignees for expenses incurred by them in their official capacity. Sums have accordingly been paid in this way on four occasions—in 1877–78 £144 9s. 3d. was paid; in 1880–81 £60 8s. 3d. was paid; in 1881–82, £89 19s. 3d.; and in 1884–85, £384 9s. 10d. The hon. Gentleman Will see that it must be impossible beforehand to make an accurate estimate of what the charge may be. A nominal sum was taken in the General Estimate, the actual sum paid is now asked for.

§ MR. P. McDONALD (sligo, N.)
Following the example of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal Mr. A. O'Connor), I also moved for a Return which is not printed yet, but which will be in the hands of hon. Members by the end of the week. I moved for a Return of the Treasury Report on the accounts of the late official assignee—Charles Henry James—who became a defaulter. We have had two assignees connected with our Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland. One of them has, I believe, performed his duties with sufficient carefulness and attention, and the other has acted as a defaulter in the most outrageous manner. His defalcations will appear in the Report which will be issued to the hon. Members of this House in the course of the week, and they will involve revelations of an official nature such as have never before, perhaps, come under the notice of this House and this Committee. The defalcations in a comparatively small office amount to over £10,000.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I do not under stand how this matter is connected with the particular Vote under discussion. The real question that can be discussed under this Vote is the payment of this so-called indemnity to the official trustees.

§ MR. P. McDONALD
I understood that under the sub-head B—the second sub-head—official assignees £287, original Estimate £50; total, £337—my remarks were perfectly pertinent.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman will observe in a foot-note to the effect that it is an indemnity ordered by the Court for the payment of official assignees. It is that, and that only, that can be discussed.

§ MR. P. McDONALD
Am I to understand, Sir, that this excess of indemnity is not for the purpose of making good the deficiencies arising from the defalcations in question?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
It has no reference to defalcations.

§ MR. P. McDONALD
Then I am not permitted to refer to this.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
I would ask whether this indemnity is not to cover certain costs—the costs of the official assignees, as shown in large letters opposite sub-head B? Were these costs not incurred on account of non-payment of certain dividends? Whether the non-payment of these dividends is or is not due to defalcations of the assignee in question; will the Secretary to the Treasury commit himself to the statement that there were no costs incurred under sub-head B in either the Supplementary Vote or the Vote to which that is a supplement, which arose by reason of the defalcations of the official assignee?

§ MR. JACKSON
I believe I am perfectly justified in answering that these items have not arisen by reason of such defalcations.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
Perhaps this official assignee has been more sinned against than sinning. In my opinion this Vote for official assignees is the cause of all the mistakes that have arisen in the Department. This is an account that is presented annually to Parliament. It should be certified by the Chief Registrar to the Court, and there should be an auditor appointed to facilitate the work. What are the duties of the official assignee? They are not 823 stated. The gentleman who is the subject of so much attack at the present time, who is alleged to have run away from his position—and that gentleman, I believe, did so—leaving thousands of pounds behind him in the bank that he might have taken, does not appear to have been actuated by a guilty intent. The fault in regard to what occurred does not rest so much with him as with the system. We should insist that the accounts these gentlemen present to Parliament are of a really satisfactory and searching character. In voting money for these official assignees we have not the assurance we ought to have that everything is regular in the office. I do not think everything is regular in the office at the present time. These gentlemen do not perform the duties they ought to perform. In my judgment this Vote is wholly unsatisfactory, unless we are assured that the accounts presented will be checked by some other competent authority, as they are not at the present time. It is my intention to raise the whole question upon the Irish Judicature Bill, in which the expenses of one Judge are provided for. But here you have an additional Tote of £278 as excess of indemnity. I really do not understand the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) with regard to the indemnity. I maintain that no matter how efficient the official assignee is, it is absolutely necessary that his report should be checked by the Chief Registrar. This official ought to certify that he had gone over the report and ought to vouch for its accuracy. If there had been such a supervision hitherto you would not have had such unfortunate defalcations as in the case of Mr. James. I have inquired into these defalcations, and I consider that it is the system that is at fault. I am certainly wholly at a loss to understand why we should now pay £287 for the cost of the official assignee. My knowledge may be at fault; but the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is altogether unintelligible to me.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
May I ask why these costs are not paid out of the unpaid dividends in the hands of the Commissioners of the National Debt? Why should this ap- 824 pear as a charge against the Exchequer?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin, University)
I think I am able to explain that in a few words. Up to the year 1877 the unpaid dividends were under the control of the Bankruptcy Court, subject to charges of this character; but in that year the amount was transferred to the Commissioners of the National Debt, and the Statute on authorising such transfer provided that for the future these charges should be defrayed by monies to be voted by Parliament. This Vote is asked for in pursuance of this provision.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Am I to understand that this sum which is now to be voted will hereafter be covered by the Commissioners of the National Debt: that it is the intention of Her Majesty's present Administration to bring in a Bill to secure the repayment from the National Debt Commissioners of the sums which are voted either in the ordinary or Supplementary Estimates on this account?

