Sitting of 9 May 1865

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—James Clarke Lawrence, esquire, for Lambeth.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Mines appointed; nominated May 29.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Local Government Supplemental (No. 4).*
First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * [129]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [130]; Pilotage Order Confirmation* [131]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4 Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) * [133]; Forfeiture for Treason and Felony* [134].
Withdrawn—Insolvent Debtors* [24].

INDIAN OFFICERS.—ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
Lord PROBY (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household) appeared at the Bar, bearing the Answer from Her Majesty to an Address of the House—
Answer to Address [2nd May] reported as follows:—
"I have received your Address, praying for the Redress of all such Grievances complained of by the Officers of the late Indian Armies, as were admitted by the Commission on the Memorials of Indian Officers' to have arisen by a departure from the Assurances given by Parliament.
"I will give directions for an Inquiry into the effect of the Measures which have already been adopted for this purpose, and if it should be shown that ample Redress has not been afforded by them, I will direct such further steps to be taken as may be required."

CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade the following question respecting the Report made by Messrs. Robert Galloway and Thomas Gray, the officers of that Department, as to the mode of working out the Chain Cables and Anchors Act of 1864, copy of which Report was laid upon the table of the House on the 8th day of March, 1865, and which contains the following paragraph (No 13):—
  "The great majority of chain makers also object strongly to any maker being allowed to test his own cables for the purposes of giving a certificate of public proof; and many makers, who intend to go to the expense of making their machines perfect, have expressed their determination not to take out a licence, but to have all their work tested at a public machine:"
  namely, Whether any, and how many, makers of chain cables and anchors had applied to the Board of Trade for a licence to test cables and anchors under the Act of 1864, which comes into operation on the 1st day of July next; also, whether, in case any such applications have been made, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to grant licences to manufacturers, not only to test but to affix the public proof stamp, as required by the Act, OR anchors and cables manufactured by themselves.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that the power of the Board of Trade, under the Chain Cables and Anchors Acts was simply to give effect to the provision, of that Act, and if any person applied for a licence for a testing machine, all that was necessary was that the Government Inspector should report that the machine was a proper one, and able to test the strength of the anchors and chains.

  47
  The Board had no power to ascertain whether the person applying for a licence was the manufacturer or not. Applications had been received from three manufacturers. One of these was from Messrs Brown, Lenox, and Co. Their machine was found to be perfectly sound in principle, and after some little matters of detail had been attended to, the licence was granted. But Messrs. Lloyds had been found so seriously defective that the Board had not yet determined whether a licence should be granted or not. In all probability the machine would be altered in accordance with certain requirements made by the Inspector.

ARMY—PROMOTION IN RIFLE CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether a Letter, dated Aberdeen, the 17th February, 1865, and signed by five Captains, four Lieutenants, and two Ensigns of the 1st Aberdeenshire Volunteer Rifle Corps, against the appointment of Lieutenant William Jopp, a supernumerary Lieutenant in the 10th Aberdeenshire or Inverary Rifle Corps of Volunteers, to a Majority in the 1st Aberdeenshire Rifle Corps, has been received at the War Office; and whether the Secretary of State for War has approved the supersession of the Captains of the Regiment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the letter referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend was received at the War Office and returned to the senior officer in command of the Corps with a notification that everything respecting the subject must be forwarded to the War Office through the lord-lieutenant of the county. It was irregular and contrary to the discipline of the Volunteer Force that any such representation, or, indeed, any collective representation at all bearing upon the discipline of a Corps, should be made. If the letter in question, therefore, had reached the Secretary of State through the proper channel, it would have been their duty at the War Office to point out to the lord-lieutenant the irregularity of the course adopted. With regard to the latter portion of the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had only to state that the appointment was recommended by the lord-lieutenant, and was accordingly approved by the Secretary of State.

CASE OF CONSTANCE KENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, be would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the proceedings against Constance E. Kent and the refusal of the Reverend A. D. Wagner, Perpetual Curate of St. Paul's, Brighton; and also of a person calling herself Superioress of St. Mary Hospital, an Institution attached to that Church, to give evidence of certain facts on the ground that the same became known to the said Reverend A. D. Wagner "under the seal of confession" and to the said Superioress under some like pretence—Whether the Government will introduce any Bill this Session for the purpose of preventing such persons as the Reverend A. D. Wagner from officiating as clergymen of the Church of England and receiving the emoluments thereof; and whether the Magistrate was justified in allowing the said Reverend A. D. Wagner and the said Superioress to refuse to give evidence on such grounds?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government bad no intention of proposing to Parliament any Bill of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. The case to which the Question referred was one which was heard before a full bench of magistrates, and he was not aware that the magistrates did allow any witness examined before them to refuse to answer any questions which they believed to be material to the ends of justice. They received sufficient evidence to justify the committal of the prisoner for trial. If at the trial any witness refused to answer questions, the Judge who presided would deal with the case according to his discretion.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would give notice that he should at an early day call attention to the subject on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

  ARMY-ARMSTRONG AND WHITWORTH GUNS.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Special Committee upon Armstrong and Whitworth Guns has made any Report in reference to the 12-pounders; and, if so, whether, he has any objection to lay it upon the table of the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the first part of the

  49
  Report of the Special Committee, which related chiefly to the 12-pounders, had been received, and the remaining portion would be shortly in their possession. As soon as the whole of the Report bad been received he would lay it upon the table of the House; but in its present incomplete state he must decline to do so.

THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at the earliest possible period, to submit to Parliament a measure for the Amendment and consolidation of the Bankruptcy Laws; and, if so, whether such measure will provide for the abolition of the power of imprisonment of debtors, to compel the payment of money under any judgment or order of any Court, including Comity Courts and other Courts for the recovery of small debts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that it undoubtedly was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at the earliest period at which it could possibly be done consistent with the due attention which so important a subject do-served, to submit a measure for the Amendment and consolidation of the Bankruptcy Laws. As he had previously stated, it was not likely that this would be done this Session. With regard to the question whether such a measure would provide for the abolition of the power of imprisonment of debtors, and compel the payment of money tinder any judgment or order of any Court, the hon. Member was aware that the Committee had recommended generally the total abolition of the power of imprisonment for debt. That subject would therefore he considered by the Government with all the authority which the recommendations of the Committee could give it, but it was not in his power to anticipate the final decision of the Government any more on that than on the other recommendations of the Committee. He had no reason to doubt that there would be a desire to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, provided no difficulties should arise to prevent those recommendations from being carried out.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for St. Ives whether lie intends under these circumstances to proceed with his Insolvent Debtors Bill?
  MR. PAULLsaid, that after the answer given by the hon. and learned Gentleman he should take immediate steps to discharge the Order.

  THE ELECTION FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.—QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the notification issued by a Committee at Oxford promoting the re-election of a prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government that the Election will take place in the second week in July next, has been made on the authority of any Member of Her Majesty's Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in answering the Question he would first of all thank the hon. Baronet for designating him as "a prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government," for he presumed that it was himself to whom the hon. Baronet alluded. He had not received the notification referred to by the hon. Baronet, and he was not quite certain that he was acquainted with its terms, lie was not aware, and he believed that his noble Friend at the head of the Government was not aware, that it meant anything more than an expression of that speculation upon the subject which generally prevailed. Ho believed that it did not rest upon the authority of any Member of the Government, and certainly not upon the authority of the "prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government" alluded to by the hon. Baronet.

INDIA—IRRIGATION WORKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any objection to lay upon the table of the House a Copy of his own Despatch of 8th August last, and of the Minute of Lieut.-Col. Strachey, late Secretary of Public Works, upon the policy of the Government undertaking the construction of the necessary Irrigation Works in India, in preference to intrusting their construction to private companies?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply, said, the Minute to which the hon. Gentleman referred had been received, but it had not yet been answered, and it was not usual to produce such documents before they had been answered. When the answer had been sent there would be no objection to the production of the Minute.

