or not. the House to the Select Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments." The draft Report went on to state Although the Committee see no ground for attributing to the Lord Chancellor any motive except an unwillingness to act harshly towards an officer of the House who had faithfully performed his duties to it for many years, they are compelled to come to the conclusion that in withholding from the knowledge of the House the serious mat. ters affecting the character of Mr. Edmunds, and presenting his petition as if he approved of his application for a pension, he acted under a mistaken sense of his duty, and has thereby occasioned serious reflections to be cast upon the conduct of the House, and has placed it in a situation of great embarrassment and difficulty." by the House in order to enable it to determine of the Committee, and the House, aeting whether Mr. Edmunds was deserving of a pension on their silence and in ignorance, sanctioned All that was afterwards done in the their Report. I must say that if there be House was founded upon the petition presented to the House by the Lord Chancellor without obser- difficulty and embarrassment, and if revation. Upon its presentation the acceptance of flections were cast on the conduct of the Mr. Edmunds resignation was moved and agreed House, it should be recollected that that to, and the petition was afterwards referred by conduct was owing to the course pursued by the Government, and more especially by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. And I must confess that I think that the manner in which the course pursued by the Committee recommending the pension is characterized by the Committee of Inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. Edmunds' resignation is not such as ought to create pain in the most sensitive mind. We have expressed our regret that in ignorance of the facts the recommendation of a pension was made, and we express still more strongly their condemnation of the course pursued in not putting the Committee in possession of the facts. It is quite natural that the Chairman and Members of the Committee who recommended the pension should be anxious to vindicate their conduct, and the explanations which have been given are most fair; but I am of opinion that we should not be called on to affirm Resolutions, the terms of which go further than is necessary. I cannot consent to affirm the latter part of the Resolution, and I hope it will be consistent with the honour of the House, after the complete explanation given by my noble Friend, if he will consent, and if the noble Earl opposite will agree to move the Previous Question on the Resolution, and not to ask us to pronounce an opinion "Aye" or "No" upon it. I speak in the name of the whole Committee who inquired into the circumstances of Mr. Edmunds' resignation when I say that we never meant to cast the slightest censure on the motives or even on the conduct of the Committee recommending the pension. This part of the inquiry was most painful to us, because we were inquiring into the conduct pursued by Gentlemen, almost all of whom are our personal friends, for all of whom we entertain the highest respect, all Members of your Lordships' House, and all acting with the full conviction that they were performing their duty. I hope the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will allow his Motion to be passed over without pressing on the House abstract Resolutions tending to limit the scope of inquiries before Select Committees. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Previous Question. I do not think that there could be a stronger proof than the discussion which has taken place to-night of the embarrassment and difficulty in which this House has been placed by the course pursued by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in withholding from the Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and from your Lordships all knowledge of the circumstances of the case. I say that the withholding these circumstances from the knowledge of the Committee was the first and primary cause of all the embarrassment that followed, and upon that point the Select Committee of inquiry respecting Mr. Edmund's resignation were bound to express their opinion, and I do not think that they expressed it too strongly when they stated that the Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments should have been put in possession of all the circumstances before the pension was granted. I say still more strongly, that it was the bounden duty of the Government after the Report of that Committee to put this House in possession of the facts, to state that the Committee had made the recommendation in favour of a pension upon imperfect information, and to beg the House, to re-consider the decision of the Committee. But during the week, between the presentation of the Report of that Committee and the sanction given to it by the House neither the Government nor the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took the slightest notice of it. Their silence affirmed the recommendation EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there the matter should be considered by a Comcan be no doubt, with respect to one asser-mittee, the papers should be laid before the tion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), House, the Cabinet would have stated that that the recent Committee was one of a it was necessary to do so. Therefore, judicial character, and I think there can the Lord Chancellor stated most truly hardly be any doubt that the Committee that he never had the sanction of the performed their duty most impartially, with Cabinet, in reference to that point, but great ability, and presented to the House a that when Mr. Edmunds retired he detervery clear statement of facts explaining mined for himself, rightly or wrongly, that many doubtful circumstances. Another he would not interfere actively in the matter. point, which the noble Lord who moved The responsibility of taking that course of the Resolution has raised, and on which making no communication to the Comthe noble