Sitting of 29 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Withdrawn—Mines Assessment* [221]; Church Bates Regulation * [22]; Church Bates Commutation* [10].
The House met at a quarter before Four of the clock.

ARMY—ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why the Public cannot be supplied with the Maps of the Ordnance Survey, as at this time no complete copies of all the Maps can be procured in London; and, why arrangements are not made by which complete sets and portions of the Ordnance Survey publications can be obtained by the Public and the Trade through the Stationery Office, under whose direction the Maps and publications of the Geological Ordnance Survey are satisfactorily issued?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that, on account of the bulky nature of the maps, there might be some difficulty in obtaining them, though he had never himself experienced the slightest difficulty, lie believed there was no place in England where any portion of the Ordnance Survey might not at once be obtained. It was now under consideration whether it would be convenient to supply them through the Stationery Office, but he was not aware
  1922
  that any practical inconvenience arose from the present arrangement.

  THE POST OFFICE AND CIRCULAR DELIVERY COMPANIES.—QUESTION.
  Ms. M'LARENsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury have yet decided in favour of allowing the Post Office to carry printed matter, not exceeding one ounce in weight, for one halfpenny; and, whether the Treasury will give orders not to take any further legal proceedings to impede the action of Circular Delivery Companies until after the meeting of the new Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the subject of the first part of the hon. Member's Question was now under consideration, but no decision had been come to upon it at present in consequence of the Post Office officials having had their time so greatly taken up by the Electric Telegraphs Bill. He trusted, however, that very shortly some decision upon the point would be arrived at. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, he could only say that a case had been stated for the opinion of a Court of Law with respect to the legality of the operation of the Circular Delivery Company, and therefore it would be unadvisable to express any opinion upon the subject at present.

  ARMY—COLONELS IN THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.—QUESTION.
  MR. SEBJEANT GASELEEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to allow any of the full Colonels of the Royal Artillery who have sent in their names for retirement, to have immediate benefit by the sum voted for them on Thursday July 16th?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that the matter was under consideration, and he hoped to be able in a few days to I inform the gallant officers interested in it of the decision which had been come to.

  ARMY—SENIOR STAFF OFFICERS OF PENSIONERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If any consideration has been given to the grievances of the Senior Staff Officers of Pensioners, to which his attention was called, during the last Session of Parliament— namely, that the Memorandum, dated

  1923
  War Office 15th March 1842, promised that their situations should be considered as "Full Pay" appointments; but some time after they accepted these situations on the faith of this promise a regulation was made that the holders of them should have the inadequate step of Brevet Major, with the addition only of two shillings per day to their pay, and that this limitation of advancement and the limitation of their retiring allowances inflicts a serious injury upon the Senior Staff Officers of Pensioners, many of whom left their regiments, and some of them paid back the regulated difference between half and full pay to hold these appointments; and whether he is disposed to consider the "Full Pay" appointment of the Senior Staff Officer of Pensioners as entitling them to a gradual increase of rank, pay, and retiring allowance?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that he could not think the Senior Staff Officers of Pensioners had any cause of complaint, seeing that considerable advantages in the way of promotion had been extended to them. The best answer he could give to the hon. Member was to state that almost every day he was receiving applications for appointments on the Pensioners' Staff, which were greatly coveted by military men. On the other hand, however, in consequence of the arrangements now in progress with respect to the Army of Reserve, their labours had greatly increased, and he would take into consideration how far those additional labours entitled them to extra pay.

