LORD STANLEYI rise, Sir, to put to Mr. Attorney General the question of which I have given him notice—namely, Whether the inquiry instituted by Government into certain alleged irregularities in the Accounts of the Patent Office has been concluded; whether the Report of the Commissioners appointed to conduct that inquiry will be laid upon the table; or, if that be considered inexpedient, whether he is prepared to state the conclusion to which they have come; and whether it is the intention of Government to found on such Report any proceedings either for the recovery of the sums alleged to be deficient or for the punishment of those who may be responsible for the loss.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALSir, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, perhaps I may be permitted to state that the inquiry to which he refers was not strictly an inquiry instituted by the Government. It was instituted by the Lord Chancellor and the Commissioners of Patents, in consequence of information which reached them as to the existence of certain irregularities and disputes in the Patent Office, which did not in the first instance, except as regards inquiry into a prior matter supposed to be concluded, involve any question of pecuniary defalcation. Those inquiries, however, having been instituted, for the reason I have mentioned, led to two Reports from the gentlemen appointed to make the investigation, the first of which, a preliminary Report, was made in July last, and the second and final Report was presented in the month of January in the present year. The inquiry, therefore, has been concluded, and I should be perfectly prepared to lay on the table the Reports which have been made but for two reasons, which, when I state them, will, I think, 1121 appear satisfactory to the House. In the first place, the names of certain persons, officers employed in the Patent Office, are introduced into the Reports in a manner that requires very serious consideration as to the proper mode of dealing both with the persons and the subject; and the measures to be taken in consequence have not been finally determined upon. Secondly, the late Clerk of Patents, who is the person principally concerned in the substance of these Reports, complains—whether with or without reason I do not know—that as to a considerable part of the matter comprehended in the final Report, and involving a very large amount of pecuniary charge, he has not had the opportunity of offering the answers and explanations which he says he is now preparing, and which he desires to have duly produced. I think it will probably be felt by the House that it would be premature to lay these Reports on the table until, at all events, they can be accompanied by such further explanations and answers as the gentleman concerned may be enabled to furnish. With regard to the results at which the Commissioners have arrived, I have no objection at all to state to the noble Lord that if the conclusions arrived at by those gentlemen are correct there remains a very considerable sum to be accounted for to the public by the officer to whom I have alluded. After the first preliminary Report had been made, in July last, that officer paid into the Treasury, acknowledging it to be due from him, as I understand, the large sum of £7,872 the Report then not being finally concluded. He at the same time made it unnecessary to prosecute steps which had been taken with a view to his displacement from the office which he held by voluntarily relinquishing that office, without prejudice to his pecuniary responsibility upon the final completion of the Report. If all the grounds taken by the Commissioners should prove to be tenable, and no sufficient answer or explanation should be forthcoming, a further sum or balance will be due of £9,100 more. And then as to the steps which it is proposed to take, The first thing which it is proposed to do is to wait in order to give a full and fair consideration to any further statements and explanations which the gentleman concerned may desire to offer. It has been a subject of very serious consideration on the part of the Government, under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, whether, assuming the facts to be 1122 as alleged, that circumstance ought to lead to any proceedings other than of a civil character. Now, taking into account the fact that a great deal of the information which we possess was given in answer to questions put to this gentleman himself, the conclusion which has been arrived at is that the case is not one in which it would be expedient, if practicable, to institute any species of criminal prosecution. But with regard to other measures it is the decided opinion of the Government, unless further explanations lead to a different conclusion, to take civil proceedings in order to recover from the officer to whom I have referred the whole balance of the sums alleged to be deficient.
§ MR. HENRY SEYMOURI wish to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether Mr. Edmunds will be in the receipt of the pension of £800 a year until the case is cleared up; and whether, as the case appears to be extremely complicated, he does not think it advisable to move for a Committee of the House for the purpose of inquiry into the matter?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALI have no information whatever upon the subject; but, as far as my judgment is concerned, I should think it would not be fair that he should receive any pension while the case is still undecided. With regard to the appointment of a Committee, I should humbly think that while civil proceedings are being carried on it would not be expedient that this House should take up the matter.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEI wish, Sir, to put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and it is this—whether the Lord Chancellor has appointed his son to the office vacated by Mr. Edmunds?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALI have seen in the newspapers that the Lord Chancellor, upon the occurrence of the vacancy in a different place, has, in the exercise of the patronage which belongs to his office, appointed a gentleman who stands in that relation to his Lordship.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEI wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Lord Chancellor, having originated these proceedings against this gentleman, did not, when he was able to turn him out of office, appoint his own son in his place, and whether that is not a question of more gravity than the charge which was brought forward against Lord Chelmsford on a former occasion?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I am not quite sure that I can add anything to what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; hut, as far as I am aware, no proceedings have been taken against Mr. Edmunds up to the present time. I am not sure that I understand the facts to which the hon. Member refers, but I believe the gentleman has been appointed to whom he has alluded.
§ MR. WHITESIDEI wish to know whether, in point of fact, Mr. Edmunds has received a pension for good services?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUEROn that subject, the Treasury and myself have no information whatever. We have no cognizance of the proceedings of the 'other House. I, individually, am appointed according to usage to share along with you, Sir, and under your presidency, in awarding pensions to officers of this House; but the Treasury has no authority whatever with regard to the grant of any pensions by the other House of Parliament to its own servants, nor have I any knowledge whatever with respect to the point in question, except from the items open to the whole public in the books of that House.