AZEEM JAH (SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS)—COMMITTEE.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [8th May],
  "That George Morris Mitchell, having fabricated signatures to several Petitions presented to this House, and having knowingly procured other fabricated signatures to such Petitions, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House."—(Mr. Charles Forster.)
  And which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Report of the Committee be re-committed to the said Committee,"—(Lord Robert Cecil,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving the Order of the Day for the resumption of the adjourned debate, said, that he wished to state to the House what he considered the wisest and safest mode of proceeding. Since the discussion of the previous evening he had endeavoured to make himself master of all the facts connected with the Report of the Committee, with a view to tender his advice to the House as to the course which they should pursue. The question was whether a resolution should be adopted with a view to commit to prison a person who was said to have been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the House, and he had no hesitation in saying that having regard to the gravity of the offence the Motion of the Chairman of the Committee was a right and proper one. The question under consideration was whether the resolution proposed by the Chairman of the Committee should be adopted, or the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) who desired to have the matter referred back to the Committee. The Motion was made under peculiar circumstances, and the case had been somewhat altered by the presentation of a petition from Mitchell complaining that the Committee had not afforded him a sufficient opportunity of defending himself—that the evidence of Mr. Netherclift was unfounded, and that he was prepared to refute it on oath and by witnesses, but that he had had no op-
  52
  portunity of doing so. The House ought not to entertain too easily petitions from inculpated parties impugning the decisions of Committees, and in this case, having read with great care the proceedings of the Committee, he felt quite certain that they intended to do complete justice to Mitchell. The Report contained two statements, first, that a gross and audacious breach of privilege had been committed by the forgery of various names, and amongst others the names of officers of the House; that the petitions passed through the hands of Mitchell, were got up by him and by persons employed by him, and that neither he nor they had given any satisfactory account of the matter. To that extent the finding of the Committee was fully warranted by the evidence which Mitchell had the most complete opportunity of meeting, but which he deliberately abstained from meeting. If the case had rested there there was no reason whatever why the House should hesitate. But the Committee went on to find secondly, that Mitchell had been guilty of the offence of fabricating many of the signatures to those petitions, and that two other persons acting in concert with him had been guilty of the like offence. This was a most important addition to the finding, and if the House thought it more satisfactory to give Mitchell an opportunity of producing further evidence on that subject, his impression was that the House would not like to proceed to extremities without doing so. One of the witnesses, Mr. Graham, proved that his name was forged, and Mitchell admitted that he had written his name. Mr. Graham said he had given Mitchell no authority to do so. Mitchell said that he had received Mr. Graham's authority to do so. Mitchell was not in the room when Mr. Graham gave his evidence, and was consequently not then in a position to contradict his evidence, but Mitchell was informed of the fact, and on being asked by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) if he should like to be confronted with Mr. Graham said that he should: but he had not of his own accord taken any steps for that purpose. Mr. Netherclift an expert pointed out several signatures which he said were in Mitchell's handwriting, which Mitchell denied. Evidence was given by Mitchell and his two accomplices to show that Mr. Netherclift had mistaken his handwriting. The Committee had a right to form their own judgment upon the evidence; but as

  53
  there was just a possibility of doubt, perhaps the House would wish to grant an opportunity for further proof. The lion. Member for the King's County had desired Mr. Netherclift to make a list of the names which he believed to have been written by Mitchell, and the lion. Member then asked Mitchell whether be would like to see that list, and call the persons whose names were mentioned in it to which an affirmative reply was given. The Committee, however, did not think themselves bound, under the circumstances as they then stood, to act upon that, believing as they did, judging from his conduct throughout, that Mitchell was really playing with them. Mitchell knew perfectly well before the inquiry commenced the nature of the charge which would be brought against him. He did not appear, and the Committee ordered him to be summoned, but he could not be found at the address he had given. He was, however, at last met and served with the notice, but he did not attend that day. When Mitchell did attend he had the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses, but be played with them in the cross-examination in a manner certainly not calculated to produce the impression that he was bona fide defending himself from the charges brought against him and when, answering the question put into his mouth by a member of the Committee, he expressed a desire to call witnesses, the Committee were led to the belief that he was trifling with them, as he had been before. Besides the evidence of Mr. Netherclift and Mr. Graham, the Committee had also the evidence of their own eyes, and if the question now were merely whether their Report was one that the House might accept on matters of fact, he did not know whether any further inquiry would he necessary. He mentioned this to vindicate the Committee, who did not believe that Mitchell had any more evidence or wanted to give any; but it had become now a question of personal liberty. He should therefore propose, and he hoped it would meet with the approval of the House and receive the acquiescence of the Committee, to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, to refer the matter back to the Committee; adding, however, to the Order of Reference the petition of Mitchell presented to the House.
  MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he believed that the Committee would be perfectly ready to adopt the suggestion, as it
  54
  was desirable in a case of this kind, involving penal consequences, to avoid even the least pretext for alleging that injustice had been done. But any one who read the minutes of evidence would see that Mitchell's attention was repeatedly called to the portions of the evidence which bore against him; that he was repeatedly told that the Committee were anxious to bear any explanation he might have to make, and that he did, in fact, cross-examine Mr. Nertherclift and Mr. Strutt very closely. When he was present he was confronted with the witnesses, and when he was absent he was supplied with minutes of the evidence.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he was glad that the suggestion of the noble Lord had been accepted, but regretted that the Attorney General should have thought it necessary, as the Committee were now to re-consider the case, to dwell so strongly on all the points which he thought told against Mitchell. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that twelve or thirteen persons came before the Committee, and stated that their signatures to the petitions were forgeries, and he led the House to believe that these forgeries were committed by Mitchell. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Some of them But the fact was that the expert, Mr. Netherclift, when pressed with regard to the signature of Charles Eales, a clerk of the House, declined to say positively that the writing was Mitchell's, and as to Walmesley, Smith, and the Rev. Mr. Jennings, he said the signatures were not in Mitchell's handwriting. Netherclift was then asked to write down a list of the names which he thought were in Mitchell's handwriting; and not one of those persons whose names he put down as forgeries had been examined before the Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman is confouning the London and Westminster petitions.
  MR. HENNESSY: Notwithstanding he was on his trial for forgery, leading questions were put to the witnesses in Mitchell's absence, and not only when he was absent, but even when he had absolutely been ordered to withdraw. The only means Netherclift had of knowing the handwriting of Mitchell was by having certain receipts placed in his hand, for he had never seen Mitchell write, and from them he pointed out the characteristics of Mitchell's handwriting. He himself with several other Members noticed the signa-