§ MR. HOLMES
The country thought the National Debt Commissioners received the benefit of the unclaimed dividends; and this amount cannot be recovered from that Fund.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state what is the amount thus transferred to the National Debt Commissioners under the head of "Unpaid Dividend Account?"

§ MR. HOLMES
I cannot say.

§ MR. P. McDONALD (Sligo, N.)
It is curious this indemnity was not hitherto opposed in any Returns. Will this item, or an item similar to it, be continued in future Estimates? Is it a fact that it is not intended to cover the expenses of an inquiry into the so-called defalcations of this official assignee, and also into the manner in which the Bank of Ireland has failed to perform its duty? It is alleged that this official assignee was permitted to transfer to his own banking account the money lodged in the Bank of Ireland for the purpose of paying these dividends. I should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) whether the statements now make are founded upon fact.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
I submit that a proper amount of illumination has not been thrown on this matter by the Members of the Treasury Bench. This is a matter which should be made plain to what is called the meanest intelligence. Does no one understand this Vote? I cannot understand either the Vote itself or the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). Will someone on the Treasury Bench tell us how often in previous years this Vote has been put down, and why it is necessary now? It is not sufficient for the Government to say that because the money is wanted they must have it. The Irish Court of Bankruptcy has been in operation since 1857—for 30 years—and now you put down a Vote of £287 for "excess of indemnity ordered by the Court over amount of the sub-head (costs of official assignees)." This unfortunate Mr. James has been much attacked, but I am not going to attack him, though he is a Tory of the Tories. It is the system under which he served which ought to be attacked. Am I to be told that it is because this unfortunate Mr. James fled that this £287 is required? That is a point which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has not explained. You have an annual—a certain—Vote in connection with the Irish Bankruptcy Act; it is, in fact, £10,000 odd. What has occurred in 1886–7 to require this amount? The Irish Bankruptcy Act has been in process of operation for 30 years; why is it that in this particular financial year you want the sum of £287? It is supposed to be wanted on account of the flight of Mr. James. But Mr. James came back with his pockets full of Bank of England notes. He had no dishonest intentions.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I have already said that it is totally irrelevant to discuss the case of Mr. James.

§ MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.)
Undoubtedly there has been much mismanagement with regard to the affairs of the Irish Bankruptcy Court, and it is only by a debate like this that the management can be brought to light. Whatever may be said about Mr. James, there has been, if not great dereliction of duty, at any rate a large amount of supineness in bankruptcy management.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
That is not raised in any way under this Vote.

§ MR. O'HEA
May I point out that under the Bankruptcy Act of 1857 it is incumbent upon the Court to audit the accounts of the official assignee. Have we anything to show that there was an audit of the accounts of the official assignee?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
This Vote has no relation to any defalcations on the part of the official assignee. This is a payment made under statute by way of indemnity for the transfer of unpaid dividends.