ARMY—PREACHING IN TUE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to a Military General Order, said to have been issued by the General Commanding-in-Chief in Canada, forbidding Officers to preach to or to teach the men of their Regiments, and in consequence of which two Officers of the Rifle Brigade had sent in papers resigning their Commissions; and, whether: he had any objection to lay a Copy of such General Order on the Table of the House?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member had been unable to give him longer Notice of his Question, to the subject of which his attention was called for the first time by, the hon. Member's Notice yesterday; but
  1924
  even had he received a longer notice, it would have been impossible for him to give any definite answer with respect to a General Order said to have been issued by the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces in Canada. He found upon inquiry I that in May last a Letter was received by the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in this country from Sir Charles Windham, the Commander-in-Chief in Canada, bringing under his attention the fact that certain officers in the Rifle Brigade were in the habit of preaching in the public churches, and that complaints had been made to the Commander-in-Chief with respect to that practice, which in some instances had led to what he was going to call scandals and to considerable excitement. The Commander-in-Chief in Canada had ordered the officers in question to return to their regimental quarters at Ottawa, and they were prohibited from continuing the practice of preaching in the churches. The practice appeared, however, to have revived, and complaints were again made to the Commander-in-Chief in Canada, which were likewise sent home by Sir Charles Windham, with a request that he should be informed as to the course he should take. By the direction of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief a Letter of a most temperate and moderate character was written by the Adjutant General in answer to those complaints, which stated that he had no wish to discourage officers from preaching to their men, but strongly discouraging the practice of officers attempting to go beyond the fair limits of their vocation by preaching in churches. He was only aware of the retirement of the two officers referred to from the Notice of the hon. Member. Not long ago similar prohibitions were issued at Winchester and Portsmouth, where complaints had been made of practices of the same kind.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHES, who had given Notice to call attention to the inaccurate state of the Standard of Weight and Measure, and to the present system of enforcing the law, whereby half the penalties are paid to the informer, said, he was sorry to have to call the attention of the House to so important a question as that of the standards of weights and measures at this period of the Session, as of course