  55
  ture to a particular document, in which Mr. Netherclift had pointed out the characteristics of Mitchell's writing as somewhat different to those on the other documents signed with Mitchell's name. Mitchell was called in, and while admitting his signature to those other papers, he said that it was not on that particular document; and he added that, having injured his hand about a month before, he had authorized his clerk to sign his name for him. The clerk was produced, and said that the signature "G. M. Mitchell" to the document was in his handwriting. In that he was corroborated by another witness. After such testimony, if the case was under trial in a court of justice, Mr. Netherclift's evidence would be regarded as gone. That gentleman had contradicted himself, and had broken down on the comparison of handwriting; but be must say that he could perfectly understand an expert having so failed under the circumstances, for the inquiry was hurried, and Mr. Netherclift had not had much opportunity of comparing the writing. With regard to the statement of the Attorney General on the previous evening that Mitchell had evaded service of the summons and attendance on the Committee, it was to be observed that on the Hackney petition Mitchell gave his residence as "28, Weaver Terrace, Hackney, and on the London petition his town direction was "78, Cannon Street, West, City." But the porter of the House, to whom service of the summons had been committed, stated before the Committee that he had inquired for Mitchell in the neighbourhood of Cannon Row, Westminster, in which he could find no such number as 78, as there were but twenty houses in it. It was true Mitchell had obtained information that he was to be in some way implicated; but, so far from running away, he waited upon the Chairman of the Petitions Committee, and said he wished to offer every explanation. The hon. and learned Member for Suffolk, it was said, told the accused "the substance of the evidence," but that would not do in a court of justice. The testimony in support of so serious a charge against a man ought to be sworn testimony, and, though he had the greatest respect for the Petitions Committee, and thought they were quite right in following up the charge, he submitted that ten prosecutors were too many to be on a jury of thirteen. On the Committee of Inquiry in this case ten out
  56
  of the thirteen members were members of the Petitions Committee also. But the Petitions Committee were conducting this case against Mitchell on behalf of the House. The inquiry which would be most satisfactory to the public in a matter of this nature would be an inquiry conducted by a Committee of five members chosen by the Committee of Selection, and upon sworn testimony. He thought it an omission in their Report that the Committee had not condemned, as a breach of the privileges of the House, the practice of paying agents to procure signatures. He hoped that this discussion would not close without a Resolution declaring it to be a breach of privilege of Parliament to employ agents—no less than forty had been employed in the case—to procure signatures to petitions at a penny for each name.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he did not think the House would do any good by going into the evidence in detail, as the case was to go again before the Committee. He had read it all very carefully, and the conclusion he had drawn from it was that the Committee were warranted in the judgment they had come to, so far as Mitchell was concerned; but, looking to the course the matter had taken, he thought it right that further inquiry should be made, so as to give the accused every opportunity of defence that he would have before a court of justice. It was a serious charge against Mr. Mitchell, and the House ought to be very tender in respect of any course which they took on this occasion. But there was, in his judgment, a far more important question which the Committee would yet have to consider. The Report was not an exhaustive one as regarded another person named in the case, and, no doubt, the first application which Mr. Mitchell would make, when the Committee re-assembled, would be for liberty to cross-examine Mr. Strutt. The moment the Committee met again the conduct of Strutt must be re-considered. It was the last request of Mitchell that he should be allowed to re-cross-examine Strutt. Who was Strutt? He was fons et origo mali. He employed agents to get signatures at a penny each to petitions intended to influence the House in its decision upon a matter which had reference to private claims and public rights. The Committee in their Report blamed his conduct, hut he greatly doubted whether, upon further inquiry, they might not feel bound to visit the

  57
  conduct of Strutt with something more than mere censure. It was Strutt who held out the temptation, and if Mitchell should be able to establish that these petitions had been altered by him with a guilty knowledge of their character on the part of Strutt, there could be no doubt (however that might affect Mitchell) that Strutt would have been guilty of a still more serious infringement of the privileges of the House. Mitchell, it was perfectly clear, seemed most anxious to have it out with Strutt; he endeavoured to throw upon Strutt all the blame; and his defence (which was not, he must say, a good defence) was that he acted under the instructions of Strutt, a person already censured by Parliament. The Committee, therefore, would be bound to inquire into that allegation. The issue was not solely whether Mitchell was guilty of a breach of privilege, but who were the persons implicated, whether as principals or as accessories. There was much in the evidence to throw suspicion on the conduct of Strutt. The latter, in reply to a question put by the lion, and learned Member for East Suffolk stated that throughout all the earlier portion of the proceedings he had not the slightest reason to suppose that the signatures had been improperly obtained. He stated that he began to suspect the authenticity of the signatures in March, a day or two before the petitions were presented, but that want of time had prevented him from ascertaining whether or not they were genuine. But lie wrote a letter to Mitchell on the 31st of January, in which he used the following words:—
  "You must be very careful about the petitions, as the gentleman who has seen them makes some very candid remarks, and I am inclined, from what he says, not to require any more signatures,"
  What did this mean? Did he, when he afterwards handed those petitions to Mitchell, suspect the signatures to be false, or did he not? It appeared that Strutt, with all this suspicion on his mind, was acting as Mitchell's superior in the matter. It was the language of a man who suspected that the manner in which the signatures had been affixed to the petitions would not bear investigation. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Denman) hoped that when the matter was referred back to the Committee, they would not consider themselves precluded from investigating the whole case, and that they would inquire
  58
  into the conduct of Strutt, and that the House would not shrink from punishing him also, if they should think that good ground existed for believing that he was implicated in these fraudulent proceedings. The House must not rest content with crushing the poor fly Mitchell upon the wheel, but should inquire closely into the conduct of Strutt, who, as a solicitor in a good position, ought to be far above the tricks and arts resorted to by poor wretches who obtained signatures at a penny each; and, therefore, if guilty, would be by far the worse delinquent of the two. With respect to Mitchell, he (Mr. Denman) thought that the case against him was very strong, and he appeared, in fact, to endeavour to escape by raising a false issue, and by causing it I to be inferred that none of the charges against him should be credited because they had not all been substantiated. But he (Mr. Denman) gladly left the case again in the hands of the Committee, hoping, as he did, that they would inquire into it from beginning to end.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he was a Member of that Committee, and lie wished briefly to defend them from the charges of the lion, and learned Member for the King's County. He was glad that the conduct of the Committee, of which he had been a Member somewhat reluctantly, had been justified by such lion, and learned Gentlemen as the Attorney General and the lion. Member for Tiverton who had just sat down. The letter to Mr. Cole, one of the officers of that House, was identified as being in Mitchell's handwriting by one of Mitchell's own clerks. The Committee throughout the proceedings had been influenced solely by a desire to render impartial justice. Mitchell had endeavoured to evade the Committee by giving an address where he was not known. Unwelcome as the duty would be, he was ready to enter with them again into an investigation of the case, but he hoped that when their labours were concluded they would not again be treated with the same unfairness they had experienced from the lion, and learned Member for Sheffield who, before the evidence could have been known to the House, had compared their conduct to that of the Committee of Public Safety at the time of the French Revolution.
  MR. BONHAM CARTERsaid, that it was, in his opinion, most important that the Members of Committees which had to

  59
  conduct judicial inquiries such as that now under discussion should attend regularly, and, as far as possible, from hour to hour, and he himself was not absent for five minutes from this Committee. The Committee did not refuse to hear Mitchell, or to allow him every opportunity of defending himself. It had been stated that a great deal of the evidence was not submitted to the person who ultimately fell under the reprobation of the Committee, but it should be remembered that all the earlier proceedings of the inquiry were in the dark. The whole Committee was unanimous about one thing—namely, that forged signatures were attached to certain forms which had been furnished to Mitchell. The evidence of their own eyes was enough to satisfy them that frauds had been committed by several persons, and that Mitchell was one of those who had been concerned in them, and that evidence was confirmed by the testimony of the most distinguished expert who was commonly examined with reference to signatures. He did not think that the hon. Member for the King's County was as good a judge of the evidence as were other Members of the Committee who attended regularly from day to day, and who thus became acquainted with the manner and conduct both of all the witnesses and of the accused. Mitchell had himself been I employed as a messenger in the Petitions Office, where it was his duty to inform his superiors of any signatures which appeared to be forged, and he was therefore well aware that it was contrary to the rules of the House that any name should be signed to a petition by any one except the person to whom it belonged. The evidence before the House fully justified the finding of the Committee, and therefore there was no necessity for them to inquire into any other of the nineteen petitions.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he hoped the discussion would not be longer continued, as he did not see what good end could be obtained by such a course. He trusted that the matter would be speedily disposed of, and that the House would not again be troubled with it.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had no desire to prolong the debate, but he did hope that the House would show every possible indulgence to the Committee in order to enable them to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject.
  MR. COXsaid, that as one of the Committee who dissented from the opinion of
  60
  the majority, he was glad to see his own opinion upon the subject ratified by the House.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he believed it would be more satisfactory if a Committee of five were named by the Committee of Selection for the purpose of deciding upon this case. After the expression of opinion which some of the Members of the Committee had made in that House he was afraid that but little weight would attach to their votes upon the subject.
  MR. W. O. STANLEYsaid, he was sorry to hear the remarks which the noble Lord had made with reference to the Members of the Committee.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had no intention of casting any imputation upon the Members of the Committee. He had referred particularly to the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken at length on adverse sides of the question.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he must state to the House that he should respectfully decline again to serve on the Committee.
  Amendment, and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Ordered, That the Report on the Committee on Azeem Jah (Signatures to Petitions) be re-committed to the said Committee.—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Petition of George Morris Mitchell presented 8th May] referred to the Committee.

