SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1888

§ MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)
It will be remembered that last Session the introduction of these Supplementary Estimates gave rise to considerable debate, and it was then stated on behalf of the Government that in future this course would be avoided as far as possible. But the case is worse now, for neither the Navy nor the Civil Service Estimates have yet been issued, and we are in the position of being asked to vote money without having the Estimates before us that we might examine the items and form our opinion. Last Session, in reply to a complaint of the practice of bringing forward Supplementary Estimates, and so depriving the Committee of a fair opportunity of considering the expenditure, a promise was made that, if possible, it should be avoided. But here we have the Supplementary Estimates sprung upon us again. I do not want to move any reduction or raise any particular objection to this Vote, but I wish to get some expression of opinion—some promise that this continual introduction of Supplementary Estimates—this taking of money in little bits—shall be avoided in future, and that the money shall be asked for in the ordinary Estimates, when the items can be properly examined.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.
I do not quite follow the hon. Member. These Supplementary Estimates now introduced have no connection with the Estimates about to be introduced for the coming year. These Supplementary Estimates are to make good deficiencies that would otherwise arise in the amounts which have already been voted for the current year. I entirely sympathize with the hon. Member in his desire to avoid Supplementary Estimates, and I can assure him there is nobody to whom they cause greater inconvenience than the Secretary to the Treasury for the time being. But circumstances arise that make them necessary. I may point out that the Estimates for the present financial year were framed fifteen months ago, and it is impossible 1214 to foresee all that may happen in respect to a particular Vote during fifteen months. This particular Vote arises in consequence of several Committees appointed to inquire into important subjects, such, as the "Sweating Committee," the Committee on "Private Bill Legislation," the Committees on the "Pharmacy Acts," and "High Sheriffs," having prolonged their sittings into the Autumn Session far beyond the usual period; and so there arises extra expenditure for witnesses, for reporters, shorthand writers, and so on. These extra expenses could not be foreseen when the original Estimates were framed. In framing the Estimates a margin is always allowed, and everything which can be foreseen is provided for; and these comparatively few Supplementary Estimates are due to circumstances over which we have no control. I had hoped that the Committee would have congratulated the Government on these Supplementary Estimates being so small in number and amount, and I trust they will not be considered as requiring a long discussion.

§ MR. MOLLOY
Of course, I quite understand these Supplementary Estimates are to meet deficiencies in the current year's accounts, but they have also a great deal to do with the Estimates for the coming year, just as the balance sheet of one year has relation to that of another year. Are we to have this year's Supplementary Estimates presented from time to time, or shall we take them in the ordinary course and consider them as a whole? These constant little petty discussions might be avoided, and in that sense they are an obstruction to ordinary business.

§ MR. JACKSON
The hon. Member has in his mind, I think, what is known as the Vote on Account. The Estimates themselves will be in the hands of the House in a few days. It is the intention of the Government, and has been announced by the Leader of the House, that every facility will be afforded to hon. Gentlemen for the discussion of the Estimates.

§ MR. MOLLOY
At what time?

§ MR. JACKSON
Immediately. The Vote on Account of the Civil Service will be taken on Monday week.

THE CHAIRMAN
This discussion is quite irregular. The Vote is £909 for the House of Lords.

§ MR. SEXTON (West Belfast)
Mr. Courtney, the hon. Gentleman expects a little too much when he looks for congratulations with reference to these Estimates from this side of the House—

§ MR. SEXTON
The explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to this Vote is not sufficient and not satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman has himself pointed out that the item is for Select Committees of the House of Lords, and that the increase is under the special head of shorthand writers. The Solicitor to the Treasury should have been able to forecast the expenditure. The hon. Gentleman, has remarked that it was for the Sweating Committee. Now the Sweating Committee was appointed in February of last year.

§ MR. JACKSON
It succeeded the presentation of the Estimates.

§ MR. SEXTON
Certainly the expenditure must have been foreseen. I am the more moved to call attention to this matter seeing that the Irish Board of Guardians gets into difficulties by not being able accurately at the beginning of the year to forecast what its expenditure will be by the end of the year. With the experience of the officials of the Treasury, I wish to know how this Estimate has been increased by 50 per cent.?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the beginning of the evening that he was going to increase our taxation by a very large amount on account of our naval defences. I am opposed to the whole scheme, though I have no doubt the House will accept it. Under the circumstances, I think these are expensive and pernicious institutions which ought to be cut off. I have come to the conclusion that we might make a considerable economy, and with advantage to the country, if we never voted another shilling for the House of Lords.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to enter into the question of the House of Lords. He must confine himself to the items of the Vote.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Well, I object to those items on general principles because they are applied to an institution I disapprove of. I shall feel it my, duty, whenever they are proposed, to divide the House. Here we have £43,731, and we are asked to spend another £900 on shorthand writers and, law reporters. I think they are not needed, and I therefore oppose the expenditure as needless and pernicious.

§ MR. CREMER
The Secretary to the. Treasury said that it was an exceedingly small sum we are asked to vote. Small as it is, I propose to reduce it by £500, and unless an assurance is given to the House that the system against which I protest will be discontinued, I shall redeem my promise of December last, and, divide the House on every Vote where the principle to which I am about to refer is involved. The Sweating Committee, to which the Secretary to the Treasury, is no doubt a very important body, but it is a very remarkable thing; that the Government appointed a Committee to inquire into the evils of sweating, which—

THE CHAIRMAN
The only Question the hon. Member can discuss is the propriety of the additional charges to complete the work of the Committee.

§ * MR. CREMER
The reason I rose was with reference to the workmen engaged in the House of Lords. It will be within the recollection of the Chairman and of the Committee that I called attention to the course which is pursued by the Government in not paying the employés—

THE CHAIRMAN
That is quite out of Order.

§ * MR. CREMER
I will then move, without any further comment, that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500, reserving to myself the right, at the proper moment, to discuss the details.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Camborne)
I am exceedingly reluctant to vote against this Estimate, but I am afraid I must unless I get some information from the Government as to what this increase of salaries refers to. The details given were as to £138 in respect of Select Committees, and not as to 1217 £686, which is the principal part, apparently, of the whole Vote. I think we ought to know what this unusual number of Select Committees have been doing, and what are to be the beneficial results from their cogitations. If the Government can satisfy me on these two points, I shall certainly not be disposed to vote against the Estimate.

§ MR. JACKSON
I do not know whether it is possible to satisfy the hon. Member for Camborne—[Mr. CONYBEARE: I doubt it.] Quite so. The Vote states clearly and specifically what it is for. I have stated that there was an unusual number of Committees sitting for an unusual length of time, and the item is for the payment of reporters who took the shorthand notes. A very large proportion of the expenditure is due to the Sweating Committee, to which I should have thought there would have been no objection.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I have no confidence in that Committee; I go against the whole thing; and I shall object to every single Vote which appears in the Estimates for the House of Lords.