  1925
  he could not expect that the House would go into the matter thoroughly. But those who were interested in the question as he was—for the county of Surrey was unfortunately the first in the Returns of penalties for the use of inaccurate weights and measures—had hoped that the Government would have been able to bring in a measure this Session, and had therefore put off calling attention to this subject earlier. He believed that the Government were waiting for the Report of the Standards Commission; but as they would, he supposed, have the whole question under their consideration in the Recess, there were several points which he wished to call their attention to. First, as to the present custom of giving half the penalties to the informer. Nothing could be worse than such a system, as would be clear to the House by the case of his own borough. In Lambeth there were two Inspectors of weights and measures, one of whom was lately a common police-constable, and the other in an equally humble condition in life. These officers were paid a fixed salary of £250 each with half the penalties in addition; and these penalties amounted in the past year to upwards of £1,200, so that the salaries of these officers had been more than doubled by the penalties. It was well to pay such officers a proper salary, but not well to make their salary depend upon the amount of fines inflicted. Then there was the question of tribunals. The present one was eminently unsatisfactory. In Surrey, for instance, no register of convictions was kept by the magistrates, so that there could be no really satisfactory evidence as to the degree of guilt of any person who was summoned. In illustration of the way in which this branch of the law was administered, he might state that in one day at Islington upwards of 120 cases were got through in four hours and a half. On inquiry it was found that in nearly every case the same fine of 5s. had been inflicted, and in no less than twenty-six of the cases the defendants had been fined, for having weights which were actually heavier than the standards. Then as to the standards themselves. Before the Act of 1866 the Board of Trade standards had not been verified for forty years. By the present law they must be verified once in ten years; but this was much too seldom. He thought it should be done at least every six years. The secondary standards, which were in constant use, were to he verified once in
  1926
  five years. But if he was rightly informed, the wear and tear of the standards would make a difference of a drachm a year. Surely, therefore, the standards in ordinary use should be verified every year. The method of setting the standards right, too, seemed to be very objectionable. He had seen only yesterday a standard weight in, which the adjustment had been made by soldering a piece of lead roughly on to the bottom of the weight. Then, again, the Act of 1866 empowered Her Majesty in Council to settle what amount of variation might be tolerated between the standards at the Board of Trade and the secondary standards. He did not know whether any scale of variation had been fixed by Order in Council, but if it had, it ought to be extended to the variation between the secondary standards and those of tradesmen. If the Vice President of the Board of Trade could give some information as to the amount of variation which was tolerated at present, it would be interesting, he thought, to the House, and certainly to himself, representing as he did an important trading constituency in the south of London. The same amount of variation which was at present tolerated between the Board of Trade standard and the secondary standards ought clearly to be sanctioned between the secondary standard and the weights and measures used by dealers throughout the country. He would also suggest that the Government should enforce the publication of the names of persons convicted, with the particulars of their offence. In almost all cases no publication was made either of the names of the persons convicted or of the circumstances of the conviction. There was no knowing whether weights were a drachm or an ounce too light, or whether, as in some cases, they were too heavy. It would certainly benefit the honest trader if, in every instance, it were obligatory on the tribunal imposing the penalty to publish the circumstances of the case; and some system might also be devised under which a mark should be fixed on the shops of all deliberate offenders. If these points were attended to he thought the Government might easily frame a measure which would protect the public and the honest tradesman. At present the only persons who profited by the law and the way it was carried out were the dishonest tradesmen. he hoped the Government would consider the question in the Recess.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEapologized for not being prepared to answer the question fully. Having been very unwell for the last two days, he had not been able to attend the House, and had in fact seen the Notice for the first time, only a few minutes before. Part of the question, moreover, properly belonged to the Home Office. The law, with regard to penalties, had been altered in many respects; but it had been found by experience that it often slumbered, in consequence of there being no inducement to anybody to enforce it. What was everybody's business was nobody's business, and the evil had been felt in regard to overcrowding themselves, of which so many complaints had been heard. Those, however, who complained of the operation of the law had the remedy in their own hands, because if they used genuine weights and measures they would not be exposed to its operation at all. It always struck him as a very remarkable circumstance that the poor, who were chiefly fleeced by the rascality of the small tradesmen, were yet the very persons to stand up for these offenders against the law which would protect them from their misdoing. As long as such a state of feeling existed, it was hopeless to attempt to enforce the law. It would be a great thing, of course, if the magistrates kept a register, and if the names of the offenders, and the number of their convictions were published; but in the very neighbourhood where these people lived, and where their offences must be well known, the fact did not deter poor persons from dealing with them. The reason, no doubt, in many cases, was that these poor persons were almost always in debt to the shopkeeper, and were therefore under his hand, and a very hard hand it often proved to be. He was not quite able to follow what had been stated by his hon. Friend about shopkeepers being convicted whose weights were too heavy, and could only suppose that the fine in such cases was imposed because the weights were not properly marked with the Government stamp, but had been bought unstamped from some private makers. The variations in the standards to which his hon. Friend had referred was one which it was perfectly impossible to express in terms, and was merely an allowance for the effect of the
  1928
  atmosphere upon the different kinds of metal of which these weights were made. Re-verification from time to time was undoubtedly advantageous, but complaints had been already made both from counties and boroughs of the cost of this proceeding, and more frequent re-verification would, of course, necessitate an increase of staff. No doubt, in centres of great trade, like the metropolis, such adjustment would be more often required than in other places. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the practice to know exactly what was usual with regard to soldering, but in the event of a slight addition being required to a weight soldering would probably be the cheapest way of making it. He entirely concurred with his hon. Friend in the desire which had been expressed for some sign to be placed over the shops of defaulters. In France this was constantly done. When a man was convicted of using false weights he was not only fined for it, but in addition was obliged to have constructed at his own expense a kind of tablet giving the fact of the conviction, the reason for it, and how much, he was fined; and this he was required to expose in his shop for a certain number of days, weeks, or months, and a policeman called every day to see that it was fixed in some conspicuous place. This might be a proceeding too strong for this country, but if something of a similar kind existed here, in practice it would no doubt prove very beneficial. The different points mentioned by his hon. Friend should be carefully inquired into at the next meeting of the Standards Commission.
  MR. SEBJEANT GASELEEsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. T. Hughes), considering the borough which he represented, had stated the case very fairly. But if 1,200 persons had been convicted it was quite plain that there were 12,000 who deserved conviction. The law as it stood now was much too lenient towards rogues. He was a director of a large company, which suffered every day from the rascality of the public. Hitherto they had been in the habit of posting up the names of the persons by whom they were so defrauded; but it had recently been laid down that in doing so railway companies would be guilty of a libel. As the use of false weights was really a dreadful offence he thought it would be better, instead of marking the shop, from which the tradesman might

