RESIGNATION OF CERTAIN OFFICES, AND ON THE PENSION GRANTED TO HIM BY THIS HOUSE.

HL Deb 09 May 1865 vol 179 cc6-39

Moved, That the following Passage from the Report from the Select Committee on the Resignation by Mr. Edmunds of certain Offices, and on the Pension granted to him by this House, be read; (Lord Redesdale) agreed to; and the said Passage read as follows: The Committee have examined the Chairman of Committees as to the Knowledge by the Members of the Select Committee (which he attended) of any Circumstances which might disentitle Mr. Edmunds to a Pension. He stated that there was 'a general Knowledge or a general Impression on the Part of most of the Members of the Committee that in consequence of certain pecuniary Transactions in which Mr. Edmunds had been concerned in the Patent Office he had resigned his Appointment in it.' 'But' (he added) 'the Petition was presented to the House without observation, and no Order was made directing the Committee to inquire into it. We bad only the Facts stated in the Petition which was referred to us, and upon those Facts we had to inquire what Pension Mr. Edmunds should be considered entitled to.' It is to be regretted that the Committee did not consider it to be their Duty under the Circumstances to act upon their general Knowledge or Impression so far as to interpose some Delay before the Question was finally disposed of in favour of a Pension, which had the Circumstances been fully known to them would probably not have been recommended.