RAILWAYS—(GUARDS AND PASSENGERS COMMUNICATION.)—RESOLUTION.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY, in rising to move a Resolution upon the subject of the communication between guards and passengers on railways, said, he had to complain of the inconvenience which the business of private Members suffered from the introduction at such an hour of debates like the one with which the House has just been engaged. The question was whether this communication was possible or not. He wished to ascertain from the Government whether it was practicable or not to establish direct or indirect communication between passengers and the drivers of trains. Although the Motion which he had placed upon the paper might not—considering the science and mechanical skill in the country—settle the matter with which it dealt once for all, it would at all events tend to its settlement for some time

61
to come. His Motion was sufficiently innocent to disarm all opposition, and the subject was one which any Member might bring before the House with a fair chance of success. Nor was the subject entirely unknown to the House, for he recollected that some years ago it came under their notice under rather curious circumstances, of a somewhat sensational character, Two hon. Members travelling by railway to town, to discharge their Parliamentary duties, saw the roof of their carriage blown away and felt the floor crumbling beneath their feet. The question then was discussed in the House, and he remembered the galaxy of railway luminaries who competed among themselves as to who should first rise and should most protest in favour of a remedy being supplied. Those Gentlemen then declared that they were searching throughout Europe for the proper invention, and that when they had found it the public should have the benefit of it without any limitation as to expense. He put it to the House whether the railway authorities had ever fulfilled that pledge. If they had not done so during the long interval that had elapsed since the former discussion, he thought it would be agreed that it was time for Parliament to take the subject into its own hands if it desired that anything should be done to prevent a recurrence of accidents, which too often occurred. As far as his own observation went he could state that no direct communication existed at present between passengers and the persons in charge of the engine, and there was no means of communication between the passengers and the guard. He was told that in some cases a communication was attempted to be established between the guard and the driver of a train by a cord connected with a bell on the engine, but that was not a certain mode of communication, and even if it were there was little that was new in it, as a guard had always been able to attract the attention of the driver by applying the break. As to communication between the passengers and engine driver, he had seen no attempt to establish it, but upon the great Western line he had seen some solid sentry boxes—of such a strength as might have been directed by the Iron-plate Committee—which were of no use, because they were always untenanted, the company not liking to pay the wages of the look-out men who should occupy them. He had no doubt he should be met with similar arguments to those which were
62
used upon the former occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Milner Gibson) told the House that a Royal Commission was about to be appointed which would consider this subject, and therefore it would be better to wait for their Report before arriving at any decision on the matter. He had known many cases in which three years had elapsed between the appointment of a Royal Commission and the date of its reporting. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not have the presumption to ask the public to wait for that period before he attempted to apply a simple remedy. He had found that the Order of Reference had been forwarded to the Chambers of Commerce, but not to an agricultural society, though agriculture was as much interested in the question as trade. The right hon. Gentleman well knew that Ministers often did not pay the slightest attention to the Reports of Royal Commissions. He knew a striking instance of that, in which a Commission had reported in favour of a particular harbour of refuge in Yorkshire, yet the Government had completely neglected their recommendation. Certainly the word "safety" was incidentally mentioned in the Order of Reference of the Commission, but that was all. No doubt the representatives of the railway interest would have some objection to make to his Motion. It would be said that this was an interference with railway management, and a division of the responsibility which ought to rest entirely on the shoulders of railway managers. But the law had interfered to regulate the number of passengers that should be carried in stage coaches; it had also interfered with carriers' carts and the like; but that interference had never been held to derogate from the responsibility of their managers. He was convinced that if his Motion were carried it would be the commencement of a new era in railway legislation for the safety of the public. Events which had happened recently on our railways, and which might happen again at any moment, had made this question one of the most pressing urgency, and it was on that ground alone that he had taken it up. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
"That it is the opinion of this House that the safety of the public requires that, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, some immediate provision should be made for compelling railway companies to make arrangements for establishing a proper communication between guards and passengers."
MR. LEFROYseconded the Motion,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is the opinion of this House, that the safety of the Public requires that, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, some immediate provision should be made for compelling Railway Companies to make arrangements for establishing a proper communication between Guards and Passengers."—(Sir William Gallwey.)
MR. THOMPSONsaid, that the hon. Baronet had not made any suggestion as to the manner in which his object was to be carried out. He had been discreet enough not to suggest any remedy to the House, although he asserted that a remedy was easy. It certainly would be a very remarkable piece of legislation to inflict pains and penalties upon persons for not doing nobody knew what. However, he would assume that all that the hon. Baronet intended to do was to give expression to a feeling which prevailed extensively out of doors—that the railway companies were doing nothing to remedy an evil universally recognized. He thought, however, that he would be able to show that they had not been neglectful of their duty. A few months ago the Railway Clearing House appointed a Committee, composed of some of the ablest railway managers in the country. The Committee publicly invited tenders of inventions for effecting a communication between railway passengers and engine drivers, and the result was, that 196 inventions were laid before the Committee, and more than half the inventors attended in person to explain their plans. In the Report drawn up by the Committee, attention was directed to what had been done by a former Committee which had inquired into the subject in 1852 and 1853. He might observe that so good were the conclusions arrived at by that former Committee considered to be, that a Railway Commission appointed in France, in consequence of the murder of a Judge in a railway train, had reported that they were sound, and adopted them as the basis of its own recommendations to the Government. That Commission was composed of Members of the Government and the Legislature and eminent engineers, but had on it no gentleman connected with railways. It found that, in all probability, the Judge had owed his death to the footboards, which enabled a person to walk from one end of a train to the other, and thus facilitate the escape of the murderer, and consequently the Commission arrived at the conclusion that a connection by footboards was not one which afforded to passengers any great
64
degree of safety from attack. There was another very great objection to those footboards—namely, the number of deaths which they caused among railway servants. In Belgium, where perhaps they were more used than in any other country, no year passed without some deaths arising from their use. It was but natural, therefore, to conclude tha tif with our more extensive railway system, and more rapid rate of travelling those footboards were attached to our railway carriages, the proportion of deaths would be much larger than it was in Belgium. Railway companies could not expect nor ask their servants to discharge such a dangerous duty as passing along those footboards, and that consideration alone must prevent railway directors from employing what appeared at first sight to he one of the most effective means of communication between the different portions of a train. After the Report of the Committee of 1853 had been adopted, the company of which he was Chairman put the cord system of connection into use on 200 or 300 miles of railway, and had continued to use it; but he could not go further in commending it than to say that, in some very few cases, it might possibly have prevented accidents. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the use of sentry boxes on the trains, and had said that they were frequently untenanted through some miserable economy. But the fact was, in fogs and in tunnels it was impossible to see along a whole train from one of these sentry boxes; but the main reason why having a man stationed in one of those boxes would not be an effectual protection was that, though a man might keep his eyes in a particular direction on every journey, during days, or even weeks, yet, after thousands of trains had run, and millions of miles had been traversed without an accident, the eye would not submit to such a constant strain, apparently without result, and the lookout became careless. Experience showed that this had been the case; and he had no doubt that it would continue to be the case in future. The Committee which had recently considered the subject had reported that none of the means of communication submitted to it were such as could be recommended for general adoption. Under these circumstances it had been arranged that several of the railway companies should continue the experiments which were now in progress to test the best of the various inventions that had been sub-

