The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-10 00:00:00

that committee, when they met on Thursday, Feb. 1(3 (Mr.

Edmunds's 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 pro-
ceeded to inquire into his conduct in any matter uncon-
nected with his duties in that house. 2. That the report
having been presented on Friday, Feb. 17, was ordered to
be laid on the table, and was not agreed to till Friday, Feb.
24, whereby sufficient delay was interposed before the
question was fully disposed of in favour of the pension, for
any lord acquainted with the circumstances, which ought
to have been known to the house, to have brought the same
under the consideration of the house." He desired to keep
himself clear from entering into Mr. Edmunds's case, and
to confine himself exclusively to the question of the con-
duct of the standing committee of their lordships' house.
Part of the observations contained in the report of the late
committee referred to himself, and part to the conduct of
the standing committee generally. He had no reason to sup-
pose that any member of the committee desired to state any-
thing but what was perfectly fair to himself ; but he must
say that the words attributed to him in the passage which
had been used were not his words, but the words of a ques-
tion put to him by the Postmaster-General. He did not ac-
cept words of that question, nor did he say that he knew
that Mr. Edmunds had been obliged to resign the patent
office. He wished the committee had given his answers to
other questions which did state fully and fairly the know-
ledge possessed by the committee on the subject. In
answer to one question he had said that there was no dis-
cussion in the committee on the reason of Mr. Edmunds's
resignation ; but that certain things were talked of. The
impression on his mind at the time was, Mr. Edmunds
had been called upon to pay up money -which he ought to
have paid before, and that he had paid a larger sum than
was demanded. As to the quastion whether the fact of his
non-payment of moneys had anything to do with his re-
signation of the office of reading clerk, the committee
might have thought that this had more or less to do with
it ; but at the same time they fully believed that Mr.
Edmunds had fully satisfied all claims made against him.
Nor did they know that there was anything in the irregu-
larities of which Mr. Edmtmds had been guilty at the
Patent Office which should have prevented his continuing
to hold the position of reading clerk at the table of the
House of Lords. Under these circumstances it could not
be expected that he should raise any objection to the grant
of a pension to a gentleman whom he had known for some
years, and who had always discharged his duties well. The
committee naturally took into consideration, in coming to
a decision on the grant of a pension, the fact that they had
received no communication from the Government,who knew
most about Mr. Edmund's conduct. In the absence of such
a communication, they were justified in concluding that, in
the opinion of the Government, there was nothing in the
conduct of that gentleman which could disqualify him from
the receipt of a pension ; and they were further justified in
recommending the grant of such a pension. The committee
having no information from those who were capable of af-
fording it, were warranted in assuming that there existed
none which would, if they possessed it, prevent their re-
commendingthe grant of a pension. It must be recollected
that the committee had nothing whatever to do with the
resignation of Mr. Edmunds. That had been previously
accepted by the house,which had authorised his retirement,
and the only question the committee had to decide upon was
s pension.
as to the amount of th
on Then it was said, in the
report of the late committee,
'
s that it was to be regretted that
the standing Committee did not interpose somo delaybefore
the question was finally disposed of by the grant of a pen-
sion to Mr. Edmunds ; but he
maintained that there was
no undue haste on their Their report took some time
in drawing up, and it lay on the table of the house for a
week before it was acted upon. I
was given of its consideration, but wastbite
ttrue that no notice
wasr
if
usual to do
so, although, perhaps, it would be better
practice. At the same time it must
one knew anything of the matter except
tbe recollected
the such
Government.w that er e
the
no
They and they alone could have communicated
to the
house such information as would have induced them to
withhold a Pension from Mr. Edmunds. The delay of a
week which took place between the laying of the report of
the standing committee on the table and the grant of the
pension,
was perfectly sufficient to have afforded the Go-
vernment an opportunity for doing so, had they been in-
clined to do so. They did not take that course,",and for the
consequences of their not having done so—for the grant of
the pension—they and not the standing committee were re-
sponsible. The noble lord concluded by repeating that at
the time he suggested the grant of the pension to Mr. Ed-
munds in the standing committee, he was not aware that
he had anything:which necessitated his retirement from
office of reading clerk, although he might have been guilty
of irregularities in another office which might render it ex-
pedient that as a matter of delicacy he should withdraw
from his position at their table. At all events he must dis-
claim, on his own part; and on that of the standing com-
mittee, the slightest intention to stifle inquiry, or to grant
a pension to a person whose conduct disentitled him to it.
Earl GRANVILLE said that the composition of the

recent committee had been impugned, but he never
worked with a body of men less inclined to appeal to

,rieir preconceived notions, or to do anything but search
:or the exact truth, and, when they had found it, to ex-

press it simply and plainly. The recent committee had not
the slightest desire to censure the conduct of the standing
committee or to enter unnecessarily into their conduct.