§ MR. O'HEA
I was coming to that point, Mr. Courtney. With respect to unclaimed dividends, what is the duty of the official assignee? The Act provides that "If he shall refuse to pay dividends the Court may order payment with interest, and may also order payment of the costs of the application." I do not wish to encroach unnecessarily upon the time of the Committee, but I desire to say that when a matter like this does come up for discussion, we are entitled to ask in the felicitous language of my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), that some illumination should be thrown upon the general bankruptcy management. I certainly shall enter fully into this and other matters when the Irish Judicature Bill is brought up.

§ MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Mayo, S.)
It is really the want of an explanation of these accounts that is responsible for the present waste of time. We have been for many hours discussing a Vote—Supplementary Votes—but nine-tenths of the time would have been saved had we had a few words of explicit explanation. We are asked to pass this Vote without knowing anything about it; we are asked to pass it simply upon the unsatisfactory statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. If the hon. Gentleman would explain the Vote even now he would prevent any further waste of time.

§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)
I should like to know whether these costs are the result of an action taken against the official assignee, or of an action which has failed, taken by the official assignee. It is quite plain that the want of light which has been complained of arises from the centralization of the bankruptcy jurisdiction in Dublin. Successive Governments have expressed themselves strongly upon the necessity 827 of Local Courts; and I am sure that if there were Local Courts dividends would not go so much astray.

§ MR. HOLMES
I suppose hon. Members are aware that in winding up an estate in bankruptcy, it frequently happens that certain dividends are unpaid. They may not be claimed for a number of years, and then a claim may be made against the official assignee, who may contest it, and be put to costs which he would have to pay. On four occasions since 1877 precisely similar Votes to the present one have been passed by the House.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
It does not follow that the Vote is just because a similar Vote has been passed in previous years. The 193rd section of the Bankruptcy Act of 1857 provides that— No action for any dividend shall be brought against any assignee; but if the assignee shall refuse to pay any such dividend the Court may order payment thereof, with interest for the time it shall have been withheld; and it may also order the payment of the costs of the application; therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) has gone a little astray if he thinks that these were costs incurred against the official assignee. I am afraid there is not very much more information upon the Treasury Bench in regard to matter than there is upon these Benches. It is clear, at any rate, that there was a considerable sum of money which belonged to nobody except certain bankrupts, which sum of money the Commissioners of the National Debt had paid over to them under Act of Parliament. That is done, and we cannot quarrel with it; but from that fund so transferred have been payable, under the Irish Judicature Act of 1877, certain charges on account of costs. Those payments are no longer made. The charges are thrown—I do not know upon what authority or under what Act—upon Votes submitted from time to time irregularly to this House in Committee of Supply. It it clear the charges are made in connection with some laches on the part of certain official assignees. If they are not, what on earth are they made for. Certain things have been done which ought not to have been done, and certain things have not been done which ought to have been done. These costs have now to be defrayed, and a Vote is submitted ac- 828 cordingly. What we want to know, and what I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, is what are the shortcomings in respect of which these legal proceedings have been taken—proceedings which have resulted in these legal expenses being payable at the expense of the public taxpayer?

§ MR. JACKSON
I can only say, Sir, that I have not been in possession of every detail. I can indeed tell the hon. Gentleman as much as I know, and I have already endeavoured to explain to him how this sum came here for payment. I may further explain that the particular item which is now before the Committee arose upon a particular case of bankruptcy in Ireland, in which the gentleman who was acting as official assignee incurred certain costs.

§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, North)
Who was he?