§ MR. SEXTON
The question I put to the hon. Gentleman was, why the expenditure in respect of a Committee which had been so long contemplated could not have been included in the ordinary Estimate for the year. With regard to the other Committees, I can see no reason why they should not be stated on the face of the Vote, and why the Minister should hesitate to name them to the Committee.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
Are we to understand that this charge is only for the taking of evidence and calling witnesses in the course of the proceedings of a Committee of the House of Lords?

§ MR. JACKSON
Yes; the system pursued in the other House is precisely the same as is pursued in this. Every Committee that sits upstairs has its shorthand writer, in exactly the same way as in another place. I thought I had already sufficiently explained the circumstances connected with this Vote. The Estimates are prepared in December or early in January, at the very latest, and at that time it was impossible to know how long the Lords' Committee would sit, or how much would be expended on witnesses and shorthand writers; so that it is only now, when we 1218 are coming to the end of the financial year, that we can put forward anything like an accurate Estimate, or anything likely to come in course of payment. Had there been any saving on any of the other subjects that were dealt with by Committees, it might have been applied to meet the excess here; but it was impossible at the end of the Autumn Session to determine the amount that would come in course of payment up to the 31st March in this instance.

§ MR. SEXTON
What were the other Committees?

§ MR. JACKSON
There were four—namely, the Sweating Committee, the High Sheriffs' Committee, the Committee on Private Legislation, and the Pharmacy Committee.

COLONEL NOLAN
I think it would be more business-like to over-estimate rather than under-estimate, as there is nothing that wastes the time of the Committee more than the practice of bringing in these Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury speaks of four Committees, three of which strike me as most ridiculous—I allude to the Pharmacy Committee, the High Sheriffs Committee, and the Private Legislation Committee. The High Sheriffs, we all know, are a very ridiculous institution, and I should like to know what, in the cases I have mentioned, we are to get for our money? What legislation do the Government intend to propose in regard to the Sweating System? Are they prepared to propose any legislation at all? If not—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order The hon. and gallant Member is wandering from the strict subject of the Vote, and I think he must be aware that the Committee on the Sweating System is still sitting.

COLONEL NOLAN
I have not seen any evidence in the papers for the last two or three days, although I have read that previously given; but I think it would be well, as the Committee has been sitting so long, to send it some strong expression of opinion from this House. As to the proposal to reduce the Vote by £500, I should prefer the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to reduce it by £900. I think it would expedite the work of the Committee if the whole of the Opposition were to go 1219 into the Lobby against the Vote, so as to mark its sense of the unbusiness-like conduct of the Government in this matter.

§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)
I have not a very extensive experience of Select Committees; but I think, from what I have seen, that, in a general way, there is an enormous amount of unnecessary evidence taken, a good deal of this evidence being the personal opinions of a set of partizans. If the evidence were confined to the elucidation of the facts it is desirable to get at, there might be some advantage in the expenditure incurred; but, as it is, there is usually no real value in the action of a Select Committee. In the latest Tory Governments it has been their policy to have a large number of Select Committees, probably because they afford the opportunity for a good deal of amusement to hon. Gentlemen who do not make much show in the House, but who can be elaborate enough on these Committees, and thus have it said of them—"Oh, he is a very good man on Committees." I think that under these circumstances it is the duty of this House to curtail this system of Select Committees, and the most effective way of doing this is to refuse to pay for these records of the senseless opinions of a lot of people whose views are not worth anything.

§ MR. G. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N. E.)
I am sorry the Government have had to ask for a Supplementary Vote; but, at the same time, under all the circumstances, I feel bound to support the Government. However much we may sneer at these Committees in general, it will, at any rate, be admitted that this Sweating Committee is bringing out a great deal of very valuable evidence, which amounts to something far more important than the opinions of experts—though, to my mind, the opinions of experts have their value. We do not as yet know what will be the outcome of this inquiry. The Committee have before them exceedingly valuable evidence on a very important question, which has formed a subject of debate in this House for a period of more than 50 years. I am sorry the question raised by my hon. Friends has been brought forward on this Vote, because, although I am strongly in favour of retrenchment in every possible shape, I, nevertheless, feel it my duty on this matter to vote with the Government.

§ MR. BIGGAR
The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken thinks that the opinions of experts are valuable; but in my view the opinions of experts are of no value at all; and, indeed, it is a recognized fact that there is no kind of evidence which is of so little value as that which is given by experts. I do not think the remarks of the hon. Member have added to the reasons for passing this Vote.

§ * MR. CREMER
I would merely point out that if the proposal I have made to reduce the Vote by £500 were carried, there would still be £409 left, which would be ample to meet the cost incurred by the Sweating Committee.

§ MR. SEXTON
This is a vote which has reference to a disgracefully bad Estimate. (A laugh.) I am glad to hear the Attorney General laugh. The right hon. Gentleman has not had much opportunity for laughing of late. If hon. Members will examine the Estimate they will find that there ought to be a surplus; but, whereas certain receipts for the year ought to have amounted to £15,000, as a matter of fact they only reached £8,000. I ask the Financial Secretary to explain how so gross an error has been committed by the Department. I have also to complain that in connection with a Vote of this kind the information supplied by the Treasury is far too meagre, seeing that they have long had the necessary information to guide them in framing the Estimate. I think we have a right to be told what the nature of the receipts is, and what is the amount of each separate item.

§ MR. JACKSON
I shall be glad to give the hon. Member the explanation for which he asks. I quite admit that if the proposition of the hon. Member could be laid down with accuracy, this Estimate would deserve the epithet he 1221 has applied to it. But the hon. Member is not correct in saying that the Treasury have had for many months the materials to guide them in framing the Estimate. In this particular case the Supplementary Estimate has been rendered necessary in consequence, as the hon. Member has pointed out, of a deficiency in the estimated receipts. The reason is, that the Land Commissioners had imposed upon them by an Act of Parliament passed two years ago certain duties in connection with ascertaining the value of extraordinary tithes. The costs of this work were to be paid by the tithe owners, who are the persons for whom the work is done. The work had been done, or nearly done, when certain draft certificates were issued by the Land Commissioners, to which an objection was taken by the tithe owners concerned, who were of opinion that the Commissioners were not construing the Act in accordance with the law. A request was made that time should be given—first to enable them to take counsel's opinion, and secondly to enable them to decide whether they should take further action in the matter. That occupied some time, and of course the tithes could not be collected. After taking time to consider the matter, the tithe owners came to the conclusion that they would not take the case to a Court of Law. Owing to the delay, the collection of the charges which fall upon the tithe owners has been postponed. I hope that the collection will be made complete next year, but the hon. Member will see that the delay is one which the Treasury could not possibly have foreseen when the Estimate was framed. I must say that I incline to the opinion that some pressure should be put upon the Department to make the collection promptly.