LORD REDESDALE

said, that it now became his duty to move the Resolution of which he had given notice; and in doing so he would repeat what he had said on yesterday evening—that he desired most especially to keep himself free on this oc- casion from entering in any degree into Mr. Edmunds' case, and to confine himself entirely to what related to the proceedings of the Committee. He hoped noble Lords would follow his example in that respect, and that they would remember that notice of another Motion had been given which would come on afterwards, and upon which an opportunity would be presented, if it were desired, of entering more fully into the case of Mr. Edmunds. The question which he had to bring before their Lordships was one of great importance to the House in many respects, because it involved the question of the duty of their Committees, and that was one reason why he had felt it his duty to call attention to the subject. A part of the question related personally to himself, and the rest related to the Committee. The paragraph in the Report to which he referred commenced by giving a statement of what was said to be his opinion as to the knowledge of the Committee upon certain subjects which then came before them. It was as follows:— The Committee have examined the Chairman of Committees as to the knowledge by the Members of the Select Committee (which he attended) of any circumstances which might disentitle Mr. Edmunds to a pension. He stated that there was 'a general knowledge or a general impression on the part of most of the Members of the Committee that, in consequence of certain pecuniary transactions in which Mr. Edmunds had been concerned in the Patent Office, he had resigned his appointment in it.' Now, he certainly had no reason to suppose that any Member of the Committee had any wish to say or to do anything which was not perfectly fair to him in the matter; they were all old acquaintances of his, and many of them personal friends. However, he must say that the words which were there put into his mouth were not his words—they were the words of a question which was put by the noble Lord the Postmaster General, and if their Lordships would look to the Question 1,808 in the Minutes of Evidence they would see such was the case. That noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) asked— I think you stated, also, that there was a general knowledge or a general impression on the part of most of the Members of the Committee that, in consequence of certain pecuniary transactions in which Mr. Edmunds had been concerned in the Patent Office, he had been obliged to quit that office and resign his appointment in it. His (Lord Redesdale's) answer was "that he had resigned it—I do not know that I can say 'obliged to resign it.'" Now, it was to a certain extent held that a person accepted a question if he answered it in its entirety; but the answer he gave accepted only the latter part of the question, his answer being merely "that he had resigned it." He could have wished that his answer in an earlier part of the examination had been given, as it would have thrown light upon the point. The answer to which he referred was given to Question 1,797. He was asked— Was there any discussion about the transactions in which Mr. Edmunds was supposed to have been involved? His answer was— No, I should not call it any discussion upon the subject. As I say, there were certain things talked of; but the impression upon the minds of the Members of the Committee present was that a Report had been made which called upon Mr. Edmunds to make a payment of money which had not been accounted for by him in his office, and that he had not only paid that, but that he had paid a larger sum than that which he conceived was due from him to the office. As regards the question whether the fact of his having been behind in his payments had anything to do with the question relating to his resignation of the office in the House of Lords, we may, more or less, have thought that it had something to do with it; but certainly the impression upon the minds of the Committee at the time was that he had satisfied the claim that had been made against him with respect to the money payment. That was his impression not only then, but for a considerable time afterwards. In answer to Question 1,799, which was— Then it would have occurred to you that it must have been in consequence of his being behind in his payments in another office that he wished to retire from the office he held in the House of Lords"— He said— I should say that it was my own impression that that was the motive, but at the same time I must add that, although I do not know what the result of the inquiry before the Committee may be, still, considering what I had known of Mr. Edmunds, and imagining that he had made a full payment, I was rather surprised at his having taken that step. I thought that it would have been better not to have taken that step with regard to his office in the House of Lords if he could have discharged his duties. That opinion bore upon the point how far a man who had done something objectionable in one office should be precluded from remaining in another. Their Lordships would find a similar opinion expressed by a noble and learned Lord whom he saw opposite (Lord Cranworth), at page 10 of the Report. In a letter to the Lord Chancellor dated the 3rd August— My opinion was, and is, that for any misconduct in his office of Clerk of the Patents amounting to dishonesty (and the applying public money to his own use is primâ facie dishonesty) he ought to he removed from his office of Clerk at the table of the House. There might be neglect, or perhaps even delinquency, to some extent, in his office of Clerk of the Patents, which might he of a nature not to compel or even to justify his removal from another office. All this will have to be considered attentively when he is called on to show cause why he should not be removed from his office of Clerk in the House of Lords. That was an opinion which deserved to be received with considerable respect. His own impression was that, having known Mr. Edmunds for many years, and having always found him, as far as he knew, a gentleman and an honourable man, he should not lightly take up charges which were brought against him in that way; and he said then, and would still repeat, that he did not believe that there was anything known at that moment which would call necessarily for the resignation of Mr. Edmund's office in that House. In confirmation of that, he would remind their Lordships that, on the first debate on this subject, which occurred on the 7th of March, which was more than three weeks after the Committee had reported, he said to the House that, in his opinion, a great deal of what had arisen with regard to Mr. Edmunds was owing to his indiscretion in resigning his position in that House, especially when, as he stated, he had a complete answer to the charge. But the important point was—what was the opinion of the Members of the Committee with regard to the charge against Mr. Edmunds when they meet to consider the Report which they were to make to the House. The paragraph of the Report to which he was calling attention went on to say— But the petition was presented to the House without observation, and no order was made directing the Committee to inquire into it. We had only the facts stated in the petition which was referred to us, and upon those facts we had to inquire what pension Mr. Edmunds should be considered entitled to. Again, he was sorry that the whole of his answer was not given. The Question that was asked him was— Would it not, then, have been natural, if you considered that there had been certain transactions in which he had been concerned which were not particularly to his credit, that you should have made a further inquiry as to what those transactions were before you decided to award him a pension. To that Question he replied— It must be apparent to everybody, I think, that those transactions must have been better known to the officers of the Government than to any other parties. The petition was presented to the House without observation, and no order was made directing the Committee to inquire into it. We had only the facts stated in the petition which was referred to us, and upon those facts we had to inquire what pension Mr. Edmunds should be considered entitled to. The whole gist of the question was that Mr. Edmunds' petition was presented by a Member of the Government without any observation, and without giving the Committee any information. The Committee had to take this circumstance into their consideration. With regard to the proceedings before the Pension Committee, of which he (Lord Redesdale) was Chairman, he should like to rend the evidence he gave as to what took place before the Committee— What took place in the Committee, so far as I am concerned, was this:—I said, 'I regret very much that there is no Member of the Government present, because I think it is desirable that a Member of the Government should always be present when pensions are awarded.' It was stated that there were upon the Committee only three Members of the Government; one was the Lord Chancellor, another was the Lord President, and the third, I think, was Lord Stanley of Alderley. [Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I was not on the Committee; my name is not in the list.] Then there are only two Members of the Government upon the Committee. At the time when the Committee was sitting the Lord Chancellor was sitting in the House on Appeals, and it would have interrupted him to have asked him to come in; and Lord Granville was not down at the House. We should have, perhaps, deferred the Committee altogether if it had been put off until he could have attended. I stated that I thought it desirable that they should have been present to call the attention of the Committee to the subject, especially in a financial point of view; in fact, I think that generally would be the case; but the other members of the Committee, although