Earl dwelt was, how this difficulty mittee rests with the noble and learned arose connected with the grant of a pension Lord on the Woolsack; and it is an entire to Mr. Edmunds. The noble Earl goes mistake, therefore, to say that the Governfurther than the noble Lord, for he seems ment had resolved that no statement should to think that the Lord Chancellor had be made to the Commiteee with respect to brought the whole question before the Mr. Edmunds. Well, the Committee have Cabinet. given their opinion of the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in these words— LORD CHELMSFORD: That he should have done so. EARL RUSSELL: The statement in that respect is very explicit. The Lord Chancellor, after stating that he had consulted Lord Cranworth and Lord Kingsdown, says― "When I found that the House of Lords was the tribunal, I asked the Cabinet, is it my duty to bring it before the House of Lords? Not whether I was justified in doing so, but is it my bounden duty to do it? They said, 'Yes;' but that was only in order that the House of Lords might no longer have that officer, and when that officer retired, I then determined for myself, rightly or wrongly (I take all the responsibility of it), that I would not interfere actively to prevent his having a pension." I think that the Lord Chancellor has stated "The Committee cannot coincide with the Lord Chancellor in the view thus taken by him of his public duty. In their opinion it was incumbent on him, who presented the petition of Mr. Edmunds to the House of Lords, in some manner to have apprised the Parliament Office Committee of the circumstances under which the resignation and with which the Lord Chancellor was officially of Mr. Edmunds of the clerkship had taken place, acquainted, and not to have left them to decide the question of a pension with no clearer light than that which could be derived from vague and uncertain rumours." Now, I rather agree that the words proposed in the Committee, and rejected, gave a clearer and fuller statement of the case than the words adopted; but with regard to the sense I do not see that there exists any material difference. The words promost fairly and truly that that was the posed and rejected in the Committee declare question raised before the Cabinet, and that the Lord Chancellor acted under a the Cabinet decided that it was the duty of mistaken sense of his duty. On the other the Lord Chancellor, if Mr. Edmunds ap-hand, the Report goes on to say— peared here as your Lordships' clerk, to produce the papers. LORD CHELMSFORD: It is not, if Mr. Edmunds appeared at the table. was The Committee have, however, no reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor was influenced by any unworthy or unbecoming motives in thus abstaining from giving any information to the Committee." EARL RUSSELL: The Question "If Mr. Edmunds retained his situation," was There the question rests. The minority say the question put to the Cabinet, which the that the Lord Chancellor acted under a misCabinet resolved in the affirmative. There taken sense of duty; the majority, that a further question of whether Mr. there is no reason to believe that he was inEdmunds was to receive a pension without fluenced by unworthy or unbecoming moany intervention or objection on the part tives. The opinion of both, therefore, is of the Government. That Question was that the Lord Chancellor may have been never considered by the Cabinet at all, mistaken in not acquainting the House or although one or two Members may have the Committee with the facts within his conversed on the subject; but I am de- knowledge; but, at the same time, that cidedly of opinion that if the Lord Chan-it amounted only to an error in judgment. cellor had asked the Cabinet the question, whether, supposing Mr. Edmunds should ask for a pension, and it was proposed that The Earl of Derby Then comes the question now brought forward with regard to the conduct of the Committee to which the petition for a pension was referred. Now, the portion Parliament the Report of such a Comof blame attaching to the Committee mittee would have been laid on the table, seems to be so small-so infinitesimally it would have been printed, the House small-that I think it was hardly worth would have had all the necessary informawhile to throw even that portion of blame tion before it, the assent of the House to upon them. But your Lordships have the Report would then have been moved, not been asked to agree to the Report and we should have given our reasons for containing that infinitesimal amount of assenting or disagreeing. We should not blame, and assent to every proposition then have been placed in the unpleasant in it. It has been generally approved, position of having passed a vote for a penas containing an important statement of sion which we are now to be called on to the case; but your Lordships are not rescind; and, among other morals to be bound by every one of the statements learnt from this case, I think we should in the Report. I think, moreover, that bear in mind this-that the business of this there would be great inconvenience in House ought to be conducted in a manner adopting a Resolution which seems to as- more resembling that of the other House sign to Committees of this kind somewhat of Parliament. lower and less responsible duties than they THE MARQUESS OF BATH said, as a ought to discharge. It is likewise ex- Member of the Pension Committee, he did ceedingly inconvenient that when an im- not rise to defend the Members of that partially constituted Committee has made Committee, but to lay before their Lord. a Report Resolutions should be passed ships a few facts, which would help them condemning it, and opposing part of that to come to a decision upon the subject. Report. As I said before, I cannot think The whole question really turned upon that any one believes that much blame this, Was the case referred to the Comattaches to the Pension Committee, though mittee an ordinary case, or was it referred it would have been better if there had under such special circumstances as would been some delay, and if they had waited require