§ MR. SEXTON
Has the question been settled up to date?

§ MR. JACKSON
Yes.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
I do not think that the Secretary to the Treasury has given a very satisfactory explanation of this Vote; but I hope the Exchequer will profit in the coming year by what it has lost last year. I regret to say that the Estimate has been placed before the Committee in such a way that it is impossible to understand it. I think it would have been better if the Secretary to the Treasury had com- 1222 menced by explaining what the Vote is, instead of leaving the Committee to find it out for themselves.

§ MR. MOLLOY (King's County, Birr)
This matter was discussed four months ago, and the Secretary to the Treasury gave then the explanation which he has given now. He told the House that there had been dispute with the tithe owners, who in the end declined to go into a Court of Law, and agreed to pay the demands made upon them. Having agreed to pay, I do not know why there should have been any further delay in the collection of the money. I think it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has not some little further explanation to give.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
This seems to me to be a somewhat serious matter. It is notorious that the tithe owners throughout the country are gentlemen who exact the last penny of what is due to them, and now we have these gentlemen putting off payment when it is due from themselves. They said in the first instance that they must appeal to a Court of Law. That is an old trick. They had not the most remote intention of going to a Court of Law. They said they must take counsel's opinion, but counsel would at once advise them that they had no case. The next step upon the part of the Treasury should have been to insist upon immediate payment. The hon. Gentleman says he hopes the money will be collected by next year; but why should it not be paid at once? Why should not these gentlemen be dealt with as they deal with those who owe them tithes? What would happen to those who have to pay tithes if they said in the first instance that they would go to a Court of Law, next, that they had changed their mind, and then that they hoped to pay next year? No doubt it was right to give time to enable the tithe owners to take the case to a Court of Law, but when they refused to do so the Secretary to the Treasury, instead of coming on the public Exchequer, should have made the tithe owners pay up at once. I altogether object to make any kind of concession to the tithe owners.

§ MR. JACKSON
May I point out to the hon. Member that these circumstances arose under a special Act dealing with what is called Extraordinary Tithe, and had nothing to do with the general tithe arrangements?

§ MR. JACKSON
said the charge was for work done by the Land Commissioners in connection with the Extraordinary Tithe.

§ MR. CALDWELL
Is there any deficiency under the head of Appropriations in Aid? You estimate your receipts at £15,000, whereas your actual receipts have only been £8,000. I want to know if a mistake was made in the Estimate?

§ MR. JACKSON
No; the sum will be ultimately realized.

§ MR. CALDWELL
When?

§ MR. JACKSON
I regret that I am unable to say, but under the Act the whole of the expense in connection with this particular work is recoverable from the persons for whom the work has been done. Therefore, whatever the expenditure may have been, it must be recovered.

§ MR. BIGGAR
I do not know whether I rightly understand the hon. Gentleman's explanation as to the reason why the money was not paid in the financial year, and why the Government have not taken proceedings to recover it. It must be remembered that these people are owners of property, and not paupers. As far as I understand the matter, certain work has been done by the Commissioners, for which the tithe owners have received full value, and are they the sort of men who should be allowed to make appeals for consideration in formâ pauperis? They are men who can pay, and they ought to be made to pay. Unless the Government can give some better explanation of the reason why they have not collected this money, I think the Committee ought to reject the Vote.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
If the tithe owners find that this House is prepared to vote £3,000 in order to relieve them from embarrassment, I am afraid we shall have to whistle for any further payment from them. We know that when an Irish tenant is unable to pay his rent, the whole force of the law is put in motion to compel him. What I would suggest is, that there should be a little practical coercion in this country, in order to compel the landlords to pay their liabilities to the uttermost farthing. I hall, therefore, oppose the Vote, unless 1224 the Secretary to the Treasury gives an assurance that certain stringent clauses of the Irish Coercion Act shall be applied to English landlords. Let me call the attention of the Committee to the fact that what we are discussing now relates to circumstances which occurred in 1887, and not last year. The Commissioners report that, in accordance with the provisions of the Tithe Commutation Act, meetings were held in 266 parishes for the purpose of hearing the parties-interested on both sides; that valuers were selected and appointed assistant Commissioners who, from their experience and knowledge, were likely to inspire confidence and to supply accurate information; that these assistant Commissioners had conducted numerous inquiries with marked ability and success; and that they had personally inspected the land, and deposited maps giving full particulars of the estates in respect of which extraordinary tithe was charged. In the end, the Commissioners issued draft certificates in relation to a number of representative parishes, in order to afford an opportunity to the tithe owners of carrying the case to the superior Courts. The Report of the Commissioners corroborates the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury to the letter; but it is dated January 31st, 1888. Yet we are told, more than a year afterwards, that perhaps some time next year the Treasury may be able to get in the money owing by the landlords. I think it is quite time that proceedings were taken; against them to compel them to pay at once. I would suggest to the Government that they should, at any rate, require interest to be paid on money which has taken all this time to collects The Commissioners say that they have been indebted to the Director General of the Ordnance Survey for the assistance he has lent; and they add that the work has been quickly and efficiently done, at a very moderate charge to the landowners. In their tenderness to the landlords, the Government have taken every measure to enable them to get the work done in the cheapest possible way. I think that, under all the circumstances, we have a right to press for some more satisfactory answer than we have yet received from the Government as to when they intend to make these people pay. I wish to make clear this 1225 point—that the business transacted by this Office ought to cover all the expenses.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order. The hon. Member is entirely out of order in discussing the Vote on general grounds.

§ MR. SEXTON
I think the Committee should bear in mind that the Question whether or not the House should vote this money depends on whether time enough has been allowed to these landowners to pay the very moderate charges. The House has already voted more than enough for the expenses of the Department for the year, providing that the debts owing to it had been paid, as they should have been. We must be satisfied that reasonable diligence has been used in getting in the debts. Will the Secretary to the Treasury lay on the Table an account showing how long this money has been due, and when it ought to have been paid?

§ MR. JACKSON
I will make inquiries into the matter. I do not think it is possible to give the hon. Member what he asks. I am not sure it is quite correct to say that the money has been long due. The arrangements made for collecting the money are, I believe, as satisfactory as possible. It is collected by the Inland Revenue collectors, and is done in the cheapest possible way.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
I ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has made such arrangements, as he promised in the debates last year, as will obviate the necessity for asking for another such Vote?