  1929
  remove, to brand the man himself. A practice existed of giving short weight to the poor, which was exceedingly difficult to detect—namely, that of putting a piece of lead, or something heavy, in the scales, and taking it out again after the article; was served. For his part he should wish such rogues to be branded with the letter f "R" in their forehead.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he hoped that' the time was not far distant when the; Continental system would be introduced; into this contry.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PATENT OFFICE INQUIRY.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to move for a Copy of the Proceedings taken in the case of Mr. Leonard Edmunds. He would, remind the House that some few years; ago the country was startled by the statement that certain irregularities of a serious nature had occurred in the Patent Office, with which Mr. Edmunds was connected. A Commission of Inquiry was appointed by Lord Westbury, who was at that time Lord Chancellor, The result was that two Reports were published, the last of them dated January, 1865. These Reports disclosed some extraordinary matters—matters which excited great attention in both Houses of Parliament, and throughout the country. The gravest charges, such as peculation, embezzlement, gross dishonesty, wilful falsification of accounts, and many other acts of a like nature were brought against Mr. Edmunds, and in connection with the Suitors' Fund, with which he was said to have meddled, he was branded as a defaulter. Not only was he driven from his office, but he was also deprived of a pension which a Commission of the House of Lords had assigned to him on account of his resignation of his appointment as reading clerk in that House, and, thus broken down, he was thrown upon society with a tarnished reputation. But the case did not stop there. The Government which was at that time in power, and no doubt rightly enough, believed that such, offences in a public servant as those which Mr. Edmunds was alleged to have committed could not be overlooked, and, though his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) stated that it was not thought advisable to take criminal proceedings against him, civil proceedings
  1930
  were instituted, and very properly so, to recover the balance in which he was alleged to have been deficient. In the first instance, proceedings were taken in the Court of Exchequer, which was supposed to be the proper tribunal, but subsequently they were shifted to the Court of Chancery, and the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer were abandoned. The information in the Court of Chancery was not filed until eighteen months after the Report had been made by the Commissioners, and the answer of Mr. Edmunds, which was not excepted to, and which, in reality, constituted the evidence in the case, was filed in the month of December, 1866. It was not, however, till three years after the last Report of the Commissioners had been made that the proceedings in the case were brought to maturity. During all this time Mr. Edmunds had been deprived of his pension, and, though he (Mr. Bentinck) did not find fault with the Law Officers of the Crown for what had been done, he could not help thinking that a great hardship had been inflicted upon Mr. Edmunds by the removal of the proceedings from the Court of Exchequer to the Court of Chancery, and by his being subjected, as he had been, to an expense of no less than £2,000. When the information was heard every effort was made by the Government to secure a hearing of their case. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General appeared by virtue of his office to lead the case, and with him was his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, the leader of the Chancery Bar, and one of the ablest advocates that ever practised in the Court of Chancery. Indeed, in this case it might be said that the Crown had everything, and Mr. Edmunds next to nothing. The case was heard by Vice Chancellor Giffard—and an abler lawyer or a Judge more endowed with good sound common sense never adorned the Bench in this country. He would trouble the House with a portion of the judgment delivered by Vice Chancellor Giffard. The Vice Chancellor said—
  "In one respect I am happy to say that the arguments and the evidence adduced on behalf of Mr. Edmunds have been successful—that is to say, they have been successful in clearing his character from all imputation. They have satisfied me that his liability, whatever it may be, is a liability from mistake—mistake under circumstances of very considerable difficulty, brought about in some respects because he could not obtain the audits which he asked for, I think, in