they also desired the presence of a Member of the Government, when they heard the reasons why neither of the noble Lords was present who might have represented the Government on the subject, were disposed to proceed, and accordingly the Motion was made that the pension should be of the amount I have stated, and it was agreed to by the Committee. He trusted that their Lordships would now be of opinion that there had been no desire on the part of the Pension Committee to come to a decision on the retiring provision for Mr. Edmunds without due consideration. The Committee felt that if the Government had anything to communicate to them they would have done so, and that in the absence of any information there was no need for them to take any particular step on the subject. His opinion on the course to be pursued on this subject be had expressed to the Committee, and it was as follows:— I always like a Committee thoroughly to understand, as far as my experience can guide them, what it may be desirable for them to do or to desire, and therefore I said that for my own part I thought it was always desirable that in cases of this kind a Member of the Government should be present; but, at the same time, it was open to the Committee to proceed at once if they pleased. We had full power to do what we pleased upon that subject, and it was for the Committee, not for me, to determine what course should betaken, I having suggested to them that point. And he added— In justice to the Committee, I am bound to say that the point I suggested to them was not as regarded the case of Mr. Edmunds, but as regarded the question of awarding a pension generally. I said I liked to have some person present who would be responsible as representing the Executive. Again, in Question 1824,— You suggested to them the point that it was desirable that a Member of the Government should be present quoad the matter then before the Committee—namely, the pension to Mr. Edmunds?—No; not as regards Mr. Edmunds, but quoad any question of a pension of such an amount. Their Lordships would see that the Pension Committee acted on the opinion that there was nothing in the case before them that prevented their taking the subject into their full consideration, and they were justified in thinking that there was no information which the Government considered it necessary specially to lay before the Committee. The petition referred to them for consideration stated that Mr. Leonard Edmunds had served the House for a certain number of years—that he was desirous of retiring—and prayed that their Lordships would be pleased to grant him such retiring allowance as they might think fit. It must be recollected that the retirement of Mr. Edmunds had been accepted by the House. With that question the Pension Committee had nothing whatever to do. The Select Committee expressed their regret that Mr. Edmunds had been allowed to retire, and had thereby been enabled to withdraw himself from the impending inquiry. But that resignation had been accepted by the House without comment, and the only question before the Pension Committee was as to the amount to be voted as a retiring-provision. The Committee all thought the amount recommended by them very fair. The Select Committee said— It is to be regretted that the Committee did not consider it to be their duty, under the circum- stances, to act upon their general knowledge or impression so far as to interpose some delay before the question was finally disposed of in favour of a pension which, had the circumstances been fully known to them, would probably not have been recommended. In answer to this passage he stated to the Select Committee the reasons why the Pension Committee were justified in coming to the recommendations they made. The only question referred to the Committee was the amount of the retiring pension, and it was most important that Committees should not travel beyond the powers intrusted to them. It was the practice of that House—whether a desirable practice or not he was not prepared to say—in nine cases out of ten when a Report of that kind was made the Report was agreed to almost as a matter of course at the time it was presented to the House. If their Lordships would consult their Journals, they would find that it was a most extraordinary thing that the delay of a whole week, which occurred in this instance, should have taken place. Nor was this a Committee appointed for the express purpose of considering the retiring provision to Mr. Edmunds. It was a Committee appointed at the beginning of every Session, and consisted of precisely the same Members as were upon it last Session. There was, therefore, no preparation or special arrangement with reference to this particular question. The Report was presented to the House on the Friday following the day on which the Committee met. It took some time in drawing up, because there were other things to arrange—the salary of the officer who succeeded Mr. Edmunds, and the salaries of the junior department of the clerks of the House. After it had lain on the table for a week, the Clerk of the Parliaments (Sir John Shaw Lefevre) asked him what ought to be done with it? He replied that he supposed it ought to be agreed to. No notice was given of the Motion for agreeing to the Report, and it was agreed to. There was no use in their Lordships shutting their eyes to the fact that no one was able to give an opinion on the rumoured defalcations of Mr. Edmunds, except the Members of the Government. With regard to those noble Lords it was open to them, if they had thought fit, to give information on the subject to the House, and if they disagreed with the Report, it was in their power to come down and move its rejection. So that the week's interval that was given before the Report was confirmed by the House was ample, supposing there had been any disposition on the part of the Government to bring any information before the House. There was nothing unusual in the practice of the Committee, and the delay was amply sufficient to allow any communication to be made to the House. He must now allude to a passage in the Report relative to the examination of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). The noble Earl did not attend the Pension Committee, and he stated his reason. The noble Earl said— The petition, I believe, was presented very early in the evening. I was not in the House at the time, and I was not aware that the petition had been presented; and although I might have made myself aware the next morning, by reading all that had passed in the Minutes of the proceedings, that such a petition had been presented, practically I was not aware of it. The card summoning the Members of that Committee contained nothing specifying what were the subjects that were referred to it, and I declare to the Committee that I was perfectly ignorant that this subject would be brought before it. I cannot state now whether I should have attended or not if I had known that this subject was to be brought before that Committee; but I certainly should not have attended without communicating with the Lord Chancellor, and probably with Lord Palmerston, and ascertaining what, in their opinion, it would have been my duty to communicate on the part of the Government. That statement, on the part of the noble Earl, justified him incoming to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the Government to make any communication to the Committee. Under these circumstances, he thought there was no ground whatever for laying blame upon the Committee for not having acted upon vague impressions. And for himself he declared that at the time he never imagined it was indispensable that Mr. Edmunds should resign; he believed that he had been guilty of irregularity, but not of acting unfairly, and that full payment of everything due from him to the office would be made. His belief was that Mr. Edmunds had resigned his Patent office from a feeling which every man could appreciate—namely, that he could not with comfort remain in an office where be was known not to have conducted himself in all respects with regularity. But neither then nor for a long time afterwards did he believe that there was anything which necessarily called for the resignation of his office in the House of Lords. He had stated these matters as fairly as he could, both as they affected himself and every Member of the Committee; and was induced to move the Resolutions of which he had given notice, believing that the proceedings of a Committeee of their Lordships' House should not be assailed without their being heard in their own defence. He did not condemn any one; but be maintained that the sentences in the Report in which the opinion of their Lordships was conveyed were, perhaps, harder on the original Committee than their Lordships themselves intended them to be. He trusted he had satisfied the House that the original Committee had nothing before them which could justify their acting otherwise than they had done; that they could not have taken the measures it was now suggested they ought to have done without a special Order from the House; and that, if they had taken action upon the matter, in the absence of positive information, they would have been instituting an inquiry they were not called on to make upon the shallow basis of mere rumour and surmise. On the question of delay his views were sufficiently before their Lordships already. If noble Lords, having a whole week in which to communicate, had not availed themselves of the opportunity of doing so, it was perfectly reasonable, he insisted, that the Report should be agreed to without blame thereby attaching to any one. The Committee had acted in a manner similar to all other Committees of their Lordships' House; there had been nothing irregular or informal in their procedure. And, on his own part, he denied that there had been any step, intentionally taken, at least, to preclude inquiry, or to do anything opposed to the rules of their Lordships' House. The noble Lord concluded by moving—