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the Vote generally.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
I shall feel it my duty to divide against that Vote, unless I have an assurance that this is the last time we shall be asked to pass such a Vote.

§ MR. JACKSON
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to divide the Committee then. I am not in a position to give such an assurance, and I am not prepared to say that it is either possible, desirable, or practicable to make, at a moment's notice, such an alteration in the charges as will defray the whole cost of the establishment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
Have proceedings been taken against these people to recover the money?

COLONEL NOLAN
This seems to be a very extravagant vote, and although I am not frightened at the amount, I must say I am astonished at the explanation which is given of it. We are told that the increase is due to the extra length of last Session. Well, all I can say is that if the Government had only arranged their business properly last Session, we should not have had to sit for so long a period, and we should not have been called upon to pay this heavy bill. Now I really think that the Government are not anxious to cut down the expenses of printing. A case occurred to-day in which I put a question and with a verbal answer to which I should have been perfectly content, but the Minister to whom it was addressed suggested that I should move for a Return, and consequently this necessitates the expenditure of £5 or £10, which might have been avoided. But to return to the long Session. Ministers muddled the time of the House, and I hope it will be a lesson to them. In the future I trust that they will give us short Sessions, and arrange their business properly. Meanwhile, in order to mark the sense of the House of their conduct, I move to reduce the Vote by £4,000. I think if we allow them one half of the sum they apply for, they ought to be satisfied.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithnessshire)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why we are called upon to pay £1,000 for two extra volumes of Hansard?

§ MR. W. L. JACKSON
The explanation is that until the present Session the arrangement with Mr. Hansard was that he should be paid £500 per volume, 1227 and, owing to the necessity of an Autumn Session, there were two extra volumes, for which we have to pay £1,000.

§ MR. MOLLOY
I understand that there is now a new Hansard, and there has been some difference made in the order of indexing. I think it would be of advantage to hon. Members if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give Messrs. MacRae, Curtice & Co. a hint that it would be most convenient if they adhered to the old style of indexing. I am sure hon. Members would much prefer it.

§ MR. SEXTON
I share the astonishment of my hon. and gallant Friend, although I know he is not easily astonished; but my astonishment arises from a different cause. Instead of a heavy deficiency, I should have expected a surplus on this Vote, because last year the Government were very chary in granting Returns, especially affecting Ireland. I remember many cases in which we asked for Returns, such as lists of prisoners, depositions in magisterial proceedings and correspondence, which were refused. And they were refused on one of two grounds: either that they would take too much trouble to prepare, or that they were too long to print. The consequence was that the Irish Members were driven to the newspapers and to private correspondence for material for debate, instead of being supplied, as they ought to be, with printed Parliamentary Papers. And now I intend to ask the Government for an undertaking to treat us more liberally in this matter in the future if we pass this Vote on this magnificent scale. With regard to the extra volumes of Hansard, these are partly due to the prolongation of the Session, and partly to the undue prolixity of Ministers, which developed in a singular way last year. Undue prolixity is an incurable vice; but, in regard to the question as to how far the extra volumes of Hansard were necessary, I must point out that the prolongation of the Session was entirely due to the mismanagement and incompetence of Ministers, who persisted in taking votes on account, and deprived the House of Commons of its opportunities of criticizing the Estimates. Therefore, instead of asking the House of Commons to pay the £1,000, I think that the 1228 Ministers ought to pay the money themselves.

§ MR. F. W. ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
I wish to ask how many houses of business are invited to tender for stationery. We all remember the iniquity—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Vote generally.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
I oppose this Vote on slightly different grounds to those advanced by my hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin. He objects to the Vote because Ministers have been too chary in giving us Parliamentary Papers. I oppose it because, in some respects, they have been too lavish. They have given us Returns in a form which we did not require. Take, for instance, the Blue Book containing what purported to be an official Report of the Mandeville trial—a most shameful and garbled Report—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the character of a report.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
I would not do that. I think I have characterised it in sufficiently strong terms—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, Order! The hon. Member must not persist in thus speaking when called to order.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
I have not the slightest desire to be disorderly, neither will I be a toady. I was objecting to this Vote on certain grounds, but as I do not wish to disobey your ruling, I will resume my seat.

§ MR. F. W. ISAACSON
This Vote is described as for Stationery for the Houses of Parliament. I presume Stationery is required for this House, and therefore is it not in order to ask if proper estimates are obtained?

THE CHAIRMAN
This is a Supplementary Vote. The question which the hon. Member wishes to ask would be quite pertinent on the original Vote, but it is not on the Supplementary Vote.

§ MR. J. G. BIGGAR
I wish to know if the Stationery Committee are going to meet this year or not.

COLONEL NOLAN
As it appears the Printing Vote was under-estimated, I should like to know if the only Committee which has control of this matter ever met last year.

§ MR. JACKSON
There has been an alteration in the constitution of the 1229 Printing Committee. I believe the Committee did not meet last year, but my hon. Friend the Chairman gave a large amount of time to these matters, and I hope that this year there will be some real control exercised.

COLONEL NOLAN
As the Committee do not appear to have met, I think this Committee should mark its displeasure at the excess of the Vote—which arises from the lack of control—by making a substantial reduction.

§ MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)
Can the Secretary to the Treasury give us any details of the Vote? The explanation in the Estimate is simply that the Vote is unprecedentedly large. Why have we not a Return she wing the number of Papers printed, and a comparison with previous years?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I suppose the excess in the Vote is due to the fact that the Session was exceptionally long. But whose fault was it that Ministers muddled away the time of the House and necessitated this expenditure? I shall certainly divide against the Vote. A promise was made to us last Session that we should not have so many papers sent us, that instead we should have a list every morning of the papers printed, so that we might be able to ask for what we required. I thought it was perfectly understood—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order. That is a matter affecting the General Vote and not the Supplementary one.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I hope I shall be in order in expressing the hope which was expressed last year that Hansard will in future contain a table showing the number of times the Closure is applied in each Session.

THE CHAIRMAN
That does not come within the scope of the Supplementary Estimates.

§ MR. SEXTON
This is a small vote but a remarkable one. The Treasury 1230 estimated the expenditure at £25, but they now come for an additional sum of £292. I am anxious to know whether the Board are allowed to institute actions on their own discretion, and whether the Returns so untested are paid out of the purse of the State.

§ MR. JACKSON
I believe the Board have full and complete power to take action when they think it is necessary for the protection of the funds.

§ MR. SEXTON
At the cost of the State?

§ MR. JACKSON
Yes, at the cost of the State. Bnt I understand that there has been paid into the Exchequer rather more than has been paid out.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I should like to know how much was left by the Francis Murray's Charity, because I see that £235 of the State's money was spent in seeing that the trustee paid over the money.

