THE PATENT OFFICE—CASE OF MR. EDMUNDS.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 19 May 1870)

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It will be necessary to 971 make a very short explanation of this Question—which, I trust, the House will permit me to do—with respect to Mr. Edmunds, who is generally known in connection with what has been called the "Edmunds' Scandal." Mr. Edmunds was accused of being a defaulter to the Government. A Committee was appointed for the purpose of investigating the question. They did not go into his accounts or submit them to audit. Other proceedings followed, upon which Vice Chancellor Giffard—now Lord Justice Giffard—entirely cleared Mr. Edmunds' character in these words— In one respect I am bound to say that the arguments and the evidence adduced on behalf of Mr. Edmunds have been successful—that is to say, they have been successful in clearing his character from all imputations. And the Vice Chancellor thus closed his judgment— I repeat, as I said at the outset, that the defendant's evidence has removed any imputation that could be justly or fairly cast upon his character; and, having regard to all the circumstances, difficult position in which he was placed, and the fact of the audits being refused, I shall certainly not make him pay any costs. Subsequent proceedings took place, and the case was eventually referred to the arbitration of two barristers. ["Order!"] If it is disagreeable to hon. Gentlemen that I should proceed in this way, I will conclude with a Motion. The case was referred to arbitration, as I have said; but the arbitrators did not go into the accounts, which had been audited by Messrs. Chatteris and Nichols and found to be correct. They did not examine Mr. Edmunds' witnesses; but they gave what I cannot help thinking was an ex parte decision upon the question, in which they found Mr. Edmunds liable for sums of money which were clearly accounted for in the bank books in their possession. In consequence of that, Mr. Edmunds' private fortune has been utterly and entirely ruined—he is a ruined man. We are now informed that the Government intend to proceed against him; and it is stated, on good authority, that, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by his order, a writ has been issued against Mr. Edmunds for the purpose of placing him in Whitecross Street Prison—notwithstanding that imprisonment for debt in all private transactions has been abolished by Act of Parliament. In the meanwhile, Mr. Edmunds has taken the only means he is advised is open to him for bringing his case under the consi- 972 deration of a jury. That can take place not later than the beginning of July. It it understood that he will be arrested, incarcerated, and detained in gaol, and thereby prevented from meeting a jury of his countrymen to decide upon a question as to which I, in common with many others, both noblemen and gentlemen, consider there has been one of the gravest miscarriages of justice that have occurred within my recollection. I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has given an order for the arrest of Mr. Edmunds, and, if he has done so, whether he will consent to countermand the order until Mr. Edmunds has had an opportunity of obtaining the consideration of his case by a jury of his countrymen? I beg leave to move that this House do now adjourn.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Sir, the case with regard to Mr. Edmunds is exceedingly simple, and can be stated in a very few words. At his own earnest request the question at issue between him and the Government, which was whether he was in default—I wish to use the mildest expression I can select—in respect of a large sum of money received by him in his office, was referred to the arbitration of two barristers, one of whom was appointed by Mr. Edmunds himself. They found that Mr. Edmunds was indebted to the Government in the sum of £7,142 13s. The Government have taken up their award, paying half the expenses of it, though the whole was awarded to be paid by Mr. Edmunds, the amount being £601 16s. Under these circumstances judgment was signed on the 11th of April, and execution has been issued against Mr. Edmunds under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and the writ is now in the hands of the officer for execution. I am a consenting party to that, and I have not the least intention of holding my hand, and standing between the execution of this writ and Mr. Edmunds. The hon. Baronet speaks as if there was some appeal that would be made by Mr. Edmunds to a jury. Had there been any possibility of the decision which I have mentioned being reversed by any tribunal whatever, it would be the I duty of the Government to wait and hear the decision of that tribunal; but the House is well aware that when a case has 973 been left by consent to arbitration, and the arbitrators have made their award, and execution has issued in regular form, there is no tribunal in the country that can rip up these proceedings again. What the ton. Baronet has alluded to is this—that Mr. Edmunds has commenced an action against the Lords of the Treasury for certain expressions in a Minute of theirs, in reference to this transaction. That action Mr. Edmunds is at perfect liberty to bring, and nothing we are doing can prevent him; but I see no reason whatever, because Mr. Edmunds is of opinion that the Lords of the Treasury have libelled him, why I should forbear to issue this process to recover a large sum of public money for which he has been found liable. That is the whole state of the case, and I hope my answer will be satisfactory to the House.