1. 1. That the Petition of Mr. Edmunds, stating that after having served the House Seventeen Years as Reading Clerk and Clerk of the Private Committees he desired to retire, and praying the House to grant him such Allowance as to their Lordships may seem fit, having been presented on Tuesday the 14th February by The Lord Chancellor without any Comment being made thereon by him or any other Member of the Government present on that Occasion, and referred to the Select Committee on the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments without any special Order or Instruction in relation thereto, that Committee, when they met on Thursday the 16th February (Mr. Edmunds' Resignation having been already accepted by the House), had no Question to determine on the Petition so referred to them but the Amount of retiring Pension to which he was entitled, and would have exceeded their Duty if without special Instruction from the House they had proceeded to inquire into his Conduct in any Matter unconnected with his Duties in this House:
2. 2. That the Report having been presented on Friday the 17th February, was Ordered to be laid on the Table, and was not agreed to until Friday 15 the 24th February, whereby sufficient" Delay was interposed before the Question was finally disposed of in favour of the Pension" for any Lord acquainted with Circumstances which ought to have been known to the [louse before the Report was adopted to have brought the same under the Consideration of the House:

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, having been Chairman of the Select Committee. I rise to say a few words in support of the view taken by them, and regarding these Resolutions that my noble Friend asks you to adopt. I must begin by saying—though ii is scarcely necessary to do so—that I impute nothing to my noble Friend but the best possible motives; and that in the few observations I am about to make I shall confine myself rigidly to the limits he has pointed nut, and I trust I shall maintain the same temperate tone which he has employed in addressing your Lordships. My noble Friend says that the paragraph in the Report which he has read is somewhat uncalled for, and was merely introduced from a wish, having blamed other persons, to lighten that blame by spreading it a little wider. I can assure my noble Friend, and I think every Member in the Committee will agree in the assurance, that our duty was of a very painful character [The Earl of DERBY: Hear, hear!] and that we entered upon the inquiry determined to do our duty, but with no wish to go one step beyond what our duty required. I have heard that at the time some objections were raised to the composition of the Committee. But I venture to state—having often served on Committees of the House of Commons, of this House, and elsewhere—I never remember to have worked with any body of men who seemed less determined to adhere to their preconceived notions, or more desirous to arrive in a legitimate manner at the truth, and to state that truth simply and plainly to your Lordships' House and the public. I venture to add to this statement, that I make it to the full extent as strongly with regard to noble Lords opposite as to any sitting on this side of the House. The noble Lord seems to think that it is a work of supererogation to allude to the conduct of the original Committee at all; but I must call your Lordships' attention to what took place in the debate when, upon the proposal of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, this Committee of Inquiry was appointed. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), in his speech, mentioned the different persons whose conduct he considered lo be impugned by public rumour, and distinctly stated that among the parties who would have to answer before the Committee would be the Committee presided over by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. A reference to the wording of the Order of Reference will convince your Lordships that my interpretation is the correct one, and that, notwithstanding the objection taken by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, that the words would make the Select Committee inquire into the conduct of the Committee over which he had presided, those words were put in and agreed to. Nemine Contradicente, by your Lordships. I think, therefore, that to shirk all consideration of this question would have been impossible for a Committee constituted as this one was. Does the noble Lord think it was a tempting subject for us to criticize the conduct of the Committee over which he presided? I will say, for this side of the House as much as for the opposite side, that we all appreciate both his industry and ability in carrying on the business of the House, and the interest which he shows in everything concerning the welfare and honour of the House. On that Committee were Peers who had held office under the noble Earl opposite, and Peers holding high office under the present Administration; two Peers, one from each side of the House, exercising most important and confidential functions, akin, in vulgar phrase, to those of the functionary next in rank to the huntsman in the riding field; another Peer, than whom I believe none is more respected or better liked, and whose exercise of supreme authority in another branch of the Legislature remains to this day a tradition in that Assembly. Can it be supposed that there would be any wish or policy upon our part leading us to attack a Committee thus composed—many of its Members our political friends, all of them having high claims on our personal friendship? And, with regard to relieving, at their expense, other persons from censure, if it had been proposed to do so, even if we possessed a majority adequate for the purpose, I cannot conceive that noble Lords opposite, however fair and impartial they may be, would criticize unjustly and contrary to their own opinions the conduct of this body, comprising some of their strongest political supporters. But I do not think that some of the reasons I have given why we should be reluctant to criti- cize this body would have made the public exceedingly alive to any omissions or ladies, in their opinion, observable on the part of the Select Committee. Let me put before the House the amount of criticism which was passed upon the Committee in our Report. If we had stated that in our judgment the Committee erred in not going into a judicial inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of the charges brought by Messrs. Greenwood and Hindmarch against Leonard Edmunds. I think all would have a right to complain; or if we had stated that the Committee did wrong in not refusing a pension to Leonard Edmunds, in that case the Committee would have a right to complain. There is, however, one person who, I hold, has no ground of complaint at all against the paragraph inserted in our Report, and that is my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees in this House. What did we do? All we did was to express our regret that the general knowledge and impressions prevailing on the minds of the Committee did not induce them to interpose some delay before coming to a final decision. Why, this is exactly what the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee discussed with the rest of the Committee who overcame his view. The noble Lord says it is hard to be taken to task for the terms of the question that he consented to answer; but it was only the summing up of what he had previously answered. He spoke of the impression on the minds of the Committee, and said he had no recollection whether the subject was brought forward again once business was regularly entered upon; but it was a matter talked of by all the Members of the Committee as they assembled. The noble Lord then goes on to complain that no Member of the Government was present on the Committee; and in dealing with this point I would remark that it is most satisfactory to us that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has been acquitted of being actuated by any unworthy motives in this matter, though there might have been an error of judgment on his part. But with all the other duties which he has to perform, it is unreasonable of the noble Lord to expect that the Lord Chancellor could have attended the Pension Committee, while, at the same time, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for that Committee to have communicated with him if they had any doubt whatever on the subject of their inquiry. Well, then the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees expresses some regret that I was not present at their deliberations; but I really do not think I was culpable for that non-attendance in the slightest degree. I was not in the House when the petition was presented, nor did I know that it was presented. And although, I may add, I was summoned to attend the Committee, yet it is not a Committee I am in the habit of attending, and the summons had no reference to the business which was to be transacted, and, in point of fact, I had not the most remote idea that the subject of this pension was to be discussed. The noble Lord says that the Committee examined precedents, but not into the granting of the pensions themselves. I think this was a somewhat hasty course. In cases of this nature, I believe it is the usual practice to refer to the most immediate precedent on that point, and the only one at all analagous was, I believe, that of Mr. Birch, which occurred some years ago, and which does not seem to have been examined into. The noble Lord ought to have endeavoured to ascertain something as to what was the practice in reference to the granting of pensions. That was a most fitting inquiry to be made. As to the practice of the Treasury in such matters, I am told that they have printed forms of questions that are required to be filled up, and that it is their invariable rule to refuse one to a clerk who has misconducted himself in another office. And even with regard to the amount of the pension, it is clearly laid down that any one beyond the age of sixty has a right to resign, however short his service may have been. Mr. Edmunds, being no doubt above sixty, had a right to resign; and his pension being calculated upon the principle observed at the Treasury, he would have been entitled to something less than a third of his salary, while what had been awarded was rather more than one-half. I believe that larger salaries and pensions are given to Parliament officers than to others, but I do think that if the Committee had examined into the practice of the Treasury even in that respect the delay which would have occurred would have been valuable. Under these circumstances I cannot help thinking that we were justified in arriving at the conclusion that some blame was attributable to the Committee. The Committee having spent ten days in examining witnesses, spent four more in considering their Report. There was necessarily a great deal of dis- cussion upon it. The noble Lord, not having divided the Committee, he must be taken to be bound by its Report. I therefore object to the first Resolution on two grounds. In the first place, it is clearly meant to be an answer to a paragraph in the Report and a censure upon it. And I also object to it with regard to the last line. I do not conceive that when your Lordships referred the question of this pension to a Committee in which you have such implicit trust that you adopt its recommendations as a matter of course, it is exonerated from the responsibility of inquiry whether there should be any pension at all, as well as how much that pension should be. I have so far stated my objection to the first Resolution. That Resolution bears upon the question between the two Committees. The second, however, bears upon the question raised between the noble Lord, as an individual, and the whole of your Lordships' House. When we complain of there not having been sufficient delay in the Committee, the noble Lord answers that there was plenty of time for the House to have interfered. The usual course would have been for the noble Lord to place a notice on the paper that on a certain day he would move that the Report of the Committee be agreed to, and thus given time for further delay. The noble Lord did not adopt that course, and it was natural that he should not do so. There was a certain degree of doubt upon the subject; it was probably felt that this question might attract public attention, and, in the course of a week, the noble Lord communicated to that most excellent officer, Sir John Shaw Lefevre, his opinion that the Report of his Committee ought now to be agreed to, but he placed his notice on that particular corner of the Minutes which your Lordships seldom read. I acquit the noble Lord of the slightest intention of concealing anything from the House, but I must say that for such a consummate man of business he certainly did adopt the most clumsy method that was possible of giving notice. If he had taken another course the House would have been responsible; but I believe there was hardly a Member that was not by this time aware that there was something more than rumours; but I do not believe that any Member of the Government had seen the report of Messrs. Greenwood and Hind-march at that time. They merely knew what had been stated by the noble and learned Lord in the Cabinet, who said that Mr. Edmunds had in his Patent Office committed embezzlement, but had refunded more than there was at first reported to be due from him. But there were two noble and learned Lords who had seen the Report—Lord Kingsdown, and my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth); and if the Chairman of Committees had brought the matter publicly forward, those noble and learned Lords would have assumed a great responsibility if they had not taken action in the matter. In the mode in which it was arranged I say it was perfectly impossible that your Lordships would take notice of it. I think that the House will stultify itself in the greatest degree if it passes the second Resolution; and I must make a very earnest appeal to my noble Friend. I think it most desirable, whether by moving a Resolution or otherwise, that the original Committee should have an opportunity of explaining their views of the course which had been taken. Public opinion would then judge between us; but I believe that a division on this Motion would not affect public opinion in any degree; but it would place me and others in a most painful position, because the Report merely regrets the circumstance that there was not more delay; and if we vote against these Resolutions, as we must do, unless we wish the House to stultify itself, it will look like a vote of censure upon the Committee of the noble Lord. I hope the noble Lord will not give us the great pain of dividing on the Resolution.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