§ MR. JACKSON
I may further say that these costs, before they are sanctioned for payment under this Statute, have to be confirmed and approved and ordered by the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland. All that process has been gone through. The Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland made an order that this official assignee was entitled to these costs, and that they were to be paid to him under the section of the Act which directs this to be done. I really am extremely sorry that the hon. Member requires to know the particulars and details of what the official assignee did. I can only give him a general reply upon the matter as it was brought before us, and I really cannot say more, because I do not know the details.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
We must all admire the admirable manner in which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has endeavoured to reply to all the questions that have been addressed to him. It is impossible to expect him to bear in mind every detail for the whole of the three countries—England, Ireland, and Scotland—though we admire his manner and his desire to give all the information in his power very much. But we do expect that the Irish officers of the Government, who are paid for the purpose, would be in possession of the facts. I do not consider that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has given us the explanation 829 which we are entitled to. It is an explanation which is inconsistent with that of the Secretary to the Treasury, and until those two gentlemen can arrive at a mutual understanding as to what the proper explanation is to be the best thing we can do is to pospone the Vote. As I understand the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, it is a rational one, if I may say so without disrespect to the Irish Attorney General. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury says that this is a Vote ordered for payment in consequence of an order made by the Irish Bankruptcy Judge. But what says the Irish Attorney General? If I understand him aright—far be it from me to say that I am capable of taking in the explanation of any Irish Attorney General—if I understand him aright, his explanation is that there are certain sums payable to certain Commissioners of the National Debt, and that those sums were paid over, and that they, having paid over so much more than they ought to have done, the Commissioners of the National Debt were compelled to cut down this Vote; but that explanation is wholly inconsistent with the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury; and furthermore, the Irish Attorney General gave an explanation which is totally contrary to the Section of the Irish Bankruptcy Act to which, we are referred by the sub-head at the beginning of the Vote for Explanation. That shows a vicious system of putting down the Votes and relying upon the supineness of the Committee to pass them without due and deliberate inquiry. You, Mr. Courtney, are the only Gentleman in this Committee who professes to understand this matter. You, Mr. Courtney, appear in your ruling, at all events, to have started what I may call a working hypothesis, and, grant your hypothesis, your rulings are most admirable. When I contrast your view with the explanations which have been offered from the Treasury Bench I am struck with admiration of the faculty which enables you to gather up two wholly inconsistent explanations and to make your rulings consistent with them. What says the Act of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman the Irish Attorney General says this is a charge made because of certain charges which fall on the official assignee in the 830 course of his business; but in the Act it says that an action for any dividend shall be brought against any official assignee, and if the Court shall order payment of such dividend the Court may do so. Therefore, you have it upon this that this is not a Vote in consequence of any defalcation by any assignee, and yet, if I may say so without the smallest disrespect, you have the statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury that this is a Vote in consequence of a defalcation.

§ MR. JACKSON
No; I did not say so.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
This is a Vote because of the particular conduct of some particular official assignee. I asked for the name and the date, but was quite unable to get either. The official assignee is, in some way, left in nubilus. He was in default; but we are now told it is not a defalcation.

§ MR. JACKSON
I never said so.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Really, as I have said before, I think this Committee—or, at least, the Irish Members of it—should treat the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury with the utmost consideration. He is most anxious to give us information, and he has mustered, in every respect, an enormous mass of details, which is the more remarkable and praiseworthy as he is new to Office. He really compels and extorts our admiration. The Chief Secretary for Dungarvan shakes his head—I really beg the Home Secretary's pardon—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews). He shakes his head. He seems to know all about it; but he will not get up and say what he thinks. I will give him the explanation of the Irish Attorney General, who says that the default and the costs have to be met. Am I to be told that the Treasury of England has agreed to raise this extraordinary sum, placed upon the Estimates without full explanation? I think that the least we might expect is that the Treasury should give us an explanation which should be consistent; but they have not given us that. They say that this sum has been incurred in consequence of default and in consequence of costs. Who incurred them? What is the date? Let us have some particulars. I am told that Mr. Dening is the official assignee—surely he must have some explanation, to offer. So far 831 we are only told that a certain sum arises in consequence of a default. Let us know the date of it, and when the costs were incurred, and who was the official involved?

§ MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Mayo, S.)
Notwithstanding the explanation given to us we are still in the dark—indeed, we are more in the dark now than we were before. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has given us his explanation, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has given us a different one. The Attorney General for Ireland says these costs were incurred in default of the payment of certain dividends. Now, why should costs be incurred in this way? I confess I do not understand that. The Secretary to the Treasury has also given us his explanation. He says the costs arose out of a particular case. He was asked to explain the particular case; but he would not do so, and he leaves the matter in this unintelligible way. We most strongly object to let everything pass here that has been passed by the Judges in Ireland, and we think we are entitled to some explanation.