65
mitted to the Committee, and which had been selected for this especial purpose. He could assure the House that to give passengers the power of communicating with the guard was by no means a simple matter. There would be no use in giving it if the guard was not required to attend to the summons; and in that case a nervous passenger might stop a train in a place where there were no signals, and where a stoppage would be attended with the greatest danger to the whole of the passengers, He trusted that after what he bad said with respect to the proceeedings of the railway companies the hon. Baronet would withdraw the Motion.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he did not think they could agree to such a Resolution as that proposed, when the hon. Gentleman had not suggested what would be a proper communication between guard and passengers. The hon. Gentleman had been rather severe on the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of I Trade for the unfeeling way in which he had spoken of the number of lives lost on railways. But he believed that there was a very exaggerated idea in the public mind as to the loss of life on railways. Only the other day he had seen an account of the loss of life in the streets of London during the last year, and it actually exceeded the whole number of lives lost by accidents on the whole of the railways in the kingdom. Last year when Mr. Briggs was unfortunately murdered, he had brought the question before the House. He had received many letters containing suggestions on this subject, but he found that there was only one mode of communication that was satisfactory, and that such a mode was not possible in this country because there was not sufficient space for the guards to pass. The loss of life to guards from the footboard system was very great on the Continent. He would urge upon the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that that was not the proper time for proposing such a Motion as the present, and that he ought to be prepared to point out the proper mode of communication between passengers and guards.
MR. LEFROYsaid, that the public owed his hon. Friend (Sir William Gallwey) a debt of gratitude for the part be had taken in this matter. There had, according to his own knowledge, been great complaints as to the neglect which had been shown. He was not prepared to state the number of dreadful acci-
66
dents, and cases of alarm that had occurred; but he differed from the statement that the number was small. His hon. Friend's argument with respect to the protection which was given to travellers by coaches was not intended as a recommendation that similar precautions should be adopted, in the same mode, on railways, which would be absurd; but he only quoted those precautions to show that the safety of the public was guarded in those days, and his hon. Friend used the illustration as an argument in favour of adopting some efficient precautions for preventing accidents in railway travelling. He (Mr. Lefroy) had had some connection with railways, and he had ever felt that a great deal more ought to be done in this direction than had been as yet attempted. The railway companies ought to show more deference to the feelings of the public by contriving some means of communication in cases of danger or illness. He quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite, that the plan of placing a man in a box would not succeed, because his vigilance would probably become relaxed as he got used to it. With respect to the point which had been raised, that trains might be stopped without sufficient cause, he admitted that might be the case, and that therefore the plan of simply making a communication between the passengers and guard would not be sufficient, but he must say that he was in favour of some such plan as existed abroad, and had urged his hon. Friend to bring that before the House. At present there was a footboard running along the train, which might possibly be made useful by widening it so that the guards might reach the passengers in case of alarm. The Government appeared to be rather indifferent about the matter, but he hoped the railway companies would take the question up in all seriousness, and with a determination to find a remedy for the existing evil, in which case there would be no necessity for any compulsory steps being adopted, the reverting to which he should very much deplore.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he was sure the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir William Gallwey) did not wish to insinuate that he was indifferent to the dangers to which passengers were exposed in the cases to which he had referred, where they expected every moment to be killed without having the power to arrest the attention of the company's servants. He sympa-

67
thized very much with the unfortunate position of those passengers; and so far from the Board of Trade being indifferent to the whole question, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy), it having been repeatedly brought before them—not perhaps so much by large deputations but by railway travellers—and had received their best attention. The subject also had been discussed two or three times in the House, having been brought under its attention by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck). It was, of course, the duty of the Board to have regard to public feeling, which existed in the country, on the question, and to bring the subject under the attention of the railway companies. Accordingly, on the 7th of July in the last year a letter was addressed by the Board to every railway company in the kingdom, calling attention to the complaints which had been made, and asking them to take into consideration the adoption of some means to meet the evils complained of, and to make some attempt to allay the sense of insecurity evidently felt by the travelling public. In consequence of that circular the subject was referred to the Railway Clearing House, which was, in fact, a conference of railway managers, representing pretty nearly all the railway companies of the kingdom, and the general railway interests. They selected a sub-committee, composed of the most competent managers, to consider this question. That sub-committee had made a Report, which had been subsequently confirmed, and had met with the concurrence of the railway managers generally, so that there was some reason to believe that they were about to adopt—indeed, he might almost say they had undertaken bonâ fide to carry into execution, if practicable—some plan which would enable passengers to communicate with guards. They had not pledged themselves to any particular plan, because they said in their Report, with great justice, that before any plan could be generally adopted it was absolutely necessary that the apparatus, whatever it might be, should be tested on some of the principal railways, before its value could be ascertained and decided upon. That was the position of the case at present. The extent of the remedy proposed by the railway companies was that passengers should be able to arrest the attention of the guards in express or ordinary trains travelling long distances without stopping at intermediate stations. The guard was not to be able to go to the
68
passenger, but to stop the train at the next station or point at which the train would be protected by fixed signal. He had read the Report and the reasoning which had led to this conclusion, and he thought it sound. The French Government went into this question very fully, and judged it unadvisable there should be a system of communication between passengers and guards, being of opinion that the evils it would give rise to would be greater than those which were sought to be averted. Although the managers here were prepared to give passengers a limited means of communicating with the guard, they could not enable a passenger to stop the train wherever he liked, because that would be to imperil the life of every other passenger in the train—for one that was following might dash into it and smash it to atoms; neither could they allow the guard to go to the passenger, on account of the great risk of the loss of his life in doing so when a train was travelling rapidly. He thought, however, the plan they proposed would tend very much to meet the evil complained of, and he trusted the Motion would not be pressed to a division. If his hon. Friend had sought to deal with the question by means of a Bill he would have found it more difficult than he imagined, because it was one thing to frame a Resolution affirming the desirability of doing a particular thing and another to frame the clauses of a Bill in such a manner as would carry out the object; and if the hon. Baronet tried to frame clauses to carry out a measure in accordance with his Resolution he would soon find how difficult it would be to frame them in such a manner as to carry his point without inflicting other and perhaps worse evils. He did not mean to say that there was any insuperable mechanical difficulty in securing communication between passengers, guards, and drivers, and when once the principles to be carried out were determined upon there would be very little delay in acceding to the wishes of the public. The question, however, was not in a state to require immediate penal and compulsory legislation. The railway companies, stimulated by the letter from the Board of Trade, had taken the matter in hand, and as soon as they had ascertained by experiment which plan was the best they would adopt it.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that while giving the right hon. Gentleman credit for his sympathy with unfortunate passengers imprisoned in a railway carriage

69
who were being killed, burnt, or maimed, he could not help thinking (hat the Government had been very apathetic on this subject. He would repeat what he had formerly said, that so long as the Government exhibited the same want of energy which had hitherto characterized them, so long must they be held responsible for the continuance of these accidents whenever they occurred. The Government admitted the existence of the evil, but contented itself with forwarding circulars to the railway companies, requesting their attention to the subject. The result of these energetic measures was, that the railway companies were just beginning to make a few experiments as to the best mode of affording means of communication between the passengers and the guards. The hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Thompson) complained that no suggestion had been made as to how this communication was to be effected. He should like to know whether if some definite and effectual measure had been proposed by Government, they would not have had the railway directors of all the companies crying out that the Government were interfering in railway management, and endeavouring to deal with things which they did not understand. It appeared that the Committee appointed by the railway authorities had been sitting for many months, that they had examined 196 schemes, and that they had not been able to come to a conclusion upon any one of them. He considered that the course they had pursued was trifling with the House. The fact that the Committee appointed by the Clearing House had considered 196 schemes, and had prepared a Report, was no compensation to the public for the risk which they ran of being burnt, maimed, or murdered on railways. There were two difficulties, and two only, in the way of the establishment of such a communication as was recommended by the Motion before the House. One was that railway directors invariably refused to act upon any suggestions which came from out of doors, and the other was that they would not spend a shilling they could possibly avoid, even to prevent the occurrence of accidents. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, that if the railway companies were to adopt a certain mode of proceeding they would kill a certain number of railway servants, and the effect of the argument was that, in order to avoid killing railway servants,
70
they must lull a certain number of passengers. It was idle to tell the House of the large penalties they incurred as a consequence of accidents acting as a deterrent to them in this course of proceeding; for the accidents and the compensation were both on the increase. In this particular case, it was obviously a question of money. It had been admitted that if we had the means of locomotion for the guard to allow him to circulate from one end of the train to the other, the cause of complaint would be removed. The guard could inquire into any emergency or cause of alarm without stopping the train until he had ascertained what it was. If carriages were properly constructed, arrangements might, with the sacrifice of a small amount of space, he made to enable the guard to pass with safety from one carriage to another; and it was, therefore, clear that this was a mere question of expense. Whether his hon. Friend should divide or not, he trusted that the time was nut far distant when by the voice of public indignation the House would be told in terms which it could not misunderstand that it should not any longer be permitted to sanction a system of traffic under which the blood and bones of passengers were sacrificed to save the pockets of railway companies.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, that he considered the attacks made upon the Government and the railway companies unjust. They had taken the matter into their consideration, and had formed a plan which they believed would accomplish good, and they ought at least to have the credit of doing what they could until the plan they proposed had been tried. At present it was impossible for the guard to communicate with passengers when the train was proceeding at anything like average speed, on account of the extreme rapidity of the motion, which would render loss of life to the guard imminent were he to make any such attempt. He was sure that the company of which he was a director would most readily adopt any invention which experience should prove to be a successful one. If the plan under consideration was found to answer he had no doubt it would be carried out by the railway companies with a liberal spirit.
MR. PEASEsaid, it had been his lot to fill the position of a railway director for a great number of years, and he must utterly disclaim the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) as to this question being a matter of money. He