  1931
  1834, and subsequently in 1832 or 1853, and brought about also by what is a most unfortunate Act of Parliament, which was passed with reference to a given state of circumstances, when, in point of fact, these circumstances changed very materially afterwards."
  Then the learned Vice Chancellor concluded his judgment as follows:—
  "Having made that preface, I may add that it is not without regret that I have come to this conclusion that in other respects the arguments which have been adduced on behalf of the defendant arc not successful. I think there is jurisdiction in this Court. I think that the direction asked with reference to stamps must be given in the form which I will presently state. I must also declare that he is not entitled to make any deduction whatever for or in respect of the parchment used in the preparation or engrossment of any document issued by him as Clerk of the Patents, or from the office of Clerk of the Patents, or any other deduction whatsoever, in respect of the preparation and engrossment of any such document. It is with regret that I find myself compelled by the terms of the Act of Parliament to make that last declaration. I repeat, as I said at the outset, that I think the defendant's evidence has removed any imputation that can be justly or fairly cast upon his character, and, having regard to all the circumstamces, the very difficult position in which he was placed and the fact of the audits being refused, I certainly shall not make him pay any costs."
  A more complete refutation of the charges made against Mr. Edmunds he could not conceive. He now desired to know, therefore, what course the Government proposed to take in this matter. It was quite clear that after what had occurred the case of Mr. Edmunds could not stop in the position it now was, and if he had the honour of a seat in the next Parliament he should certainly move the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the whole of the circumstances. In any case he trusted that, having regard to the accusations which were brought against Mr. Edmunds and the decision of the Vice Chancellor, his hon. and learned Friend would exercise what he (Mr. Bentinck) believed would prove a wise discretion, and advise the Government to stop all Chancery proceedings hereafter, and not subject Mr. Edmunds to any of those vexatious proceedings from which he had already suffered so much. There was a point in connection with the decree of the Vice Chancellor which affected Mr. Edmunds very materially. The decree referred to points connected with charges of 12 s. 10 d. for engrossments. The matter he believed might now be fairly referred to arbitration. Indeed, this course was suggested by the late Attorney General, Sir John Holt, in a letter dated the 23rd
  1932
  of January, 1867, in which he proposed to refer the case to a legal arbitrator, for—
  "A full and complete investigation of the accounts, and also Mr. Edmunds' claims against the Crown arising upon the accounts;
  stating further that—
  "The Crown would not put Mr. Edmunds to the expense and delay of instituting a cross proceeding for enforcing his claims, but would consent to the arbitrator disposing of the whole question without any such proceeding."
  Mr. Edmunds was perfectly willing that that course should be taken. It might perhaps be objected that the offer of arbitration having been once made and refused the matter was now closed. But it should be remembered that the offer was refused at the time when Mr. Edmunds' character had not been cleared, and that if he had then accepted it he could not have obtained that full and complete vindication of his conduct which he had since done. He should now leave the matter in the hands of the Government, simply observing that he had endeavoured in dealing with the subject to avoid all matters of a personal nature.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of all the Proceedings and Evidence in the Information in Chancery, Attorney General v. Edmunds; together with the Papers relating to the Patent Office Inquiry."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The hon. Member who has brought forward this Motion having more than once referred to me, perhaps it may be convenient that I should say a few words on the part of the case in connection with which that reference has been made. My hon. Friend has correctly read, as far as my recollection goes, the passages of the judgment of the Vice Chancellor, which he was anxious to bring under the notice of the House; but my hon. Friend has asked for Papers which I think it would be altogether out of the ordinary course to print at the public expense. I may, however, observe that in those Papers no charge of defalcation or fraud was made against Mr. Edmunds. He was charged simply with being a debtor to the Crown; and the information asked that an account might be taken. It was a mere statement that Mr. Edmunds had held an appointment under the Crown, and that, while holding that appointment, he became a debtor to the Crown. On that information a decree was subsequently granted. I do not mean to say anything

  1933
  about the other part of the proceedings taken on the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer); but I believe there were ample reasons why this information should have been, as it was, filed in the Court of Chancery instead of the Court of Exchequer. In the Court of Chancery there is a better machinery for the investigation of complicated accounts. The information stated two items—one a deduction made by Mr. Edmunds for discount upon stamps, and the other a deduction of 12 s. 10 d. from the fees on patents, this latter deduction being made for each skin of parchment. The issue was whether Mr. Edmunds was right in making those deductions before paying the money over to the Crown. The Vice Chancellor held that he was not. I am glad my hon. Friend has read to the House that passage in the judgment of his Honour which states that Mr. Edmunds had a duty to discharge under an Act of Parliament which it was difficult to construe, and that he erred, not through fraud, but through a mistake. Now, as far as I understand my hon. Friend, he asks this question—"What advice does the Attorney General intend to give to the Government in reference to the Papers which Mr. Edmunds has laid before the Government." I admit that those Papers have been laid before me for my advice. The hon. Member, speaking irresponsibly, or simply upon his responsibility as a Member of this House, has been good enough to tell me what advice I ought to give to the Government; but for myself I can only say that the Papers are now under my consideration, and that my advice will be given in a few days. The House must see that it would be highly inconvenient if I were now to state to the House what advice I shall give—whether I shall advise the Government in favour of arbitration, or for having the account taken through the medium of the Court of Chancery. I have taken the matter into consideration without any prejudice, and I hope I shall, with fairness, advise the Government as to the best course to adopt, having regard to the public interests, and, I will add, having regard also to the interests of Mr. Edmunds.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter after, Five o'clock till Friday.

Preamble
MINUTES.]—PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading—Inland Revenue* (279); Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections* (287); Danube Works Loan * (272); Saint Mary Somerset's Church, London, * (278); Colonial Governors Pensions Act Amendment* (289), and passed.
Their Lordships met; and having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.