PATENT OFFICE—CASE OF MR. LEONARD EDMUNDS.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 30 July 1872)

§ LORD REDESDALE
asked 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 GRANVILLE
replied, 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 REDESDALE
thought—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 MELVILLE
said, 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 GRANVILLE
must 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 REDESDALE
said, 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.