71
could hardly suppose that the House would endorse the sentiment, that the railway hoards, constituted as they were of men of business, men prominent in works of benevolence, thought nothing about the comfort of passengers; nothing but about the remunerativeness of their undertakings. That they said, "Slaughter whomsoever you will, and spend no money to redress an evil which renders the lives of the public insecure." The railway companies studied nothing more seriously than the comfort of their passengers, and the instructions given to the gentlemen appointed to attend the conference on the subject were to adopt the best plan, without reference to money, because they felt that they were gentlemen to whose keeping was intrusted the most precious lives. It was alike ungenerous and unjust to taunt them with something worse than remissness—namely, indifference to human life, when they did all they could not only to secure safety but comfort to passengers. He thought that such extravagant charges as those brought by the hon. Member for Norfolk would only recoil on the heads of those who brought them.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had, perhaps, never heard the proverb, "Companies have no souls." They all knew that the individuals with whom they dined, and whom they met in society, were quite different persons when they became associated in corporation. They were to understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) was pledged that the railway companies, within a reasonable time after the result of the experiment, would find a means of communication between the drivers of engines and passengers, through the guard. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the means of communication, which it was hoped would be discovered by the Railways Committee, was to be applied only to express and fast trains, which were to be brought up at the next signal station after receiving the intimation to stop. But suppose the recurrence of such an accident as that which had recently occurred between Reading and London, would the right hon. Gentleman say that the train was to continue in progress to the next station? However, after what had taken place, as the House appeared to consist mainly of railway directors, and he had therefore little chance of carrying it, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had
72
given no pledge of anything. What he had stated was, that the railway companies, in reply to the Government circular, had recognized the desirableness of having a communication between passengers and guards, to be exercised under certain limits, and promised that if a practical scheme were discovered it should be generally adopted.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman name a time when the scheme will be adopted?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: If the hon. Gentleman will move for the papers he can have them.
Motion, by leave, withdraicn.

MINES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act, for the regulation and inspection of Mines, and the allegations of the petitions presented to the House upon the subject from the Miners of Great Britain. He said, that as there was no opposition to the Motion it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House with any observations. It had been said that the Committee had been moved for rather late. That, however, was not his fault or that of the petitioners, and it would be the duty of the Committee to proceed as rapidly as possible to make up for time which had been lost. He concluded by presenting petitions from 10,000 miners, in addition to those already presented.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the notice had been worded so as to be vague in its terms; he had, therefore, suggested the terms which the hon. Member had now adopted. A great many petitions had been presented from miners, complaining of what they conceived to be some defects in the administration of the Act for the Regulation and Inspection of Mines. As that Act had been in operation for some years, it was a fit subject for inquiry, though he doubted whether a Committee could now conclude its labours in time to make a Report during the present Session, If the hon. Member thought it right to take the Committee under these circumstances, there would be no objection.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he thought a Royal Commission, which would have been able to visit localities and look personally into the matter, would have afforded a more effectual means of inquiry that a Select Committee. At the same time, he thought it would be very dangerous for the House to resist the demand made

  73
  by so many persons engaged in the trade, and if no better result should arise from the inquiry than a proof that the claims of these persons were not overlooked, the time occupied in the investigation would not have been lost.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not aware that a Royal Commission had been asked for. He had understood that a Committee was what it was wished to obtain.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wanted to know whether inquiry were to be limited to coal mines, or to extend to different metalliferous mines, such as those in Cornwall?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the Act mentioned only referred to coal and iron stone mines, and the petitions were limited in the same way.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was to be regretted that there was so little time left forgoing into the question. He agreed with the bon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Fergusson) that a Royal Commission would have afforded a more satisfactory means of inquiry than a Select Committee. The case made out by the working miners was so strong, that it was impossible for the House to resist the inquiry. He hoped the Committee would sufficiently appreciate the strong feeling that existed on the part of these men, to determine that something should be done. It was very desirable that they should, if possible, make their Report this Session; but if that could not be done, they might recommend the Government to appoint a Royal Commission.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Act for the regulation and inspection of Mines, and into the complaints contained in Petitions from Miners in Great Britain with reference thereto, which have been presented to the House during the present Session."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  And on May 29, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. AYRTON, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. NEATE, Mr. GREENALL, MR. LAWSON, Mr. ARTHUR MILLS, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. FRANCTS SHARP POWELL, Mr. JACKSON, Colonel DUNNE, Mr. CLIVE, Mr. FER-RAND, Mr. DUSSEY VIVIAN, Lord ROBERT CECIL, and Mr. BRUCE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 4) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BARING, Bill to confirm a certain Provisional Order under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the Hastings District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARING and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 132.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Police Superannuation * (95); Tories, Robbers, and Rapparees * (96).
Second Reading—Marriages (Lambourne) (83); Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation (52).
Committee—Record of Title (Ireland)* (97); Sheep and Cattle * (58).
Report—Record of Title (Ireland)* (97); County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction* (94) [H.L.]
Royal Assent—Felony and Misdemeanor Evidence and Practice [28 Vict. c. 18]; East India (Governor General's Powers, &c.) [28 Vict c. 17]; Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland) Act Amendment [28 Vict. c. 21]; Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension [28 Vict. c. 19]: Inclosure [28 Vict c. 20]; Herring Fisheries (Scotland) [28 Vict. c. 22]; Land Drainage Supplemental [28 Vict. c. 23]; Local Government Supplemental [28 Vict. c. 21]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) [28 Vict. c.25].

MARRIAGES (LAMBOURNE) BILL.

  (No. 83.) SECOND READING.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, its object was to legalize certain marriages which had been performed in a certain
  2
  chapel of ease within his diocese, and was founded on precedents in similar cases. The chapel in question was a chapel of ease to the parish church of Lambourne, in Berkshire; and had been duly consecrated for the performance of Divine worship, but no authority had been given for the publication of banns or solemnization of marriages therein. Nevertheless, the Minister, under an erroneous impression that by virtue of the consecration of the chapel marriages might be solemnized therein, had performed several marriages, and had entered those marriages in register books kept either at the chapel or at the parish church. As soon as he found out his mistake he applied to him (the Bishop of Oxford) for advice, and the only remedy was to bring in a short Act to legalize the marriages. Since he had introduced the Bill he had received a communication from the Registrar General, who suggested that a clause should be added to this Bill, as was done in a similar case in 1861, extending the benefits of the provision to every other church in the same position, so as to make it more generally useful. If Her Majesty's Government had no objection he would propose such a clause in Committee.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