§ MR. JACKSON
I don't know the amount of the Charity.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
It surely would prevent much discussion on matters of this kind if all the facts were clearly set forth in the Estimate—if, for instance, it was shown that there is really no charge upon the public purse.

§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan)
I cannot altogether admit that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman is perfectly satisfactory. As I understand, this Board in Dublin have power to spend money in law costs at their own discretion, whether or not they are likely to recover the debt or the costs either. I do not think that these people in Dublin should have the power to involve the Treasury in the expenses of litigation without first of all obtaining the consent of the Treasury. The Board are on more or less friendly terms with their Solicitor, and, of course, it is an extremely pleasant thing for him to run up a bill of costs when he knows that the British taxpayer is to bear the burden.

§ MR. JACKSON
Perhaps I may explain that owing to the passing of the Local Government Act last year a larger number of Sheriffs' claims will come in course of payment during this financial year than was anticipated. This, however is likely to be the last occasion on 1231 which this Vote will be taken in its present form.

§ SIR G. CAMPBELL
I presume that upon this Vote I shall be in order in referring to the Edlingham burglary case. I am inclined to think that in this case there was a Treasury prosecution, and I am anxious to know whether the cost is included in this Vote.

§ MR. JACKSON
It is not.

§ MR. JACKSON
I should like to explain that there is a slight error in the explanatory note—1887 having been printed for 1889. Under an Act passed last year and an Order made by the Lord Chancellor, certain changes have been made which came into operation on February 1, 1889, and it is to provide for the expense caused by these changes between February 1 and March 31 that this Vote is required. The increased cost will be covered by fees, so that no ultimate expense will be incurred.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton)
This is a very small amount, but it raises a very great principle. This is an office which I venture to say is one of the most useless in the whole range of the Administration of this country, and is one against which the House of Commons has protested year after year, and which the last Government endeavoured to abolish so far as they could. At all events, they brought to an end a sinecure at the head of the office of something like £2,500 a year, and the intention was to bring the office itself to an end as soon as possible. The Secretary to the Treasury has alluded to an Act which was passed last Session. When that Bill was put from the Chair the Member who had the Bill under his care assured me that no additional expense would be thrown on the public by the Bill. To make assurance doubly sure, I asked, before I assented to the Third Reading, the Secretary to the Treasury to state that no additional expense would be incurred. The hon. Gentleman then stated that he had made such arrangements that no additional expense would 1232 be put upon the country. Now this is an office which has absolutely nothing to do. I believe that a Return presented to Parliament last year showed that only eight titles had been submitted to this office which has cost us in the year £2,796. I object to vote one single shilling to this Land Registry Office. If changes should be made in the office let them be made by Act of Parliament. I know that we shall be told that the fees will cover this additional expenditure. But what I say is, let expenditure be incurred when the fees come in and do not let expenditure be incurred until the fees do come in. I shall certainly divide without a moment's hesitation against this Vote, and I hope the Government will not persist in committing the House to this foolish expenditure.

§ MR. MOLLOY
This office has been under discussion for several years, and I rise especially for the purpose of saying that last year when the vote was under consideration, a distinct promise was given that no furthur expenditure would be incurred in the office. Now, however, additional expense has been incurred in consequence of the introduction of new arrangements under an Order from the Lord Chancellor. That these arrangements have been made under an Order of the Lord Chanchellor is, in my opinion, sufficient reason why hon. Members on both sides of the House should vote against this expenditure.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
I am exceedingly glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has taken a stand upon this matter. On what ground does the Secretary to the Treasury anticipate that the costs will be more than covered by the increase of fees? What alterations have taken place to induce us to suppose that the fees will be increased? I should also like hon. Members to observe that under Sub-Head A. we are asked to vote £50 for two ordnance surveyors and civil assistants. Now it has transpired in the course of the discussion on the Vote of the Land Commissioners, that some of these very surveyors had been lent by the Government to the land owners at an exceedingly moderate charge. While that is the case, we are asked to pay additional sums to similar officers under this Vote. It appears to 1233 me that if the Government had been more chary in lending Government employés to land owners, there would not have been any necessity to ask for the £50 shown under the Sub-Head A.

§ MR. JACKSON
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton says I gave some promise in regard to the Bill referred to. I confess I cannot recall it to my recollection, but I will not question the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division has referred to the money set down for ordnance surveyors and civil assistants. These gentlemen, however, will not be paid unless they are employed, and they will not be employed unless there is work for them to do.

§ SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
I hope that the Committee will not vote this extra money, because the Land Registry Office is a complete sham. In my own opinion, the office is simply kept up at large expense, and is really a blind to prevent reforms in the land system.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
I will not go into the question of whether this office ought to be abolished; but I should like to point out that we already pay for this office the sum of £2,796 a year. The work is infinitesimal, and yet, when a little extra work is thrown upon the office, it seems that, according to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, the country is to be saddled with additional expense in consequence.

§ * THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight
I may remind the House that some two years ago when an appointment carrying a salary of £2,500 a year became vacant it was not filled up by the Lord Chancellor, who then stated that some slight clerical assistance would probably be necessary to do the work of the office in relation to transfer of titles. That was mentioned at the time, and as I understand this extra clerk is required in consequence of the larger reduction previously made. I believe the hon. Gentleman opposite who took a considerable part in the passing of the Bill last year, is aware the office does more work now than in years gone by.

§ * MR. HALDANE (Haddington)
I was not present at the commencement of this discussion, but certainly it is a source of surprise to me that there 1234 should be an increase in the estimate for the expenses of the Land Registry Office. It will be remembered that in the form in which I introduced the Bill of last Session, it was proposed to include bankruptcy in the encumbrances with which the Bill has to deal, but this was dropped out because we found that to include it would add materially to the expense. Certainly we were under a strong conviction that the expenses of the office should not be increased. Speaking as one who has had some little experience of it, I may express the opinion that the Land Registry Act of 1875 has been a complete failure. I remember one transaction in which I was concerned when the cost of transferring an estate of £3,000 from the vendor to purchaser was run up to £600. That ought not to be. I am glad to think that in a Bill introduced in "another place," and which was before this House last year, there is evidence that the difficulties of the situation are realised; and I believe that when that Bill comes again before us, the repetition of such a scandal—for it is nothing less—will be prevented in future. But, meanwhile, is it expedient to add to the expense of the maintenance of this office? So far as the little Act with which I was connected last year is concerned, upon which all parties were agreed, as an addition to security of title, all we did was to give to a useless staff something to do to justify their existence so as to enable them to while away the hours public officials sometimes spend in their office, and to prevent the tedium of official life pressing too heavily upon them. Assuredly, I would have been no party to adding to the charge on the taxpayer for the expenses of this office. I can, of course, only speak from outside knowledge; but I cannot believe it is necessary to add to the staff in order to transact the very simple duties imposed upon it by the Act of last year; and it is certainly a source of considerable disappointment to me to find that a Bill, which passed with the approval of all parties and on the understanding that no additional burden should be imposed, should now be made the—I will not say pretext—the reason for this increase. Of course, I understand that the Secretary to the Treasury cannot help him self.