But it was utterly impossible that they could abstain from
inquiring into the conduct of that committee when they
looked at the terms of the reference under which they

wore acting. At the very time that the matter was re-
ferred to the late committee the noble lord (Lord Bodes-
dale) had objected to the terms of the order of reference,
because it would compel the committee to sit in judgment

upon that over which he presided. And in the course of the
discussion which took place on the appointment:of the late
committee, the Earl of Derby had expressly stated that the
standing committee of their Lordships' House was one of
the parties who ought to be on their trial. But he must say
that he could not understand what ground there was for
finding fault with the passage in the committee's report
which had been complained of. If that committee had
censured the standing committee, something might have
been said. But they had not done so ; thoy had confined

themselves to expressing regret that the standing com-
mittee had not interposed some delay in the grant of a
pension—a delay which Lord Redesdale had himself re-
gretted did not take place. With regard to the conduct of
the Government, the committee had already expressed their
regret at the error of judgment committed by the Lord
Chancellor in not laying the reports of Messrs. Hindmarch
and Greenwood before the standing committee; but he
denied that either the Lord Chancellor or himself (Earl
Granville) could have been expected personally to attend the
committee. Ho thought that the standing committee had
acted with some precipitancy in the grant to Mr. Edmunds
of a pension larger in proportion to his salary than was
usual in the case of civil servants. He believed that it would
have been fax better that they should have interposed some

delay before coming to a final decision. He objected to the
resolution now submitted to the house, because it was in-
tended as a reply to the report of the late committee, and
one not justified by the facts. He also objected to the last
paragraph of the resolution, because it declared that the
standing committee had nothing to do but to inquire
_ _ _

into the amount of the pension. On the contrary, it was
their duty to inquire both whether a pension should be

granted, and to what amount. With regard to the second
resolution, he could not assent to that. If the report of the

standing committee, after laying on the table for a week,
was assented to in silence, and without any one knowing

anything about, or expressing any opinion upon it, that
was theault of Lord Redesdale himself. Having laid the
report of the standing committee on the table, the noble
lord allowed it to remain there for a week, and then, with-

out giving any notice of his intention, he moved its adop-
tion when hardly any one was present, and no one heard
him. He thought it was desirable that the members of the
standing committee should have the opportunity of ox-

plaining the facts of the case, and of their own conduct,
which was given by this resolution. But he hoped that
the resolutions would not be pressed to a division, for if
.. .

they were the members of the late committee would be
obliged to adhere to their report, and they would thus be
placed in the unpleasant position of appearing to censure
the standing committee. At present that had not been
done, and he should regret that there should be the slightest
appearance of imputing such a censure.
The Earl of HARDWICKE thought that it was the fault
of the Government, and not of the chairman of committees,
that the report of the standing committee, recommending
the grant of a pension to Mr. Edmunds, was not brought
under the notice of the house before it was acted upon.
He did not think that the recent committee were justified
in sitting in judgment upon the conduct of the Parliament
office committee.

Lorn EVERSLEY thought that the recent committee
were justified by the order of reference under which they
acted in inquiring into the conduct of the standing com-
mittee. But ho did not know that there had hitherto been
any instance of one committee censuring another, because
the latter had not acted in a manner directly contrary to
the rules and orders of the house. Now, under the order
of reference to the Parliament office committee, all that
they had to inquire into—all that' they could inquire into
—was the amount of the pension to be given to Mr. Ed-
munds. They would have acted irregularly had they
taken any other course than that which they did—a
course which was strictly consistent with precedent. He
must say that he thought the Parliament office committee
were not fairly dealt with by those two of their members
who were conversant with the facts as to Mr. Edmunds's
conduct having absented themselves from the committee,
and having thus withheld from them the information
which they must have given had they been present ; for, if
they had been present, it was utterly impossible that they
should have allowed the commmittee to recommend the
grant of a pension to Mr. Edmunds without at least in-
forming them of his conduct at the Patent Office.
The Earl of WICKLOW severely censured the Lord
Chancellor for not having communicated to the Parliament
office committee the information of which he was in pos-
session in reference to Mr. Edmunds's conduct.
Lord LYVEDEN objected to that part of the first reso-
lution which implied that when the question of the grant
of a pension was referred to a committee, that committee
had nothing to consider but the amount of pension. It was
clearly the duty of such a committee to inquire into the
conduct and character of the person applying for a pen-
sion, and to decide whether it was or was not expedient
that any person at all should be granted.
The Earl of DERBY expressed a hope that the resolu-