UNION OFFICERS (IRELAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL—(No. 52.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which, he said, was to extend to Ireland the principle adopted in England with reference to the granting of superannuation allowances to certain Poor Law officers. For this purpose the guardians of any union were empowered to grant superannuation allowances in certain cases, under certain conditions. These were that the officers who were to receive pensions must be sixty years of age, and have devoted the whole of their time for at least twenty years to the business of the union; the amount to be granted was not to exceed two-thirds of their salary, and the allowance was first to be sanctioned and approved by the Poor Law Commissioners. He regretted that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore) had given notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, as the Bill only proposed to carry out, as regarded those officers, the principle that had been for some time adopted of granting superannuation allowances to civil servants who had spent the best part of their lives in the service of the public.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Steward.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORErose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He was of opinion that if superannuation allowances were to be granted certain definite and fixed rules of superannuation should be laid down. Now the result of the provisions of the Bill, which left the matter to the discretion of the Board of Guardians or other local authorities, would be that if an officer was popular he would probably get some retiring allowance; but a man who might be an excellent officer and have served a long time might be forced to go without one if he had no friends in the district. The grant or refusal of superannuations should not be allowed to be swayed by local interest. He suggested that there should be a small annual con-
  4
  tribution in every union in Ireland, which should be collected into one fund; and that these officers should have the security of getting their superannuations from the Central Board according to fixed and definite rules.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(The Sari of Donoughmore.)
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, that the best authorities on the subject in Ireland had represented to him that the measure would prove most beneficial. The arguments of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore) were not so much against the Bill as in favour of some measure that was not yet in existence.
  THE EARL OF ENNISKILLENfully coincided in the objections to the Bill urged by his noble Friend who moved the Amendment. It appeared to him that the granting of pensions should be placed in the hands of some central authority instead of the Boards of Guardians.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMalso opposed the Bill, believing that it would have the effect of increasing still more the taxation of Ireland, the weight of which was the principal cause of the great emigration that was going on from that country. He considered the Bill as objectionable in every shape and form, and if passed it would bring additional odium on the Boards of Guardians.
  THE EARL OF DERBYconfessed he was not a very good judge of the merits of this particular case, but it appeared to him somewhat significant that the second reading of the Bill was not supported as yet by any one of the Irish Members of their Lordships' House, whilst three noble Lords from the sister country had expressed the strongest opinions against the measure, and in favour of placing the authority in question in the hands of the Central Board of Commissioners instead of the Boards of Guardians. The difficulty in which they were placed was this, that they could not maintain their views without voting for the rejection of the Bill. If the measure were rejected, the Government would have the power of introducing another Bill adopting the proposition of his noble Friend, or so modifying it as to remove the objection entertained against the present measure in respect to placing the authority in the hands of the local Boards instead of in those of the Poor Law Commissioners. Upon the whole, if the question went to a

  5
  division he felt compelled to vote with his noble Friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he should not have risen but for the observations of the noble Earl who had just sat down. He was certainly in favour of the Bill, and believed that it would be a great disappointment in Ireland if it were rejected.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 73; Not-Contents 46: Majority 27:—Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  London, Bp.

  Ripon, Bp.

  York, Archp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Abercromby, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Aveland, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Camoys, L.

  Camden, M.

  Carew, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Belmore, E.

  Chichester, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Cottenham, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  De Grey, E.

  Harris, L.

  Devon, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Ducie, E.

  Durham, E.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Effingham, E.

  Granville, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Minto, E.

  Monson, L.

  Romney, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Russell, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [ Teller.]

  Strafford, E.

  Vane, E.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Wicklow, E.

  Skene, L.(E. Fife.)

  Eversley, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Taunton, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol,

  Vivian, L.

  Bp.

  Wenlock, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Bath, M.

  Rutland, D.

  Westmeath, M.

  Abercorn, M.

  Amherst, E,

  6

  Cadogan, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Derby, E.

  Denman, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Digby, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Morton, E.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Powis, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Doneraile, V.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Castlemaine, L.[Teller.]

  Tredegar, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Wynford, L.

LEONARD EDMUNDS, ESQ.

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

  7
  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
  8
  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—

  9
  "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—
  10
  "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

  11
  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-
  12
  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

  13
  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,
  14
  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. 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. 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
  16
  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-

  17
  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
  18
  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-

  19
  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
  20
  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 HARDWICKEsaid, 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

  21
  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 EVERSLEYsaid, 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
  22
  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

  23
  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 WICKLOWthought 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 LYVEDENsaid, 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-
  24
  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

  25
  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-
  26
  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-

  27
  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
  28
  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

  29
  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
  30
  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
  32
  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

  33
  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
  34
  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 BATHsaid, 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

  35
  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
  36
  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

  37
  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 HARROWBYadvised 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 SOMERSETsaid, 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 HARROWBYhad 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 RUSSELLsaid, 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
  38
  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 REDESDALEin 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-

  39
  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.

LEONARD EDMUNDS, ESQ.
  RESIGNATION OF CERTAIN OFFICES.

    PETITION.
    LORD WYNFORDsaid, he held in his hand a petition from Mr. Leonard Edmunds which he had been asked to present to their Lordships. The petitioner stated that he had read in the newspapers of that morning the notice given by Earl Granville on the previous night of his intention to move to rescind the Resolution of the House of the 24th of February, in so far as related to the recommendation of the Committee as to his (the petitioner's) retiring pension of; £800 per annum. The petitioner stated that he had observed the said notice with deep concern and surprise, having had no notice of the intention of the noble Earl, and that he was unprepared on so short a notice to take steps for the preparation of his defence. He begged to represent to their Lordships that throughout these proceedings he had not been allowed to have the assistance of counsel; that under the advice of friends he had given every assistance in his power in conducting the investigation of the whole matter in question, and that he had had arrayed against him in every inquiry that had taken place the most distinguished legal and other professional talent, whereby the petitioner's case had been prejudiced in the most material degree. The petitioner proceeded to draw their Lordships' attention to the unfortunate position in which he had been placed in having no professional guidance and advice against the distinguished talent arrayed against him. He drew the attention of their Lordships to his service during seventeen years at their Lordships' table, and during thirteen years in the Parliamentary Office of Clerk of the Crown. The Lord Chancellor, in a postscript cited in the Report, said of him—
    "I can with truth certify that Mr. E. has properly discharged all the duties of the offices he holds in the House of Lords,"
    Finally, the petitioner recapitulated the; great hardship of his case, representing
    40
    that he had stated to the best of his knowledge and ability everything that could throw light on the subject, and that he had made admissions which he had been informed might have been legally refused; and he now threw himself on the mercy of their Lordships' House, praying their Lordships to postpone the Motion for rescinding the said Resolution for a reasonable time, in order either to permit the petitioner to he heard by his counsel at the Bar of their Lordships' House, or before a Select Committee of their Lordships, as the House might think fit. He (Lord Wynford) had consented to present the petition, and would only add that the greater part of the Report and evidence could scarcely yet have boon perused by their Lordships, and that they were therefore not yet in a position to pass that judgment upon Mr. Edmunds which the noble Earl had given notice of his intention to do. He hoped the House would temper justice with mercy, and whatever the errors of this gentleman, at least he had withheld no information from the Committee that it was in his power to give; and, as he stated in his petition, he had made admissions which, if he had enjoyed the advantage of legal advisers, they would scarcely have counselled him to do.
    Petition of Leonard Edmunds—
    "For postponement to a reasonable Time of the Motion to rescind the Resolution of the House of the 24th February agreeing to the Report of the Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod made on the 17th February, so far as relates to the Recommendation of the said Committee that a retiring Provision of £800 per Annum should be allowed to the Petitioner, and to be heard by Counsel and Agents at the Bar of this House, or before the Parliament Office Committee, or any other Committee in support of the said Resolution."
    Read, and Ordered to lie on the Table.

  LEONARD EDMUNDS, ESQ.