said, he was much struck by the position in which the House was placed; but if any one were in fault he thought the blame would be thrown, by the opinion of the country, not on the Committee but on the House itself; he, therefore, entirely agreed with the view taken of this subject by his noble Friend who introduced the discussion. The Committee on the Parliament Office was not bound to inquire into the general character of Mr. Edmunds; their business was to confine themselves strictly to the matter referred to them in connection with the pension he should receive. Their duty was to examine into the precedents that existed on the subject, and, having done that, to lay their report on the table, on which the House would have to decide whether Mr. Edmunds should receive a pension or not. For himself, he must say he felt injured when he read in the newspapers that he had been a party to the granting of a pension to a man who was a public delinquent. He was totally ignorant of his defalcations—he had never heard of them—or of anything else to damage his character. He had been accustomed to regard him as a public servant of value—a respected officer of that House. The Committee were charged, as he understood, with neglect of duty in not having; called the attention of the House to the Report; and if any one was bound to make a specific Motion on the subject it was his noble Friend the President of the Council, Those who knew of the delinquency of Mr. Edmunds were the parties who should have called the attention of the House to the subject. The Committee on the Parliament Office were not aware of that delinquency—he had not even heard of it by public report; but the President of the Council, he took it, was aware of the whole case. Under these circumstances, he felt the House itself was placed in great difficulty. What they had to do was to vindicate before the public their ignorance of the delinquencies which had been committed; to show that they had not voted this pension to Mr. Edmunds with the knowledge that lie had been guilty of any crime whatever. He thought the Committee on Mr. Edmunds' resignation had made a great mistake in referring as they bad done to the conduct of the Committee on the Parliament Office. They had no right whatever to visit them with such a notice. They bad Strictly performed their duty; and the House ought to vindicate them by adopting, if not these, at all events some Resolutions with a similar meaning.