§ MR. JACKSON
I thought I had explained that this is merely a transfer of a clerk from the Supreme Court, not an additional burden put upon the taxpayers for his salary. He was transferred because of his competency for the work—technical work only to be done by a man specially trained, for it. He will be paid according to the extent of his services.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
The answer to that is that if the clerk has been transferred from the Supreme Court his salary has already been voted in the Estimates for the year, and, therefore there is no necessity at all for this additional Estimate. We know by experience what these transfers mean, and how they work out. I trust the hon. Member for Stockport, who has had considerable experience in these scandals of the Supreme Court, will give us his assistance in this matter, and show what the staff of this Land Registry Office is. The Attorney General says this is owing to a reduction made when the late Government was in office. What we did was to strike out a sinecure office, which had been often so called, of £2,500 a year. What was left behind for this office, the character of which my hon. Friend adequately described? There is a Vice-Registrar with £1,500; a Chief Clerk with £400; a Second Clerk with £350; and a third with £250. With all this staff they, in addition, charge for copying, engrossing, and extra business £220. There is also a porter, a housekeeper, and an allowance for assistance. Under the circumstances, I am not disposed to vote even £6 additional to the office. The hon. Member for Haddington has confirmed my statement and repeated it. I should have opposed the Third Reading if—the Secretary of the Treasury says he does not recollect it, but it was some responsible Member of the Government—if the Government had not said that there should be no increase in the cost of working this 1236 office. It was on the faith of this pledge that the Bill passed. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not carry the Vote to a Division now, but will allow it to be raised in a proper form on the Estimates.

§ MR. JACKSON
I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience, would have known that, although the sum might be voted in the Vote for the Supreme Court, it is not possible to pay the charge for the Land Registry Vote under that for the Supreme Court.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
He is now a Clerk of the Supreme Court.

§ MR. JACKSON
I beg pardon, he is not; he is transferred to the Land Registry. The right hon. Gentleman says the salary has been voted and the clerk is paid, but he is in error, it is absolutely impossible that he could be paid for one purpose out of money voted for another.

§ * SIR W. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-west)
I am loathe to intervene in this discussion, but I remember how strongly, on a former occasion, protest was made against additional expenditure on this account. On many grounds, into which I will not now enter, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend not to proceed with the Vote for this additional sum. We have been told over and over again that this Vote was not to be increased, but decreased. Though the increase is small, I must object to it. Once get this extra clerk there, and you cannot get rid of him. It is an unwise thing to propose any addition, and I certainly cannot support such an increase.

§ * MR. CHILDERS
I hope the Government will yield to this advice. The effect of the Vote appears to be simply adding another clerk to the three or four who have nothing to do. I hope the Government will give way.

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
The fact is this clerk has been borne on the Supreme Court Staff and he has been transferred.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
Why?

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
To discharge this duty and carry out the provisions of the Statute passed last year. He has been transferred, and it is not possible to pay this clerk under the Vote for the Supreme Court. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) shakes his head—if he can be paid out of the Supreme Court Vote I would not ask the House for this Vote. But he cannot be so paid, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to deprive the clerk of the salary he would have received had he remained on the staff of the Supreme Court. However, I will inquire into the circumstances. No one desires more than I do to diminish the expenditure on Land Registry, or that it should disappear altogether; but the House will see that in our desire for economy we should not be justified in depriving a clerk who has been doing work for the public service—whether the work is good or bad—we are not justified in depriving him of his salary. But I will inquire into the circumstances, and if it is possible to make the payment under the Supreme Court Vote then that shall be done. Meantime, we withdraw the Vote.

§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
This is for the purpose of discharging the contributions for pay and clothing of police up to September 29 last year. That date is six months past, and I should have thought that if the Treasury had been brisk in their business they might have closed this account. Why is it not closed? When is it likely to be? Will it be on the regular Estimates, or afford matter for another Supplementary Estimate?

§ THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,) Sheffield, Hallam
The hon. Member will observe this is for money under the Accounts of 1888. The 1888–9 Estimates brought this matter up to the end of 1887; and of course, at that time, the Local Government Bill was 1238 only in preparation, and it is not the rule in the Estimates to anticipate the effect of proposed legislation.

§ MR. SEXTON
I did not say or suppose so.

§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
It was not possible at that time to close the Accounts, or ask the authorities to present their Accounts in a new form.

§ MR. SEXTON
The hon. Gentleman misapprehends my point, which is this—that the Accounts are for 1888, and we are now advanced in 1889. Why has the Treasury not been able to close the account and settle this in the Estimates?

§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
The original Accounts go up to the end of 1887, and these are the amounts by which they fall short up to the date given. I may explain that under the old system some local authorities send in accounts for payments for which they are actually liable on September 29, while others claim in anticipation of payments becoming due. This £20,000 is necessary to close the old account.

§ MR. SEXTON
The hon. Gentleman says the practice varies; but surely this is a matter on which the Treasury should have given notice to the local authorities?

§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
Correspondence has taken place, but necessarily after the preparation of the Estimates. This Supplementary Estimate is the consequence.

§ * MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N. E.)
When we are asked to spend more money on Reformatory and Industrial Schools it seems a fair opportunity for putting the question whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to extend to Scotland the power of establishing day Industrial Schools, such as exist in England? 1239 When the point was raised last Session, we were led to suppose that the power would he extended to the School Boards in Scotland; but we found that a Bill introduced in another place, having reference to Industrial Schools, excluded Scotland. My statement that it did so was controverted by the Home Secretary, and at the time I had not a copy of the Bill for reference, as I naturally thought he would have known the contents of the Bill, which issued from his own Department. However, an assurance was ultimately given that Scotland was to be put on the same footing with England. I hope that assurance still holds good.

§ * MR. STUART WORTLEY
So far as I am able to answer for the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it is intended to place Scotland in reference to day Industrial Schools on an equality with England. It is our policy to make the system uniform as far as possible, and it was by inadvertence that this was not effected as regards Day Industrial Schools in the Bill referred to.

§ MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)
I think this supports the contention of Scotch Members that this Department should be placed under the control of the Secretary for Scotland, and I hope at an early day that transfer will be carried into effect.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
Constant complaint is made of the very high standard taught in these schools. You give children from the lowest ranks high class teaching, especially in arithmetic.