§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)
It seems to me that an opportunity ought to be taken by the Treasury, when they are going over the accounts of officials in Ireland, to check those accounts. How can we have any confidence in voting money when affairs are managed in this slipshod fashion, and when the sums asked for are increasing year by year, and no attempt is made even to have notice served upon those who are responsible? If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give an undertaking that hereafter these orders should be checked, and the costs and expenses checked, there might be some satisfaction in trying to pass these Votes without dispute.

§ MR. JACKSON
I am sure it is my fault for not having made the matter clear; but really this is a matter in which the Treasury have no power whatever. It is settled by an Act of Parliament that certain costs that are charged from time to time may be brought before the Court in Ireland, and approved by the Court, and then they must be paid. The amount which is now before the Committee has been before the Court, has been approved by 832 the Court, and has been ordered by the Court to be paid; and, in accordance with the Act of Parliament, we are bound to pass it.

An hon. MEMBER
Is there no Notice to the Treasury?

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I think this matter may be divided under two heads, so far as the power of the Court is concerned. The first is, that where an estate is open, the Court, no doubt, has considerable power to order payment out of the funds in Court. The second power is under the 77th section of the Act of 1872; and, in that case, the Court is empowered, out of unclaimed dividends, to order payment to the official assignee of certain sums. But the order which is used as a justification for this Vote is no order at all, for no power to make such order exists. The Court orders for payment certain sums out of moneys to be provided by Parliament; but the power to make an order is confined to an entirely different fund—the unclaimed dividends. The explanation which has been given is, therefore, not sufficient.

§ MR. HOLMES
If the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will refer to the 85th section of the Judicature Act of 1877, he will find that it has transferred that liability to the money provided by Parliament, for the 85th section provides that Government securities must be transferred to the National Debt Commissioners, and all charges upon them, including this charge, shall be taken out of moneys provided by Parliament. The section to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is, no doubt, the section under which the charge was originally made; but, by subsequent legislation, it is transferred from the unclaimed dividend account to the money provided by Parliament.

§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)
I think, Sir, that it is time we discontinued the discussion; and I, therefore, move that you do report Progress.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
I really must ask the Committee to finish this Vote. The 833 most complete information has been given. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite misunderstand the fact that this money is required to be paid—is ordered to be paid—by a Court of Law, which has full power to order it, and there is no alternative. I do not say that the House of Commons is absolutely bound to vote the money; but an Act of Parliament provides that it shall be paid out of money to be voted by Parliament. This has been done with official sanction, and we really have no alternative in the matter.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
For half an-hour we have been asking for some information. We have got various different accounts, and at the last moment we have a totally different explanation given to us, which does throw some little light upon the business. But for half-an-hour we have practically wasted our time, because the Members upon the Treasury Bench cannot agree about the facts. Nobody admits more cheerfully than I do that there has been a complete waste of time, wholly caused by the inability of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to agree in their own explanations. They have given a different one every time, and now at the eleventh hour we get an entirely different one from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Irish Attorney General, wholly different from all which have preceded it.

§ THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
There are some unopposed Votes which I am sure hon. Gentlemen will not object to dispose of. We will not take any Votes which may reasonably occupy any time. I would not propose to take the Constabulary Vote nor the Irish Education Yore if that is objected to; but there are certain other Votes which are not Votes of any great importance, and which it would be of considerable advantage to take in Committee of Supply to-night. As the Committee, though it has lasted a considerable time, has not obtained much money, I trust it will be willing to go forward for a little while longer.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
I have looked through these 834 Votes for myself, and I am disposed to think that the Vote for the Science and Art Department is not one that is likely to give rise to discussion, but most of the others are likely to lead to debate. There is certainly one on the Paper—the Vote for Lunatics in Scotland—which, probably, will not involve much discussion; but with the exception of, perhaps, one other, I do not think there is a single Vote remaining as to which it will not be necessary to raise discussions.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
I hope the Diplomatic Vote will not be taken to-night.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
No.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
There is no Question before the House.