VISCOUNT EVERSLEY

said, that having had the honour of being a Member of the Committee on the Parliament Office, he wished to say a very few words on the question before the House. He thought his noble Friend who had so ably presided over the Edmunds' Inquiry Committee had fully justified the conduct of the Committee on the Parliament Office, for the Order of Reference to that Committee had been strictly observed. It was unusual for one Committee to censure another Committee, and there certainly was no precedent for a Committee being censured for not acting in direct contravention of the rules of the House. The Report of the Committee on the Edmunds' Inquiry contained the following paragraph:— In their opinion it was incumbent on the Lord Chancellor, 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 of Mr. Edmunds of the clerkship had taken place, and with which the Lord Chancellor was officially acquainted, and not to leave them to decide the question of a pension with no clearer light than that which could be derived from vague and uncertain rumours. He could not pretend to much experience of the Rules and practice of their Lordships' House; hut he was familiar with the practice of the other House of Parliament; and if there was one rule more than another which was strictly upheld in that House, and which ought to be observed, most strictly in this House, it was the rule that restrained a Committee from considering any subject-matter not specially referred to them. He apprehended, therefore, it would have been perfectly irregular to allow any matter other than what had been referred to them to interfere in any way with the proceedings of the Committee on the Parliament Office. Still less would it have been right for that Committee to have postponed their proceedings. It is not difficult to imagine a case where the object of an inquiry might be defeated by its postponement, and if that postponement was caused by vague and uncertain rumours the most mischievous consequences might ensue. He could fully corroborate the statement made by the Chairman of Committees with regard to the proceedings of the Parliament Office Committee. There was really no discussion on Mr. Edmunds' conduct in the Patent Office. The only question that was discussed was the claim that Mr. Edmunds had made for a pension as a reward for seventeen years' service as Reading Clerk of that House, and for previous service as Clerk of the Crown. Every precedent to be found in the Journals bearing on that point was examined by the Parliament Office Committee, and they awarded a pension such as had been awarded in other cases. They were unable to do more than that; and it was impossible for them to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Edmunds in the Patent Office, of which they were entirely ignorant. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) might have had very good reasons for not attending the Committee; but he hoped the House would see that the Committee had not been very fairly dealt with, when two of its Members who were conversant with the case not only did not attend, but did not communicate in any way to the Committee what they knew of the conduct of Mr. Edmunds. If either of those noble Lords had been in attendance they could not have allowed the Committee to decide the ease without putting them in possession of those facts of which they were cognizant with reference to Mr. Edmunds' conduct in the Patent Office. They ought not to have allowed the Committee to remain in ignorance; but, being in ignorance of these facts, the Committee really were bound to decide the case they had before them within the four corners of Mr. Edmunds' petition. For his own part, he felt very grateful to his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) for introducing this subject, because he did feel that considerable censure had been conveyed by the Report of the Edmunds' Inquiry Committee, and he would say that that Report had sanctioned a very lax procedure with regard to Committees, by encouraging them to exceed the limits strictly prescribed by the Order of Reference. The first of these Resolutions, which went to establish the rule of the House, was, he thought, most valuable. The second Resolution was of far less importance, and if his noble Friend thought fit to withdraw it, that would perhaps be the most advisable course. The first Resolution, however, was necessary, not only to show on what evidence the Committee had proceeded, but also to uphold the Rules of the House, and prevent the introduction of a very lax practice, which would lead to great public inconvenience.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

thought the difficulty in which the Committee had been involved arose entirely from the manner in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had presented the petition of Mr. Edmunds. That noble and learned Lord knew perfectly well all the circumstances of the case; he was well aware of the inquiry which had been instituted and the position in which Mr. Edmunds stood at that time; but, notwithstanding, he came down to the House and presented the petition, requiring the House to take it into consideration, without making them in the slightest degree acquainted with the circumstances in which Mr. Edmunds stood.

LORD LYVEDEN

said, that although errors no doubt had been committed in this matter, he hoped the House would not attempt to remedy them by committing the still greater error of adopting the Resolution proposed by the Chairman of Committees. It might be very unusual or very improper for one Committee to notice by way of objection the proceedings of an- other; but the Resolution moved by the Chairman of Committees went the length of laying down the doctrine that when the question of a pension was referred to a Committee of that House that Committee could consider only the amount of such pension, and not whether any pension should be granted at all. There never was such a doctrine laid down by a body entrusted with finance. Only conceive the Treasury acting on such a principle, and asserting, when an application for a pension was before it, that it could never dream of inquiring whether the applicant had not been a defaulter in any other of his public situations ! The noble Lord had said it was most important that that House should stand well with the country—and that was very true; but by agreeing to that Resolution they would stand very ill with the country. Their Lordships' House had taken high ground in claiming that they should not be interfered with by the House of Commons in granting pensions to their officers, and they were said to have managed the matter so well that it had not been interfered with by the House of Commons or by the Treasury. But could their Lordships maintain this high ground if they were to lay down a rule that in granting or withholding a pension they were not to inquire into the character of the officers asking for a pension. Therefore, he entreated their Lordships, for the sake of their own credit and consistency, not to affirm by a Resolution that a Committee to whom the granting of a pension was referred was not to think of inquiring into the character or conduct of the applicant in every part of his public employment.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, considering the part which I have had to take in an inquiry which I acknowledge to have been one of a painful character, I certainly cannot now shrink from the duty of taking a share in the present discussion. And I should feel my task to be still more painful if I did not entertain a sanguine hope that my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees having brought this question under the notice of the House, and having fully explained the grounds on which the Parliament Office Committee, who awarded a retiring pension to Mr. Edmunds, rested their decision, will not persist in calling upon your Lordships to affirm the Resolution which he has brought forward; because, while I take the view which I believe was taken by the whole of the Committee of which I had the honour to be a Member, as to the course that was pursued by the Parliament Office Committee in regard to this pension, I cannot consent to affirm that which my noble Friend desires this House to affirm—namely, that under the terms of the reference to them their duty was to look at nothing at all except the amount of the pension. My noble Friend proposes that your Lordships should resolve—and I was sorry to find that my noble Friend opposite (Viscount Eversley) gave the sanction of his very high authority to certain of the doctrines laid down in this Resolution—that the Parliament Office Committee would have exceeded their duty if, without special instruction from this House, they had proceeded to inquire into Mr. Edmunds' conduct in any matter unconnected with his duties to this House. I cannot affirm that they would have exceeded their duty under the reference to them if they had made that inquiry; and for this reason—because the petition which was referred to them announced Mr. Edmunds' resignation, and prayed the House to recommend such a retiring pension to he granted him as might be thought fit; and it is perfectly obvious that the main question was not whether the sum to be granted him should be £600, £700, £800, or any other amount, but whether Mr. Edmunds stood in a position which entitled him to receive a pension at all. His petition was referred to the Committee, and it prayed that he might be awarded a retiring pension. Surely, when the question was thus referred to them—I do not say it was their bounden duty—but I say it was within their competence, to consider all the circumstances connected with him, and whether under those circumstances he was entitled to have any pension. I think that that part of the inquiry was fairly before the Committee when the petition praying for a pension was referred to their consideration. I cannot, therefore, affirm the proposition of my noble Friend that they would have gone beyond their duty if they had made an inquiry into that which I hold was clearly within the reference. But the Select Committee of which I was a Member do not assert that it was their duty to inquire into these circumstances, or that they were bound so to do. What the Select Committee do state is this—and here, I hope, your Lordships will recollect that in entering upon our very painful investigation we had a positive judicial duty to perform—we had to perform the duty of as- certaining whether a pension granted by this House on the recommendation of its Committee had been, under all the circumstances which might have enabled them to judge, justly or unjustly conferred upon Mr. Edmunds. The Order of Reference to us was "to inquire into all the circumstances connected with his resignation" of his various offices, and also "into all the circumstances connected with the grant of a retiring pension to him by this House." Observe, "all the circumstances connected with the grant of a retiring pension." What were those circumstances? The first thing was that the pension was granted on the recommendation of a Committee specially appointed by this House to inquire whether he should have a pension or not. That Committee recommended that he should have a pension. How came they to recommend that? Why, because they were left in ignorance of the facts of the case, and compelled to come to a decision without knowing its real merits. It is thought to be a reflection upon the course pursued by the Committee that they were led to come to a conclusion without being informed of all the circumstances, and because it is said in our Report— It is to be regretted that the Committee did not consider it to be their duty, under the circumstances, to act upon their general knowledge or impression so far as to interpose some delay before the question was finally disposed of in favour of a pension, which, had the circumstances been fully known to them, would probably not have been recommended. As to the point of delay, my noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) says there was ample delay, because the pension was not granted until a week after it had been sanctioned by the Committee. But I am sure the meaning of the Select Committee was that it was to be regretted that some delay was not interposed by the Parliament Office Committee between the time of their being summoned together and the time of their agreeing to their final recommendations. We regretted, and I regret now, that with all the rumours then abroad, and with their general knowledge and impressions, the Committee did not think it at all events within their competence, if it was not their absolute duty, to inquire into the circumstances on which their general knowledge and impressions rested, and whether or not there were any circumstances which disqualified Mr. Edmunds from receiving a pension. That was one subject on which the Committee entertained regret. They regretted that the Parliament Office Com- mittee did not inquire, but they regretted infinitely more that it was not informed of the facts of the case. And I think there is still further cause for regret, because the Select Committee did not adopt the Resolutions contained in the draft Report, which I believe stated more clearly the true position of the matter. That true position was this—The petition was presented to this House praying for the retiring allowance, by the Lord Chancellor—I do not say it was presented by the Lord Chancellor in the presence of his Colleagues; but it was presented by the Lord Chancellor with the knowledge of his Colleagues—it was presented by the Lord Chancellor, he having a full knowledge of the case; it was presented by the Lord Chancellor on the part of a Government all of whom had a full knowledge of the case. ["No!"] I am surprised at that mark of dissent from the noble Lord opposite, because we have it in evidence on the part of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that before taking any step he laid the case before his Colleagues; that he consulted the Cabinet, and that on more than one occasion—he referred himself to two several occasions; that the Cabinet had informed him that it was his bounden duty to submit the whole of the circumstances to this House, in order that the House might consider the propriety of the resignation.

