§ MR. R. N. FOWLER, who had given Notice of the following Motion:—
That the Petition of Leonard Edmunds, which was presented to the House on the 20th of July 1881, he referred to the Committee of Public Accounts, with instructions to the Committee to effect the statutory and Parliamentary examination and audit of the public accounts of the said Leonard Edmunds, as set forth in the said Petition, and amounting in the aggregate to over a million and a-half of money; and further, to inquire into the matters, circumstances, claims, and allegations also set forth in the said Petition, to take evidence and to report thereon to the House,said, he hoped that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to take Mr. Edmunds's position into consideration before next Session. Mr. Edmunds had been appointed by the late Lord Brougham to the office of Clerk of the Patents in 1833, and he had held that office until 1864, when he was dismissed by Lord Westbury for reasons relating to the state of his accounts. There was some imputation on Mr. Edmunds's character, and Mr. Edmunds, therefore, endeavoured to obtain an audit of the accounts. The Treasury, however, refused to have the accounts audited. Some of the Judges, including the late Lord Chief Justice and Lord Blackburn, took a favourable view of Mr. Edmunds's case; and the late Lord Justice Giffard said, in his Judgment, that Mr. Edmunds had, in his opinion, cleared his character of all imputations. After the opinions of such eminent judicial authorities, he considered the reputation of this unfortunate gentleman had been cleared; but he thought it hard that the question of the amount owing to him should be still undecided. The present Prime Minister, speaking on the question, in connection with the Exchequer and Audit Departments Bill, when it was before the House, on the 8th of February, 1866, declared that the whole system of accounts was unsatisfactory, and introduced an alteration in the system of audit to meet the case. He (Mr. B. N. Fowler) asked that Mr. Edmunds should be allowed to have his accounts audited by the Committee of Public Accounts, on the ground that it was not right that any man who had held a public office should lie under a stigma merely because he could not get his accounts audited.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, for many reasons, it was impossible for him to concede the demand of the hon. Member, or for the House to adopt a proposition to that effect if it were made by him. In the first place, it was impossible to ask the Committee of Public Accounts to audit accounts extending over a period from 1833 to 1864, relating to transactions, nearly all the actors in which had retired from public life. Independently, however, of technical objections, there were insuperable difficulties of a practical character which would prevent the case being reconsidered. It had been before the House of Lords three times. That House would be naturally inclined towards Mr. Edmunds; but three Chancellors—Lord Hatherley, Lord Selborne, and Lord Cairns—had decided unanimously against him. One overwhelming reason against acceding to the request of that gentleman was that the whole case, at his own request, had been, in 1869, referred to arbitration—Mr. Edmunds being himself one of the arbitrators. Mr. Justice Denman and Mr. Justice Pollock went most fully into the question, and investigated the subject for 11 days; they heard two counsel on Mr. Edmunds's behalf, and received most voluminous evidence, and finally gave a unanimous award that Mr. Edmunds was to pay a sum of £7,000; not one single farthing of which, or of the enormous costs incurred in the investigation, had he paid. In these circumstances, he could not agree to the request made by the hon. Member on behalf of Mr. Edmunds. He was surprised at the Notice of Motion, and wondered whether there was ever to be an end of the question.
§ SIR JOHN HAYappealed to the noble Lord to reconsider the case of Mr. Leonard Edmunds, who was an old public servant, now 82 years of age, and had been deprived of his official position in a manner which, if not absolutely unjust, seemed excessively harsh to an old public servant. The case had been so fully stated by the hon. Member for the City of London that he would no longer detain the Speaker in the Chair. He trusted that if the House went into Committee they would have an opportunity of discussing matters with reference to promotion in the Navy, and that his right hon. Friend the late First Lord 49 of the Admiralty, when the Speaker left the Chair, would make his statement with reference to promotion in the Navy. If his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would say that, in Committee, they would be able to discuss the subject of shipbuilding and ironclads, his right hon. Friend would agree with Mm that it would be better to make his statement in Committee; but he must have an assurance that the old practice—unwisely departed from within the last two or three Sessions—of allowing the general discussion to be continued on Vote 2, would be sanctioned by the Chairman of Committees.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had reason to think the Chairman of Committees would make no difficulty with regard to matters being discussed on Vote No. 2.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.