* THE CHAIRMAN
The Vote refers exclusively to Industrial Schools.

§ DR. CLARK
To that I was speaking.

* DR. CAMERON (Glasgow)
I rise, Sir, to oppo se the grant of this money, and the Government know that they have no right to make this demand upon us for this sum. They tell us now what we could not get from them last Session; it was merely by chance that a Question elicited the information we now have, that these are not expenses altogether for Peterhead Harbour Works, but that the legal expenses of the Sheriff of Inverness have very much more to do with it. The Vote is asked for to pay the expenses incurred, by Sheriff Ivory in a Civil action for libel raised against him for publishing, in violation of his duty, the contents of a confidential report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was present at the time this subject was raised on a former occasion, and he, seeing that the item would give rise to considerable debate, suggested that the Vote should be put off, and that, in the meantime, the House should have the papers giving the information asked for. Well, we now have the papers, and nothing can be more conclusive than the evidence they give that the Government have no justification whatever in making this demand. If hon. Members have read the papers, they will find that Sheriff Ivory is not only guilty of a libel, but that his whole writings are a series of libels, and his official documents one long string of libels against many persons, including myself. He cannot even allow the late Lord Advocate to escape, because he thinks that the right hon. Gentleman's influence with the Treasury was used against him. Sheriff Ivory, as the House will remember, was in charge of military expeditions, which were sent to Skye a couple of years ago, and he carried out those operations in a 1241 manner which appeared to myself, to other Scotch Members, and to a very large portion of the Scotch people, to be an illegal, brutal, and unjustifiable manner. This matter has been brought before the House repeatedly. We have shown how he broke the law in the matter of the secrecy of Postal Telegraph; how he went to a Post Office and bullied the postmaster and the telegraph clerk until he obtained the information he sought from a telegram. He denied that, but he has published a Report containing a number of private telegrams which he obtained illegally, and he made that publication in an utterly illegal and unjustifiable manner. Whoever has happened to cross the path of Sheriff Ivory has been crushed in the most vindictive manner. Such was the case with the Sheriff's Clerk Depute of Portree. He had the misfortune to come across Sheriff Ivory, and has been hounded out of his post. A telegraphist, from whom he obtained information illegally, was so persecuted that she was unable to remain at Portree, and applied to be transferred to Glasgow. That is a matter within my personal knowledge. He quarrelled even with the Chief Constable of the Police. Well, in the course of this expedition searches were made; but these searches were conducted with no regard to moderation. Whole villages were ransacked; troops surrounded houses, and every room was invaded, no distinction being made, though invalids and females were therein. Now, it seemed to us that this was a matter of Constitutional right; that the sanctity of these crofters homes should not be allowed to be violated without trying to obtain redress in a Court of Law. A subscription was raised, a considerable amount of money was subscribed, and an action was commenced. Three actions were raised, one against the Prosecutor Fiscal and two against Mr. Sheriff Ivory, one of these actions being taken by a cow-herd. It seems that a detachment of military was sent into a district to capture a certain individuals who had deforced a sheriff's officer on the previous day, and a man being espied on the top of a hill, in spite of there being no presumption of guilt against him, and though no warrant had been taken out for his capture, he was siezed and imprisoned by Sheriff Ivory. 1242 Subsequently, however, there being no evidence against the man, he was liberated, and an action was brought against Sheriff Ivory for the part he had taken in the matter. The Court, however, held that, under the circumstances, the action of the Sheriff was privileged, and a verdict was given in his favour. The second case—that of Stewart—sprung out of a Report which Sheriff Ivory wrote to the Lord Advocate, and this Report was, of course, in itself a confidential and a privileged document. Sheriff Ivory, however, appears to have been aggrieved by something said against him by a clergyman in Skye, and, instead of availing himself of the ordinary means that the law or the newspapers put in his power to vindicate himself against the assertions of this clergyman, he thought it would be more dignified to devote a large portion of his Report to the vindication of his action, and to publish that Report in the newspapers. If the Home Secretary had thought it desirable to make this Report public, Sheriff Ivory must have known that the right hon. Gentleman would have done so by laying it on the Table of the House. But Sheriff Ivory did not consult the Home Secretary, and, as a matter of fact, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, was dead against the publication of it, and positively refused to put the document on the Table of the House. Sheriff Ivory alleged that in a conversation with the Lord Advocate of that time he had received permission to publish the Report; but that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) denied. Sheriff Ivory, in his Report, spoke of Stewart as being the ringleader of the mob, an accusation which the result of Stewart's trial proved to have been entirely unfounded. Actions having been brought against him, the Sheriff applied to the Crown to undertake his defence, on the ground that the action which formed the subject of the cases was taken by him as servant of the Crown. The Lord Advocate replied that if the Sheriff had acted properly, he would be able to defend his character, in which case, if he found himself unable to recover his costs, it would be for the Crown to say whether they would not hold him free from the loss of his expenses. Here a 1243 question arose as to whether the Treasury had taken any steps to see that Sheriff Ivory had asked that his expenses from the pursuer in one of the cases where his defence was sustained before the indemnity was paid him by the Government. The fact was that, although there was sufficient money in the hands of the pursuer to pay the expenses, they were never asked for payment. Sheriff Ivory did not consider it a dignified course to ask for his expenses, and in spite of this the Secretary to the Treasury was prepared to pay the money. In Stewart's case, the Lord Advocate refused to recommend the Treasury to pay the expenses, asserting that the action of the Sheriff had been most imprudent, and it was utterly unusual, and opposed to official precedent, to publish a Report such as that supplied by the Sheriff without official sanction in writing. In the course of the correspondence which ensued it was stated that Sheriff Ivory was acting in bona fides, and believed he had the sanction of the Lord Advocate for what he had done. Well, one circumstance threw great doubt upon Sheriff Ivory's feeling in the matter—namely, that when he published it he prefaced it with a lie—with a statement to the effect that it had been placed before a meeting of the Commissioners of Supply of Inverness-shire. I asked a Question about this, and was told that Sheriff Ivory had never laid the Report before the Commissioners of Supply of Inverness. This piece of duplicity on the Sheriff's part seems to me to be matched by the way that the matter was brought under our notice last Session, this Vote being put down as "Peterhead Harbour, Woods and Forests," and so on. I hold that to pass this Vote would be a gross insult to the people of Scotland. There is not a man in the whole of that country who has been so severely criticized as Sheriff Ivory, and there is not a man there who has given anything like the occasion for censure that he has given. After in vain approaching this House to seek redress, and being repulsed by Parliament—or the Parliament House element that has control in this House of Scotch affairs—we took the only means to have questions of important Constitutional rights settled. We—a large section of the Scotch people—were determined to put an end to these high-handed pro- 1244 ceedings on Sheriff Ivory's part, so we took the only course in our power. We subscribed to a fund to enable the question to be tried in the Law Courts, and there, forsooth, because Sheriff Ivory is found to have been wrong, or because it does not suit Sheriff Ivory to send in his bill of costs, the Treasury magnanimously come forward and make him a present of the whole sum out of the public money. That, I say, is an insult to the people of Scotland, and I defy the Lord Advocate to get up and defend it without putting a deliberate slight upon his Predecessor. In Beaton's case the agents for the pursuer were prepared to pay Sheriff Ivory's expenses, but he did not apply for them. The Treasury paid them, and in recommending their payment, the late Lord Advocate, I contend, showed the Sheriff too much favour. In the second case the then Lord Advocate went dead against the whole affair, being unable to see any reason whatever to recommend a grant of money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan said nothing to justify Sheriff Ivory; and I should like to know why that right hon. Gentleman's letter, which was laid before the Lords of the Treasury, is not included in the papers which have been supplied to the House? I ask the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the fact of the omission of this letter. The calumnious and mendacious attacks of Sheriff Ivory upon myself and others have been put in the papers—why could not the Government have spared a page for the letter of the late Lord Advocate, especially in view of the fact that they found their whole defence on that letter? I suppose it did not suit their purpose.