EARL GRANVILLE

, interposing, was understood to say that his noble Friend near him had signified dissent to the noble Earl's statement that the petition was presented by the noble and learned Lord on the part of the Government and with a full knowledge on their part of all the facts.

THE EARL OF DERBY

That is really a question which I must leave the noble Earl to settle with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Well, here are the circumstances—The petition was presented by the Lord Chancellor, a leading Member of the Government. The petition was presented by the noble and learned Lord with a full knowledge of all the circumstances; it was presented by him after having brought the question before his Colleagues, and having been informed by them that it was his bounden duty to lay all the facts of the case before this House. The noble and learned Lord under those circumstances lays the petition before this House without a single word of explanation—without a hint that there was anything requiring to be attended to, and without informing the Committee that there was anything unusual in regard to the resignation or the petition. Now, what are the facts of the case? The facts of the case are these. I will not say that the resignation was extorted from Mr. Edmunds, but I will say that Mr. Edmunds was told that the whole of the case would be brought before the House unless his resignation was in the hands of the Lord Chancellor before a particular day. The resignation was in the hands of the Lord Chancellor by that particular day. The Lord Chancellor then presented a petition on the strength of which Mr. Edmunds had awarded to him by a Committee, and subsequently by this House, a pension of £800 a year. Now, I want to know how it was that during the week which elapsed subsequent to the presentation of the Report of the Select Committee recommending the pension, neither the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack nor any Member of the Government, being fully in possession of the facts of the case, called the attention of the House to that Report, pointed out that it had been drawn up in ignorance of the facts of the case, and proposed that the House should rectify the error. It was stated in the original draft Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the resignation of Mr. Edmunds— The opinion which the Lord Chancellor appears to have entertained of his duty upon this occasion is one in which it is impossible for the Committee to concur. In forming a judgment upon it, it is necessary to bear in mind the position in which Mr. Edmunds stood at the time his petition was presented to the House. A report had been made to the Lord Chancellor by persons whom he himself had selected to inquire into alleged misconduct on the part of Mr. Edmunds, charging him in the strongest terms with having misappropriated to his own use public moneys, with having passed false accounts to the Treasury, and with having embezzled large sums which, but for the accidental discovery of his defalcations, would have been lost to the public. Upon this Report four grave charges had been framed by the Attorney General, and Mr. Edmunds had been called upon to answer them in a judicial inquiry. Instead of meeting these charges, Mr. Edmunds preferred to surrender his offices and to undertake to pay all that was due from him to the public; and he afterwards paid into the Exchequer nearly three times as much as his then discovered deficiencies. A second Report had been presented only a fortnight before his resignation, which charged Mr. Edmunds with still being a public defaulter to a very considerable amount beyond the sum which he had so paid. These circumstances were fully known to the Lord Chancellor, and were all essentially important to be known by the House in order to enable it to determine whether Mr. Edmunds was deserving of a pension or not. All that was afterwards done in the House was founded upon the petition presented to the House by the Lord Chancellor without observation. Upon its presentation the acceptance of Mr. Edmunds resignation was moved and agreed to, and the petition was afterwards referred by 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 matters 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. 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 of the Committee, and the House, acting on their silence and in ignorance, sanctioned their Report. I must say that if there be difficulty and embarrassment, and if reflections were cast on the conduct of the House, it should be recollected that that 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.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, there can be no doubt, with respect to one assertion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), that the recent Committee was one of a judicial character, and I think there can hardly be any doubt that the Committee performed their duty most impartially, with great ability, and presented to the House a very clear statement of facts explaining many doubtful circumstances. Another point, which the noble Lord who moved the Resolution has raised, and on which the noble Earl dwelt was, how this difficulty arose connected with the grant of a pension to Mr. Edmunds. The noble Earl goes further than the noble Lord, for lie seems to think that the Lord Chancellor had brought the whole question before the Cabinet.