tions would not be pressed to a division. If they wore, he
certainly could not assent to the doctrine that the Parlia-
ment office committee would have exceeded their duty if
they had inquired into Mr. Edmunds's conduct, and into
the propriety of his receiving any pension at all. The pe-
Mien of that gentleman having been referred to the Par-
liament office committee, it was surely competent to them
to inquire into all the circumstances connected with Mr.
Edmunds, and whether, under the circumstances, he was
entitled to a pension. The late committee did not say that
it was the positive duty of the Parliament office com-
mittee to make such inquiry ; all that was said was
that it was competent to them to do so, and he could not
understand how this could be disputed. He did not see
how the late committee could be accused of censuring the
Parliament office committee in the passage in their report
to which attention had been called. Regret was no doubt
expressed that the committee, with the general knowledge
that they possessed on the subject, did not interpose some
delay in the grant of a pension. But how was it that the
committee granted a pension at all? Because they were
kept in ignorance of circumstances that they should have
known. And if the late committee regretted that the stand-
ing committee had not inquired into the conduct of Mr.
Edmunds, they regretted still more that they had been fur-
nished with no information on the subject. The petition
praying for the grant of that pension was presented to the
house by the Lord Chancellor, with the knowledge of the
Government, who were the onlypersons who possessed any
knowledge on the subject. It was presented without sword
of explanation, or a hintby the noble and learned lord that
there was anything unusual; and for that conduct he must
hold the noble and learned lord and the Government re-
sponsible. During the week which elapsed subsequently to
the report of the committee, neither the noble and learned
lord on the woolsack nor any other member of the Govern-
ment called the attention of the house to the fact that that
report had been drawn up in ignorance of the real circum-
stances of the case. All the circumstances were known to
the noble lord, and it was essential that they should be laid
before the house, in order that it might be able to deter-
mine whether Mr. Edmunds were entitled to receivea pen-
sion or not. He (Lord Derby) thought there could be no
stronger proof than the discussion which had just taken
place of the embarrassment and difficulty in which the
house was now placed in consequence of the circumstances
being withheld from the committee. The withholding of
those circumstances was the first and primary cause of all
this embarrassment, and the house was bound to express its
opinion that the committee ought to have been put into
possession of all the circumstances before the pension was
granted. It was the bounden duty of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, after the committee had made its report, to have put
the house in possession of the facts, and to have stated that
the committee made the recommendation on imperfect in-
formation. (Hear, hear.) But during the time which in-
tervened between the presentation of the report of the com-
mittee and its sanction by the house, neither the noble lord
on the woolsack nor her Majesty's Government gave any
information on the subject to the house, which consequently,
being ignorant of the real facts, sanctioned as a matter of
course the recommendation of the committee. He thought
the terms in which they had characterised the committee
were not such as ought to create any painful feeling. They
had expressed their regret that, in ignorance of the circum-
stances, the committee ha recommended the granting of a
pension to Mr. Edmunds, and they expressed still more
strongly their condemnation of the course pursued by the
noble lord on the woolsack, in not putting the committee
in possession of the facts. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that
they would not be called upon on the present occasion to
affirm a resolution, the terms of which went so far that it
would be impossible for him to endorse it, and he thought
the course most consistent with the honour and dignity of
the house would be—if his noble friend and the noble lord
opposite would consent to it—to move the previous ques-
tion upon this resolution. (Hear, hear.)
Earl RUSSELL (who was almostinaudible in the gallery)
was understood to say that there could be no doubt that the
committee which had been appointed was of a judicial kind,
and there could hardly be any doubt in that house that the
committee had performed its duties most impartially with
very great ability, and presented every clearreport. But there
was a further question which the noble lord had brought for-
ward
ward in this resolution, as to how the difficulty arose in re-
forard ondto the grant of a pension to Mr. Edmunds. The noble
ca se
of
Mr.
thewEodomlsuanekdshtaodtthruelcyasbtainteedt, that
and he mentioned ecnatbioinneetd thede-
cided that
si wouldctin g a
t ib ehtinth hb
e.
tßa dutyulto o
o ft
fht he
questionhouse,e
that Lord
tto Chancellor,
phreotdh produce
the
papersEdmunds
re
appeared3lr
Edmunds ought to receive apension, without anyinterven-
tionr 3,1 r
or objection on the part of the Government, wasue
put to the Cabinet at all. One or more of the members of
the Cabinet may have spoken of it, but the question was
never formally put to the Cabinet, and he was decidedly
of opinion that, if it had been put, the Cabinet would have

been of opinion that before a pension was granted all the
papers relating to Mr. Edmunds ought to be laid upon the
table of the house. (Hear, hear.) Now came the question

as to the conduct of the committee which recommended the

pension, in regard to which the noble lord(Redesdale) had
proposed his resolution. He (Lord Russell) thought very
great inconvenience would result if the house adopted all
the propositions contained in that resolution, for it would,
if carried, tend to lessen the responsibility of a committee
of this kind. He agreed, therefore, with the noble lord who
had last spoken, that it would be better not to come to any
resolution at all in regard to this matter. In conclusion, ho
might be allowed to remark that business in theirlordships'
house was not transacted in so orderly and methodical a
manner as it was in the House of Commons (hear, hear,
and laughter), and to express a hope that in some matters
their lordships would assimilate their mode of conducting
business to that followed in the latter assembly.