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, he was not aware, before entering the House, that anything would be said on this subject to-day, and he intended to offer only one or two remarks respecting it. He confessed he had heard the statement of his right hon. Friend with great regret, and he would now say exactly what he knew about the matter. About a year and a-half ago, when this subject was under the consideration of the Treasury, Mr. Edmunds applied to different Gentlemen in the House to look into it and take up his case. Among others he (Mr. Horsman) was spoken to, and he declined to interfere. Afterwards it was stated to be a very hard case, and it was considered that, upon public grounds, investigation was necessary. At last, in consequence of a strong pressure put upon them, a former Member of that House, Sir James Fergusson, and himself, agreed to look into the case, on one condition—namely, that Mr. Edmunds submitted all his accounts to one of the most eminent accountants in London, named by themselves; and they promised that, if the report of that accountant was favourable to Mr. Edmunds, then they would ask the Treasury to take his case into their consideration. Mr. Edmunds' accounts were accordingly submitted to the accountant in question, whose report was entirely favourable to Mr. Edmunds; and, on that ground, they did privately state to the Treasury that they thought the case ought to receive their favourable con- 974 sideration. Afterwards, there came the trial, which he (Mr. Horsman) watched with interest; and he was glad to see that the judgment of the Vice Chancellor confirmed the report that the accountant had made. Again, he had seen the report of the result of the arbitration, and he could not take upon himself to say that the judgment of the arbitrators was not a sound one; but the conclusion he came to from the first—and on which his mind was made up long ago—was, that Mr. Edmunds had been an extremely foolish, but not a consciously or intentionally dishonest man. That he believed to be the truth of the matter. Whether he ought now to be proceeded against, to the extent of his incarceration, should depend on the question not whether he was a debtor, but whether he was a fraudulent debtor? He (Mr. Horsman) must say he had not yet found that character fairly attached to any part of his conduct. He might have been imprudent, foolish, obstinate, and even stupid; but still if, as he believed, there was nothing wilfully, consciously, and intentionally dishonest, he thought his incarceration—especially in these days, when debtors were not usually imprisoned—would be a very strong proceeding. He had never, directly or indirectly, held any communication with Mr. Edmunds since the investigation he had alluded to; but, having then taken some part in this matter, he thought it his duty to state to the House what he know of the circumstances of the case.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Sir, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) was correct in saying that Mr. Edmunds' case came before Vice Chancellor Giffard; but it was a comparatively small portion of the case that came before the Vice Chancellor, and related only to a portion of the accounts—namely, with reference to the skins or parchments. Mr. Edmunds brought an action against Mr. Greenwood, the Solicitor to the Treasury; and Mr. Edmunds was very anxious that all the matters involved in that action, and all the disputes between him and the Crown, should be referred to arbitration. That request was acceded to by the late Government; and, in pursuance of an arrangement, which was in a great degree entered into between them and Mr. Edmunds, the present Government subsequently agreed to Mr. Edmunds' request, that all the matters of difference 975 between him and the Crown, and also between him and Mr. Greenwood, the Solicitor to the Treasury, should be referred to arbitration. The matter was accordingly referred to two arbitrators—the one appointed by the Crown, and the other by Mr. Edmunds. Mr. Denman was one, and Mr. Pollock, Q.C., was the other gentleman, whom everybody would admit to be arbitrators of the highest character. The arbitrators appointed an umpire—Mr. Manisty, also a very eminent Queen's Counsel. We have reason to know that the two arbitrators entirely agreed—so that it was not necessary to call in the umpire at all; and they agreed that Mr. Edmunds, notwithstanding his previous repayments to the amount of £7,000 and upwards, still owed to the public the sum of nearly £8,000. I do not hesitate to say that the case against Mr. Edmunds appears to me a very serious one indeed. I think it right to state that I do not think it necessary to accuse him of absolute fraud; but there is no question in my mind—and I am bound to say this, after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman—that he is open to very grave censure indeed. [Mr. HORSMAN: Hear, hear!] It has now been decided, by a tribunal that cannot be questioned, that Mr. Edmunds altogether owed the public, I think, the sum of £15,000 or £16,000. That is the position in which the matter stands. [Mr. HORSMAN: The accounts extended over some 30 years.] Yes, and I confess that appears to me to make the case rather worse; for he owed the public much of that money for years and years, and must have known that he owed it. I think it, therefore, very questionable whether the Exchequer, or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be justified in allowing further delay to intervene, before the payment by Mr. Edmunds of the moneys to which the public are entitled, and which he has so long detained.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
I wish, Sir, to give notice that I will, at no distant day, move an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying for the appointment of such a Commission as that which sat at Weedon, to investigate the whole of the matters in dispute between the Crown and Mr. Edmunds. I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion for the adjournment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I desire to say, in order that there may be no misapprehension, that Mr. Edmunds himself repaid the sum of £7,000. The further sum was found to be due from him, and it is to recover that sum that process has now been issued.