Lords Sitting of 9 August 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *, and passed.
Third Reading—Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation * (294); Expiring Laws Continuance * (293), and passed.

PATENT OFFICE—MR. LEONARD EDMUNDS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to direct the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer to audit under the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, the accounts between the Crown and Mr. Leonard Edmunds, late reading clerk at the Table, to whom this House granted a pension on his retirement, of which he has been deprived on charges of malversation, the justice of which charges cannot be rightly determined without such audit, which this House ought therefore in justice to him to obtain; and to which the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, to whom Mr. Edmunds lately applied to enforce such audit, while stating that the Acts of Parliament did not enable the Court to grant a mandamus against the Treasury for that purpose, declared unanimously that they considered him morally entitled,"
  said, in support of the Motion, after commenting at some length upon the well-known facts of the case, he must contend that although there had been an arbitration there had been no real or adequate investigation of Mr. Edmunds' accounts. That gentleman had been deprived of the pension which had been granted to him by that House, in consideration of his long services as clerk at the Table; and, under these circumstances, their Lordships' honour was concerned in seeing that justice was done to him, more especially as the late Lord Justice Giffard had expressly acquitted him of any fraudulant misappropriation of public money. He further thought that as Mr. Edmunds had never been able to ascertain the grounds upon which the decision had been arrived at by the arbitrators in the case, that he was entitled to a complete and satisfactory audit of the transactions which had been comprised in the arbitration. He should therefore move for the Address of which he had given Notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that since the noble Lord gave Notice of his intention to move for the Address, he had thought it his duty to inquire fully into the matter, and he thought that there never had been a case in which such ample justice had been done to a man accused of receiving public moneys for which he had not accounted as that of Mr. Edmunds. Having regard to the actions for libel instituted by Mr. Edmunds, and the statements made by him in reference to all those
  832
  who took a different view from his, it was neither easy nor pleasant for anyone to attempt to show how the matter stood. However, he would state that a question had arisen with respect to certain discounts which Mr. Edmunds had appropriated in respect to stamps, and to certain sums which he had retained in respect of parchments used in the granting of patents; and although there was no doubt with respect to these points, that Lord Justice Giffard, when Vice Chancellor, had said that on moral grounds there were very considerable reasons for saying that Mr. Edmunds had had charged against him an amount which was extremely onerous, and that he ought to have some relaxation on that ground, yet it by no means justified him in charging for the payment for the parchments. Information had been filed on the part of the Crown for the moneys in the hands of Mr. Edmunds, for about 1864 the attention of the Treasury had been called to circumstances which led them to believe that that gentleman had had in his possession moneys for which he had not accounted. Mr. Greenwood, the Solicitor to the Treasury, a man of high character and ability, and Mr. Hindmarch, having large practice—both now deceased—had inquired into the matter, and the result was a series of reports which Mr. Edmunds contested most strongly, and which brought him in as a debtor. While, however, the Treasury were considering what course they should adopt they were startled by his paying over to them £7,000, which he admitted to be due from himself to the Crown. That was startling, because, while the Treasury believed he had some money to account for, they had no idea that he owed the Government money to that amount. His offer led to the Treasury thinking they were justified in directing the Attorney General to file an information to make Mr. Edmunds account for all the money he had received and expended, upon which Mr. Edmunds retorted by commencing an action for libel against Mr. Greenwood. The result of filing this information in Chancery was to afford an opportunity for the fullest inquiry into the accounts on both sides. The new Act for the audit of such accounts came into operation in 1867, and he believed Mr. Edmunds' case was the cause of the passing of that Act. The