an extraordinary inquiry on their some few days to see whether any facts part? If it was an ordinary inquiry, the were brought before them bearing on the duty of the Committee would simply conconduct of Mr. Edmunds. No one, how- sist in investigating the length of Mr. ever, is disposed seriously to blame them; Edmunds' services, and the amount of and with regard to the Chairman of Com- pension to which he was entitled. Under mittees everybody recognizes his ability. these circumstances, therefore, no blame But they were placed in a most unfortu- would attach to the Committee. The Prenate position, and it would be unfair to sident of the Council, however, said there cast any great amount of blame upon them. were special circumstances in the case that There is one point further to which I wish required special investigation. What were to refer. The noble Lord who brought they? The special circumstances conthis subject forward told us that the Re-sisted of rumours of the very vaguest deport of the Pension Committee was laid scription. Anybody who knew anything of on the table of the House; and the noble Viscount who formerly presided over the other House, (Viscount Eversley), contrasted the mode of transacting business there and in your Lordships' House. Now, I think it is to be regretted that the mode of conducting business in this House is not so regular or so public as that of the other House. Reports of this kind may be laid on the table, but those Members of the House who do not read your Lordships' Minutes do not find out what takes place in this respect. That is what occurred in the present instance. The Report of Committee recommending the pension was never printed. It was presented without attracting attention, and escaped my attention or the attention of the Government in general. Now, in the other House of VOL. CLXXIX. [THIRD SERIES.] business knew how dangerous it was to take notice of rumours, especially when they affected the character of individuals. Even in a small society you had no right to say anything against a man's character unless you were in some way or other prepared to prove the truth of what you said. Now he had heard as long ago as Christmas that Mr. Edmunds, being rather a stupid, indolent man, had got his affairs in the Patent Office into some confusion; that there was no dishonesty, but that he had kept with his bankers a private, or a separate account, connected with his public office, and had not complied with the strict letter of the law in paying the money into the Treasury. At the same time, the report was that an unfair advantage was being taken of Mr. Edmunds' negligence C of conversation in the Committee-room, just as if noble Lords had spoken about it around the Committee table. But he could assure the noble Lord that such was not the case. He did speak to two noble Lords on the subject, but it certainly gave rise to no general conversation. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had been entirely misunderstood by the noble Earl, notwithstanding his clear statement of facts that evening. The noble Lord never suggested delay for the purpose of inquiry. What he said was this, "This is a financial question which though not now subject to the Treasury may afterwards become so, if the Fee Fund is not sufficient. It is always a good thing, therefore, to have some Member of the Government, some one who may make representations to the Treasury; and therefore the noble Lord delayed the proceedings for some time in order to have the attendance of some Member of the Government. Now, with regard to consulting precedents as to the practice of the Treasury, the Committee had some conversation on the subject, and they were told what the Treasury usually did upon such occasions; they preferred, however, to be guided by their own precedents, as the case of Mr. Birch and others, which Sir John Lefevre had carefully collected in a book which was submitted to the Committee, and accordingly they took about the average which they found the Honse had been in the habit of giving since 1838 as the amount of pension to be awarded. The pension was a little less than it would have been in another case, because Mr. Edmunds had no house in addition to his annual income. Now, if the Committee were liable to blame for the Report which they had made, the whole House was liable to blame for having adopted it. The Report was drawn up on the information which the Committee possessed, and the rumours which the Committee had heard, had been heard also by noble Lords in that House. He had not heard those rumours in this respect for the purpose of forcing inquiry. If any one believed the truth of him out of his office. Until he (the Mar- those reports, he would have been justiquess of Bath) came up to London in fied in inquiring, but if he did not believe February he heard nothing further on the them he would not have been justified in subject, and then the rumour reached him delaying the decision. The noble Lord that Mr. Edmunds had resigned his ap-stated that the matter was the subject pointments in the Patent Office; that he had been harshly treated; that a violent Report had been drawn up against him; but that he had a complete answer to the charges, which answer had been sent in. Now had he (the Marquess of Bath) been asked before entering the Committee what he was going to do there, he should have said that he was going to do his best to prevent an oppressed man from being oppressed still further. Nor was that altogether unreasonable, for he knew that the Government were forcing the man to retire, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was expressly mentioned as having obliged Mr. Edmunds to resign not only his position in the Patent Office, but also his office in that House. If there was any truth in the report of Mr. Edmunds' misconduct, he felt that the noble and learned Lord was in full possession of all the facts connected with the case. He supposed, therefore, that there was not any circumstance which should have disentitled Mr. Edmunds to receive a pension, otherwise that the noble and learned Lord would have communicated it to the House when he proposed to refer the petition to a Committee. Then there were two Members of the Government upon the Committee, but they did not attend. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had good reason for not doing so, for he had appeals to hear in that House. Neither was the Lord President able to attend. But, then, it was in the power of the noble and learned Lord to send a message to any Member of the Committee, and the mere mention of the real circumstances would have been sufficient to stop the whole proceedings. The noble Lord the President of the Council found fault with the Committee not for not having inquired, but for not having delayed their decision; but if the noble Lord would reconsider his argument he will see how untenable it is. If the Committee had not been guilty of any dereliction of duty in not inquiring their delaying their Report would have been far more objection-in Committee, he had heard them in their able, for the delay under the rumours then afloat would have been an unjust condemnation of Mr. Edmunds' conduct by giving a sanction to them without proper The Marquess of Bath Lordships' House. It was in the power of any noble Lord to have looked into the notices of the House to have seen what Resolutions had been come to upon the should first be laid on the table for the information of Parliament. LORD CHELMSFORD: The noble Duke has stated that the Law Officers of the Crown were of opinion that no proceedings could be instituted against Mr. Leonard Edmunds. On the contrary, he found by the Report that on the 9th of February, only five days before the petition was presented, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was Report of the Committee, and finding no record of any, to have taken occasion to prevent the adoption of the Report. Seven days elapsed from the presentation of the Report until it was adopted, and therefore noble Lords who had not taken the course which he had sketched out, were as liable to censure as the Committee. The real fact was that the Committee was made a scapegoat to save certain Members of the Government. The Committee were comparatively powerless, while the Government were a powerful body. If the Committees. 1 to (as to Acts done before the 31st of were not in fault, the Government clearly were. Either the noble and learned Lord or some Member of the Government ought to have risen in his place and stopped the granting of the pension, and that the Government easily could have done, had they chosen to do it. THE EARL OF HARROWBY advised the noble Lord to move the Previous Question. There was one point, however, which did not appear to have been clearly explained to the House. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) had informed the House that when the Lord Chancellor presented the petition to the House the Members of the Cabinet knew nothing about it; but he could not understand why it was when the Cabinet knew of Mr. Edmunds' defalcations they did not come forward and do that which the noble Earl had said would have been the course they would have adopted if they had been consulted on granting him his pension. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET said, he knew nothing more about the affair than what had been stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack-namely, that there had been defalcations on the part of Mr. Edmunds, and that when the matter had been laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, they were of opinion that there was no case for a criminal prosecution. Beyond these facts he knew nothing whatever. THE EARL OF HARROWBY had understood the noble Earl to state what would have been the course the Cabinet would have taken had they been consulted as to the granting of the pension. EARL RUSSELL said, that the question for the Cabinet to consider was whether Mr. Edmunds could maintain his place in that House. If the Cabinet had been consulted on the policy of granting a pension they would only have agreed to such a measure, on condition that all the papers and documents connected with the matter "That under the Acts 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 4, October, 1861), and 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 70 "That having regard to the facts which they state, and to the circumstances attending and sub sequent to the resignation of Mr. Edmunds of his Office of Clerk of the Patents and Clerk to the Commissioners, and particularly to the terms of Mr. Hamilton's letter to Mr. Edmunds of the 22nd of September, 1864, [that is the letter authorizing the receipt of the money] (in which he was treated rather as a debtor than as a criminal), we are not prepared to advise that criminal proceedings should be taken in this case." He LORD REDESDALE in reply, said, he had to offer his thanks to their Lordships for the manner in which he had personally been spoken of in this discussion. agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath) that if the Committee had delayed to make their Report they would have been giving countenance to rumours upon which they would not have been justified in acting and have passed a tacit censure upon Mr. Edmunds. If the Members of the Cabinet did not consider themselves justified in acting on what they knew, still less could the Committee have done so on rumour. He could not but remain of opinion that the Parliament Office Committee were justified in the course they took, and that the only question they had to consider was the amount of the pension that ought to be granted to an old officer of the House. After the debate which had taken place he was willing to accept the proposal that had been made, that these Resolutions should pass away without being put to their Lordships as he had no wish to press the House to censure the Report of the Select Committee of which he complained, which would be the consequence of the adoption of his Resolutions. He was quite satisfied with what had taken place, so far as he was personally concerned, and he thought that the House and the public must now acknowledge, that the Parliament Office Commit |