Lords Sitting of 30 July 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pawnbrokers* (262); Royal Military Canal Act Amendment* (263); Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* (264).
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* (218); Countess of Mayo's Annuity* (258); Military Manœuvres (259); Parish Constables Abolition* (260).
Committee—Wild Birds Protection (248–268).
Committee—Report—Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections* (228–265); Basses Lights (Ceylon)* (241); Factories (Steam Whistles)* (252).
Report—Mines (Coal) Regulation)* (255–266); Metalliferous Mines Regulation* (256–267); Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c.* (243–269).
Third Reading—Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* (247); Bastardy Law Amendment* (244); Judges Salaries* (242), and passed.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 248.)
(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 248.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he wished to make a very few remarks by way of explanation. When the Bill was first introduced in the House of Commons it was confined solely to the preservation of wild fowl, such numbers of which were killed before they were fit to eat, but after some discussion, a wish was expressed that small birds should be included in the Bill. The suggestion met with approbation, and the Bill was altered to the shape in which it had come up to their Lordships' House. The House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the subject; naturalists were called in; and some distinguished men expressed themselves satisfied with the Bill in its amended form. Those who had shown much interest in the measure when it was in the House of Commons were most anxious that their Lordships should pass it without serious amendment. He should confine himself to one Amendment, to which he believed there would be no objection. Its object was to remove an objection raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the second reading. That noble and learned Lord had suggested, with much truth, that Cockney sportsmen might not be able to distinguish between birds which it would be lawful to kill and those the killing of which would be un-
  106
  lawful. The various kinds of large wild birds were so dissimilar, that in their case the mistake could not well arise; but it might in the case of small birds. To meet that he would propose an Amendment providing that there should be no punishment for the first offence against the Act in respect of such birds. The offender might be brought before a magistrate, but he would be discharged with a reprimand and a warning. He had been told that it was very desirable that the Bill should pass, although for himself he must say that he had some doubts whether the birds which it was proposed to protect as the destroyers of insects, treated the crops much better than "restorers" did pictures. Still, he trusted that they would allow the measure to remain substantially as it was, for he was told that when the Bill passed the House of Commons, the cheers were louder than on the passage of the Ballot Bill. He would conclude by moving the Amendment of which he had spoken—namely, in Clause 2, page 1, line 18, after ("Scotland") insert—
  ("For a first offence be reprimanded and discharged on payment of costs and summons, and for every subsequent offence.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment made: The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 268.)

MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL—(No. 259.
(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL—(No. 259.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, in moving, "That the Bill be now read the second time," said, that in framing it the War Department had adhered as closely as possible to the model of the Bill of last year. The departures from that model were very few, and in no way affected the principle, which was the same in both Bills, though the experience of last year enabled them to make important improvements in the arrangements for this. The Department had been in communication with various noble Lords, Members of the House of Commons, and other gentlemen of position and influence in the localities destined as the seat of warfare, and on the part of the Government he

  107
  had to tender them his cordial thanks for their very friendly criticism and advice. Hisnoble Friend (Lord Portman) was one to whom special gratitude was due.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PATENT OFFICE—CASE OF MR. LEONARD EDMUNDS.—QUESTION.
LORD REDESDALEasked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any and what objection to an audit of the public accounts between Mr. Leonard Edmunds and the Crown being directed to be taken under the provisions of the Act 29th and 30th Vict. cap. 39? The noble Lord said that, without pretending to go into the details of this case, the only point that it was necessary to press upon their Lordships was, that Mr. Edmunds had earnestly and repeatedly asked to have his accounts audited, and that he had been refused. Three times he had applied for the details of the lump sum awarded against him by the arbitrators, but they had been refused him. Under such circumstances no one could say that the controversy stood in a satisfactory position. Mr. Edmunds had applied to the Courts of Law for a mandamus to compel the Government to grant him an audit, and though on purely legal grounds, the application was unsuccessful, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackburn, and Mr. Justice Mellor all concurred in the opinion that Mr. Edmunds had a moral right to the audit he demanded. It was also equally for the interest of Mr. Edmunds and of those who opposed him that his request should be granted. If the result of the audit should be to show that he was indebted to the Crown, then the course adopted by those who had brought these charges against him would be justified; whereas, if the contrary should be established, they would at least be able to express their regret at the ungrounded accusations to which he had been exposed. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would be able to give a satisfactory answer to the Question.
EARL GRANVILLEreplied, that in consequence of the Notice which the noble Lord had given him of his Question, he had put himself in communication with the Department. He had
108
been informed that the Government did not consider that they would be justified in re-opening the case after it had been fully investigated by a competent tribunal. Without giving any opinion as to whether, under other circumstances, Mr. Edmunds would have been entitled to an audit, the fact was, that it was by his own special desire that the arbitrators had been appointed to discuss and settle the whole controversy; it had sat several days, counsel was heard on both sides, and there was no ground for departing from the verdict, which must be considered a final one.
LORD REDESDALEthought—and he used the word advisedly—that a great injustice was inflicted on Mr. Edmunds by the refusal of the Treasury to grant him the audit for which he asked. He could not understand the motive which actuated the Government in their refusal. In his opinion, the House ought to take some action in the matter, and but that the Session was so close to its end, he would move a Resolution on the subject.
VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, the answer of the Government to the Question was most unsatisfactory. He thought this was another illustration of the fact, that when a Government once injured an individual, the more he remonstrated the more bad treatment did he receive at their hands.
EARL GRANVILLEmust again remind the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committees and the noble Lord who had just spoken that at Mr. Edmunds' own request there had been an arbitration; that the arbitrators and the umpire sat 11 days; that Mr. Edmunds was represented by counsel at the arbitration; and that the arbitrators made the award which was now on their Lordships' Table. Was it unreasonable of the Government to decline to re-open a question of accounts which had been the subject of so much inquiry and discussion, and on which there had been an arbitration and award?
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he must still complain that Mr. Edmunds' accounts had never been audited. He was a man of very advanced age, and it was hard that he should go down to the grave labouring under the imputation of having misappropriated public money.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.