  833
  words of the statute itself were—"If the Treasury shall require it, there shall be an audit." The Treasury did not think the Act ought to have a retrospective effect. They regarded it as an Act which would enable them in future to bring public servants more readily to account; but as regarded Mr. Edmunds they had taken that course which gave him every opportunity of bringing forward his accounts. If, however, Mr. Edmunds had chosen to do so he might have applied for an audit under that Act in 1867 or 1868. He did not adopt that course; but in June 1868, he wrote to Mr. Disraeli, who was then First Lord of the Treasury, begging that all the ruinous litigation might be put an end to, and the whole matter of accounts referred to arbitration. That was his request at that time. He knew there was the Act of 1867, and might have said—"Give me my audit," but he did not do so. His request for an arbitration was granted, and on terms the most favourable to himself. Mr. Denman, one of the arbitrators, was appointed by the Treasury; Mr. Pollock, the other arbitrator, was appointed by Mr. Edmunds himself, and the two arbitrators appointed Mr. Manisty umpire. Mr. Edmunds also asked and obtained that the hearing of the case by the arbitrators should be public. It took 11 days. Mr. Edmunds was represented by Mr. Napier Higgins and Mr. Digby Seymour, and he had every opportunity of bringing his accounts before the arbitrators, being assisted by his accountant Mr. Chatteris; but the matter did not rest there, because in an action brought by Mr. Edmunds against The Daily Telegraph a day or two ago, Mr. Denman and Mr. Pollock were called into the witness box by the defendant, and were examined and cross-examined. Both those learned gentlemen said that on the arbitration they went into every account presented to them. Now, Mr. Edmunds had every opportunity of presenting all his accounts to them, and what was the result of the arbitration? That Mr. Edmunds, having already of his own accord paid £7,000, and the arbitrators having given him credit for all the sums which the Treasury allowed him to take credit for on moral grounds, they found that between £7,000 and £8,000 were due by him. With regard to the statement of the Judges of the Court of
  834
  Queen's Bench, that they considered Mr. Edmunds morally entitled to the audit for which he asked, it must be remembered that those learned persons had only before them an ex parte case, and that they were not in possession of all the facts. The Act of 1866 was only intended to give the Treasury a quicker remedy in such cases, but it did not in the least prevent them from adopting the stricter method of an information in Chancery. He might further state that in coming to a decision as arbitrators, Mr. Denman and Mr. Pollock were of one mind, so that they had not to refer to Mr. Manisty; but if the latter learned gentleman had been referred to he would have had no hesitation in expressing his concurrence with the arbitrators. As to what the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) had said about the award not having been a final one, the noble Lord was mistaken. If the award had been against the Treasury and had been made a rule of Court, it would have been binding on the Government. Mr. Edmunds, who did not ask for an audit in 1867 or 1868, asked for one now, when Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Hindmarch were dead; but he thought their Lordships would be of opinion, after the award made by Messrs. Denman and Pollock, and the evidence of those gentlemen that they had gone into all the accounts presented to them, that no man had ever such ample justice done to him as Mr. Edmunds, and that there was no ground for re-opening a case already so fully inquired into.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was not satisfied that the audit should be refused; but at that period of the Session it would be useless to move for an Address. He should therefore withdraw the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ROYAL MINT—COINAGE OF FARTHINGS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Government, What quantity of farthings have been issued by the Mint in the last two years, and what number of those coins are supposed to be in circulation?
  LORD BUCKHURSTthought that some information as to the quantity of small silver coin in circulation would also

  835
  be desirable. We were behind other countries in respect of small coin, and he believed much inconvenience had been experienced by persons who could not obtain a supply of farthings.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied that there had been no interruption in the coinage of farthings in 1870–71. In the former year £3,010 worth of farthings had been issued, and in the latter £2,685. It was quite true that since, no farthings had been coined, because the Mint had a large stock on hand, of which they naturally wished to dispose. As to the number of farthings now in circulation, since the introduction of the bronze coinage in 1860 down to last year, farthings to the value of £105,000 had been issued, and were presumably still in use, either in England or the colonies. He thought the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) must have been misinformed, because there was a stock of farthings in the Mint quite sufficient to meet all probable demands, and persons who required them could buy them there.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Two o'clock.