§ MR. JACKSON
It was private.

* DR. CAMERON
Then why did the Government go out of their way to act on this private document in the teeth of the official advice of their own Legal Adviser? Now, I have laid before the House as briefly as I can the facts of this case. We shall require to have a full explanation. I shall probably have to recur to the matter again, as I am certain we shall have a good deal of shuffling, and that it will be necessary to put the facts very clearly 1245 ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I can only judge by what has already taken place. The matter is a small one from a monetary point of view, but it is a large one in point of principle; and I venture to say that if the Treasury officials had principle at heart, as the amount in question is so small, they would rather have made a present of this £200 to Sheriff Ivory in payment of his expenses, as private subscribers have been content to do on the other side, than allow the case to be discussed in the House. I shall move the reduction of the Vote by the whole sum—that is to say, I shall oppose the Vote.

§ * THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) Bute
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has certainly imported a tone of acrimony into the discussion of this sum of £200, which has already been amply explained, because he has explained that while his speech purports to criticize the action of the Government in refunding this money to a public servant, yes he personally has this complaint to make against Sheriff Ivory—namely, that Sheriff Ivory has defamed him (Dr. Cameron).

* DR. CAMERON
I made no complaint. I merely mentioned it as a matter of fact. It does not concern me.

§ * MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON
He mentioned that as a matter of fact incidentally, and then, anxious that persons in a responsible position should not defame others, proceeds to use against Sheriff Ivory language which, if used outside this House, would be distinctly held to be defamatory. The question is, how far are public officers to be defended by their superiors in this House, when Members of Parliament use language against them here which, if used elsewhere, would be clearly actionable? This matter is a very clear one. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the libel alleged to have been uttered by Sheriff Ivory. What Sheriff Ivory said was that a certain person was the ringleader of a mob and the chief promoter of lawlessness in the 1246 district. But under what circumstances was this written? Why, Sheriff Ivory, with the approval of the Government, went down on an expedition to arrest those who were the ringleaders in what were unquestionably lawless proceedings. He went down and executed a most difficult, delicate, and invidious duty, and on his return it became necessary for him to write a Report of the result of his proceedings. That Report was presented to the Lord Advocate. The document he prepared contained a full report of what had taken place, and incidentally a person was named as one of the ringleaders of the mob. That was not an opinion of Sheriff Ivory's; but he founded his statement upon the distinct information of those accountable to him upon the subject; and therefore, in making his statement to the Lord Advocate, Sheriff Ivory was doing no more than his duty. But the matter did not end there. He came to town and saw the Lord Advocate, and the result of that interview was that Sheriff Ivory carried away the impression that the Lord Advocate recommended or told him to send his Report to the newspapers. The reason why that was a plausible step was very obvious. It was because defamatory statements had been made against this learned Sheriff, and because every attempt was being made by agitators to bring him into disrepute, and it was only just that in some form or other the public should have brought before them the lines of his defence. That was Sheriff Ivory's opinion, and the opinion of the Lord Advocate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) allows that if Sheriff Ivory, instead of sending his Report to the papers, had placed it before the Government, and the Government had laid it upon the Table of the House, it could then have been published.

* DR. CAMERON
I beg pardon. I distinctly said that the Home Secretary refused to lay it upon the Table.

§ * MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON
But he pointed out that it was in the power of the Government to publish it. Clearly 1247 Sheriff Ivory could have obtained it publication. He could have sent his Report to the Police Committee of Inverness, and they would have been at liberty to publish it in one way or another. If that were all, there would have been no difficulty in getting the document published under the shelter of privilege, and then there could have been no action in respect of it. The sole technical point was this—that Sheriff Ivory sent the Report direct to the newspapers instead of to the authorities. Accordingly Sheriff Ivory's error lies not in the fact of publication, but merely in the mode of publication. The only point attempted to be made against Sheriff Ivory is the frankness and directness with which the publication was made-Sheriff Ivory was under the belief that the Lord Advocate had authorized the publication of the Report. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan is not here, because I have reason to know that he would have completely confirmed what is now stated. If any of his Colleagues sitting on the bench opposite are going to take part in the discussion, I presume they have been made acquainted with his views. There can be no doubt that Sheriff Ivory acted in the bonâ fide belief that the Lord Advocate had approved of the publication of the Report in the newspapers; and what the Government-had to consider was whether an error—which was merely a misconception of what took place at an interview—was one which should be visited with liability for the payment of this £200? As a matter of fact, Sheriff Ivory had been discharging the duty of a public servant under great difficulties; and I trust that this House will affirm that it is the duty of the Government to sustain the action of public officers, even when they err, if they act in good faith. That is a point on which I hope the Committee will not give an undecided opinion, and 1248 it is the only question raised in the present discussion.

§ MR. CALDWELL
I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate had referred to the circumstances of the action, he would have seen that it was one which altogether precluded the idea of privilege. I cannot agree that, when an officer takes a certain action in the execution of his duty, he is invariably entitled to the protection of the Treasury. The ground of action in this particular case was that Sheriff Ivory was acting altogether outside his judicial functions. There could have been no action whatever based on the footing that Sheriff Ivory had acted according to the duty that devolved on him; but the sole ground of action was that he published this Report without authority, acting, in so doing, altogether outside his proper functions, and, therefore, having no title to protection. How was the matter decided? The then Lord Advocate stated very clearly that Sheriff Ivory, in publishing a confidential document, had not acted prudently.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1888–89.