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 Kings-down, 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 most fairly and truly that that was the question raised before the Cabinet, and the Cabinet decided that it was the duty of the Lord Chancellor, if Mr. Edmunds appeared here as your Lordships' clerk, to produce the papers.

LORD CHELMSFORD

It is not, if Mr. Edmunds appeared at the table.

EARL RUSSELL

The Question "If Mr. Edmunds retained his situation," was the question put to the Cabinet, which the Cabinet resolved in the affirmative. There was a further question of whether Mr. Edmunds was to receive a pension without any intervention or objection on the part of the Government. That Question was never considered by the Cabinet at all, although one or two Members may have conversed on the subject; but I am decidedly of opinion that if the Lord Chancellor had asked the Cabinet the question, whether, supposing Mr. Edmunds should ask for a pension, and it was proposed that the matter should be considered by a Committee, the papers should be laid before the House, the Cabinet would have stated that it was necessary to do so. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor stated most truly that he never had the sanction of the Cabinet, in reference to that point, but that when Mr. Edmunds retired he determined for himself, rightly or wrongly, that he would not interfere actively in the matter. The responsibility of taking that course of making no communication to the Committee rests with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; and it is an entire mistake, therefore, to say that the Government had resolved that no statement should be made to the Committee with respect to Mr. Edmunds. Well, the Committee have given their opinion of the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in these words— 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 of Mr. Edmunds of the clerkship had taken place, and with which the Lord Chancellor was officially 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 proposed and rejected in the Committee declare that the Lord Chancellor acted under a mistaken sense of his duty. On the other hand, the Report goes on to say— 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. There the question rests. The minority say that the Lord Chancellor acted under a mistaken sense of duty; the majority, that there is no reason to believe that he was influenced by unworthy or unbecoming motives. The opinion of both, therefore, is that the Lord Chancellor may have been mistaken in not acquainting the House or the Committee with the facts within his knowledge; but, at the same time, that it amounted only to an error in judgment. 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 of blame attaching to the Committee seems to be so small—so infinitesimally small—that I think it was hardly worth while to throw even that portion of blame upon them. But your Lordships have not been asked to agree to the Report containing that infinitesimal amount of blame, and assent to every proposition in it. It has been generally approved, as containing an important statement of; the case; but your Lordships are not bound by every one of the statements in the Report. I think, moreover, that there would be great inconvenience in adopting a Resolution which seems to assign to Committees of this kind somewhat lower and less responsible duties than they ought to discharge. It is likewise exceedingly inconvenient that when an impartially constituted Committee has made a Report Resolutions should be passed condemning it, and opposing part of that I Report. As I said before, I cannot think that any one believes that much blame attaches to the Pension Committee, though it would have been better if there had been some delay, and if they had waited some few days to see whether any facts were brought before them bearing on the conduct of Mr. Edmunds. No one, however, is disposed seriously to blame them; and with regard to the Chairman of Committees everybody recognizes his ability. But they were placed in a most unfortunate position, and it would be unfair to cast any great amount of blame upon them. There is one point further to which I wish to refer. The noble Lord who brought this subject forward told us that the Report of the Pension Committee was laid 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 Parliament the Report of such a Committee would have been laid on the table, it would have been printed, the House would have had all the necessary information before it, the assent of the House to the Report would then have been moved, and we should have given our reasons for assenting or disagreeing. We should not then have been placed in the unpleasant position of having passed a vote for a pension which we are now to be called on to rescind; and, among oilier morals to be learnt from this case, I think we should bear in mind this—that the business of this House ought to be conducted in a manner more resembling that of the other House of Parliament.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

said, as a Member of the Pension Committee, he did not rise to defend the Members of that Committee, but to lay before their Lordships a few facts, which would help them to come to a decision upon the subject. The whole question really turned upon this, Was the case referred to the Committee an ordinary case, or was it referred under such special circumstances as would require an extraordinary inquiry on their part? If it was an ordinary inquiry, the duty of the Committee would simply consist in investigating the length of Mr. Edmunds' services, and the amount of pension to which he was entitled. Under these circumstances, therefore, no blame would attach to the Committee. The President of the Council, however, said there were special circumstances in the case that required special investigation. What were they? The special circumstances consisted of rumours of the very vaguest description. Anybody who knew anything of 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 in this respect for the purpose of forcing him out of his office. Until he (the Marquess of Bath) came up to London in February he heard nothing further on the subject, and then the rumour reached him that Mr. Edmunds had resigned his appointments 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 objectionable, 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 inquiry. If any one believed the truth of those reports, he would have been justified in inquiring, but if he did not believe them he would not have been justified in delaying the decision. The noble Lord stated that the matter was the subject 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 he 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 House 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 Committee, he had heard them in their 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 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 gave certain Members of the Government. The Committee were comparatively powerless, while the Government wore a powerful body. If the Committee 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 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— That under the Acts 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 4,s. 1 to 5 (as to Acts done before the 31st of October, 1861), and 24 &c 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 70 (as to Acts done since that date), criminal proceedings may be taken against Mr. Edmunds. And they then go on to say— That having regard to the facts which they state, and to the circumstances attending and subsequent 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, 1804. 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.

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. He 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- tee were justified in the course they took upon the information before them, and that whatever blame attaches to the grant of a pension to Mr. Edmunds it does not rest on them.

And a Question being stated thereupon, the previous Question was put, Whether the said Question shall be now put? It was Resolved in the Negative.