    RESIGNATION OF CERTAIN OFFICES, AND ON THE PENSION GRANTED TO HIM BY THIS HOUSE.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, anxious as I am to pay every attention to the request of a gentleman in the unfortunate position in which Mr. Leonard Edmunds stands, I cannot ask your Lordships to sanction any further delay in this matter in order that he may be heard by counsel. A request that he might have the benefit of legal assistance was, in fact,

    41
    made to the Committee; hut after the application had been entertained, and a disposition shown to accede to it, the request was withdrawn by Mr. Edmunds. If I were now to accede to this Motion I should be countenancing the belief that the facts might readily be changed if professional assistance were obtained. I feel that in this matter I have a most painful duty to perform; and the noble Lord, in the request which has just been made, no doubt is somewhat under the influence of those feelings which, more or less, have been shared by all persons since this unfortunate matter was first mentioned. In the Committee it was proposed by the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Somerset) that a recommendation to the House to re-consider their grant of a pension should be included in the Report. The majority voted against that proposal, on the ground mainly that it did not properly form part of their business to make such a recommendation. [The Earl of DERBY: Hear, hear!] But I did not understand them in any way to offer an opinion as to the expediency of continuing' or revoking the pension itself. For my own part, I am afraid that, however much we re-consider the subject, there can be but one possible issue. Upon many of the charges brought against Mr. Edmunds the Committee declined to offer any opinion whatever; hut two upon which they did pronounce distinct findings were the second and third charges. The second charge preferred against Mr. Edmunds was—
    "For having improperly retained in his hands or under his control, between the 9th of August, 1852, and the month of July, 1864, without duly paying the same over into tier Majesty's Exchequer, divers large sums of money received by him for fees on Patents, which ought to have been from time to time, during that period, paid by him into Her Majesty's Exchequer."
    The Committee say, "there can be no doubt that the second charge is fully proved against Mr. Edmunds." The third charge was—
    "For having from time to time improperly caused to be transferred to the credit of his private account with Messrs. Coutts and Co., bankers, from a separate account kept by him with the same bankers for the public purposes of Her Majesty's Patent Office, and having applied to his own use, divers sums of public money for which he was accountable to Her Majesty."
    The Committee, recapitulating the facts, say they "cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that the third charge is com-
    42
    pletely established against Mr. Edmunds." My answer, therefore, to the appeal of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wynford) rests entirely upon these two points. Both the Commissioners who originally investigated the circumstances and the Committee of Inquiry of the House of Lords arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Edmunds had been guilty of embezzlement—a finding which was corroborated by his own admissions. I wish to say as little as possible to aggravate the charges against that unfortunate gentleman. But, however, much I regret the step which it is my duty to take—particularly in the case of a gentleman with whom for many years we have all held friendly communication at the table of this House and in Committee-rooms upstairs—yet, for the sake of public morality, for the sake of other and meritorious public servants, and for the sake of the honour of this House, it is necessary that we should at once rescind the Resolution by which, under the circumstances already described, a pension of £800 a year was granted to Leonard Edmunds.
    Moved to rescind the Resolution of the House of the 24th February agreeing to the Report of the Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod made on the 17th February, so far as relates to the Recommendation of the said Committee that a retiring Provision of £800 per Annum should be allowed to Leonard Edmunds, Esquire.—(The Lord President.)
    LORD REDESDALE: I can only have one feeling upon this subject, in common with the rest of your Lordships. But I confess when an old servant of the House in the position of Mr. Edmunds prays the House of Lords that he may be heard before his case is finally decided upon, it seems rather a strong measure to reject absolutely the prayer of that petition. I do not wish to say anything as to the Committee, but simply as to the course which their inquiry assumed. It seems that Mr. Edmunds was examined and put in the position of giving evidence against himself, becoming thereby his own accuser. Where so much was heard against him it does seem remarkable that something—whatever is capable of being urged—should not now be put forward on his behalf. He has practically been condemned unheard on the charges brought against him; while in a criminal court, even if the verdict went against him, he would still have had the benefit in public estimation of all that

    43
    counsel could urge in his favour. Under the circumstances, therefore, when a man prays to be heard on a matter deeply affecting himself, the House of Lords will be taking a step that is unusual if they refuse to comply with his petition. It was true that Mr. Edmunds' request to be heard by counsel was acceded to, but it was coupled with a condition which would have rendered it nugatory, for the extent of the professional assistance which the Committee were willing to allow him precluded his counsel from putting any question directly to the witnesses, or from making any address to the tribunal—advantages which the meanest criminal would enjoy before a petty jury. I am always anxious that the proceedings of this House should be conducted according to what appears to be the strictest justice, and therefore I trust the House will not reject a petition praying to be heard. At best it can but involve a delay of a very few days; the matter might, in fact, be entertained to-morrow or next day if the House saw fit to do so.
    THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I rise, with great unwillingness, to oppose the suggestion of the noble Lord. But I doubt whether it would really be an act of mercy towards Mr. Edmunds to grant his petition, for there can be little doubt on the mind of any noble Lord familiar with the evidence as to the result of any further investigation, whether Mr. Edmunds enjoys the benefit of professional advice or not. A great deal of time and attention has been already devoted to the consideration of the case in all its bearings. Every question that could be suggested in the interest of Mr. Edmunds was put. If there had been any points capable of being raised in his favour, I venture to say that there would have been every desire on the part of the Committee to elicit them. But this House is in possession of the Report of the Committee; and I say that if this House is to maintain the character which it has hitherto held, and ought always to enjoy in public estimation, there is but one course for it to pursue, and that is to rescind the Resolution granting the pension, whatever may be the legal mode of doing so. I should state that in Committee I voted against the recommendation to that effect proposed by the noble Duke, and I did so upon these grounds:—First, I doubted whether the Order of Reference was sufficiently wide for us to entertain the point; and, next, I believed that the opinion we
    44
    had already expressed in the Report, to the effect that the original Committee, if they had had the facts before them, would probably not have granted the pension, was in itself sufficiently strong. I had a third reason, which was, that I really did not know what was the proper legal course to pursue in a case where it was sought to revoke a pension regularly granted by the House upon the recommendation of the proper Committee. I hope the noble Earl (Earl Granville) has taken legal advice upon this matter, and is certain that the course he now asks us to adopt is the right one.
    LORD TAUNTONsaid, he also had voted in Committee against a recommendation to withdraw the pension, feeling confident that the House would do justice to its own character in such a matter. There could not be the least doubt that under the circumstances it was impossible for this unfortunate gentleman to remain in possession of a pension the receipt of which was in itself a certificate of honourable service.
    EARL GRANVILLEstated that he had conferred with and taken the opinion of two noble and learned Lords in that House, and their opinion was that it was in the power of the House to rescind their Resolution, and that sufficient cause had been shown for so doing.
    THE MARQUESS OF BATHwould venture to ask the House, for the sake of its own honour, and that it might stand well before the public, to pause before it gave its assent to the Resolution. Mr. Edmunds, it should be recollected, was not the only person whose acts and conduct were animadverted upon in the Report of the Committee. They had only had the Report and evidence before them forty-eight hours—except the Members of the Committee—and that was a short time to determine on the evidence what course ought to be pursued; and although he entertained no doubt that the grant of the pension to him ought to be rescinded, yet it would be unfair to refuse to him that opportunity of being heard, and for which he prayed, which was not denied to the commonest criminal. The character of the House would, he thought, suffer in the estimation of the country if an impression were created that a friendless and ruined man was thus dealt with, while others in a more exalted position were allowed to pass with comparative impunity.
    LORD REDESDALEwished some noble

    45
    and learned Lord would inform the House whether, when a petition was presented on behalf of an individual praying to be heard, as in the present instance, he was not entitled to have his prayer granted.
    LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he was the only learned Lord in the House who had not taken any part in these proceedings. Of course, as an abstract proposition, if any accused person desired to be heard in his defence, it was not a question for a lawyer but a question of common fairness whether he ought not to be heard. The question before the House, however, was not whether Mr. Edmunds was, as an abstract proposition, entitled to be heard, but whether, having appeared before the Committee, he was entitled to be heard again. Having been, when he held the office of Lord Chancellor, in frequent communication with that gentleman, he could truly say that it was to him most painful to mix himself up in any way with the matter; but then he felt bound, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, to give it as his opinion that justice did not require that Mr. Edmunds should be heard any further.
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.