The Marquis of BATH said the whole question really
turned upon this, was the case that was referred to the
committee of an ordinary or of a special kind ? If the
inquiry were of an ordinary kind, then the duty of the
pension committee would consist simply of inquiring
into the length of Mr. Edmunds's services, and the
amount of pension to which he was entitled. But it had
been said that in this case there were special circum-
stances, but they were mere rumours, and rumours of the
most vague and general kind. He himself had heard so
long ago as last Christmas that Mr. Edmunds was an
indolent, stupid man, who was perfectly honest,
but that he had got the accounts of the Patent
Office into disorder, and that advantage was being taken
of the circumstance to force him out of his office.
He thought, when the Lord Chancellor sent the petition
to the committee, and stated no circumstances injurious
to Mr. Edmunds, it was their duty to grant the pension.
The noble earl the Presldent of the Council had said that
he did not blame the committee for granting the pension,
but for not delaying the inquiry. But if the committee de-
layed the inquiry, they would be justifying the rumours
that had been in circulation against Mr. Edmunds. The
noble lord the Chairman of Committees had been entirely
misunderstood. At the beginning the noble lord took the
precaution of saying it was a financial question, and that it
would be necessary to have some member of the Cabinet
present. He therefore contended the committee were justified
in every step they took, and that if they were in any way
to blame, the house was equally liable to blame. They
prepared the reports according to the information they pos-
sessed, and the house had before it all the information
which had been afforded the committee, and it was the
house, and not the committee, that granted the pension.
The fact was, that it was now sought to make tho com-
mittee the scapegoat, instead of certain members of the
Government.

The Earl of HARROWBY thought there was one matter
upon which the noble lords who spoke from the Ministerial
bench were not sufficiently explicit, and that was, why no
member of the Cabinet, possessing a knowledge of the
charges against Mr. Edmunds, had not, after the Lord
Chancellor referred the petition to the committee, inter-
posed, and recommended them to delay the matter. He
really could not understand why some member of the Go-
vernment had not taken that course.

The Duke of SOMERSET said he knew nothing more
than that there had been some defalcations, and that the
law officers of the Crown stated there were no grounds for
a criminal prosecution.
Lord CHELMSFORD wished to correct a misapprehen-
sion on the part of the noble duke. The law officers of
the Crown stated that a prosecution could be instituted, but
they afterwards recited certain circumstances which ren-
dered it undesirable to resort to criminal proceedings.

Lord REDESDALE replied. Ho agreed with the noble
marquis that the committee would be casting censure upon
Mr. Edmunds if they delayed the inquiry. He felt the force
of what had been said by the noble earl, and he was now
willing to let the matter pass away. He was satisfied with
way in which the question had been settled by the house.
(Hear, hear.)
The previous question was then carried without a divi-
sion, and the resolutions were not put.
Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from Mr.Edmunds,
which he read to the house. The petitioner stated ho was
willing to take any steps in his power towards making re-
paration ; that throughout the whole of the inquiry he had
not been allowed the assistance of counsel ; and that ho
threw himself upon the mercy of the house, praying their
lordships to take his long services into their charitable
consideration. He had the honour of presenting that peti-
tion from Mr. Edmunds. Ho hoped and believed that the
justice of the house would be tempered with mercy, and
that they would bear in mind that, whatever had been the
errors of that gentleman, he had withheld no information
which it was in his power to give, but ho had, as he stated
in that petition, made admissions which, if he had legal
advice, would hardly have been counselled.
Earl GRANVILLE then moved "that they rescind the
resolution of the house of February 24, agreeing to the re-
port of the committee on the office of clerk of the patents,
and the office of gentleman usher of the black rod on Feb-
ruary 17, so far as relates to the recommendation of the said
committee that a retiring provision of £BOO per annum
shall be allowed to Leonard Edmund; Esq." Anxious as
ho was to extend all possible leniency to Mr. Edmunds he
was of opinion that the facts could not be controverted by
any professional assistance that could have been obtained.
There were three charges against Mr. Ed/Minds of having
improperly under his control sums which he ought to have
paid into her Majesty's Exchequer, and there could be no
doubt, from the inquiries that had taken place, and still
more from the admissions Mr. Edmunds himself had made,
that he had been guilty of misappropriation of the public
money. He wished to say as little as possible of the charge
against that unfortunate gentleman, but it was duo to the
honour of the house that they should now proceed to re-
scind, under the circumstances he had described, the pen-
sion of £BOO a year.
Lord REDESDALE reminded the house that Mr. Ed-
munds had himself been a witness against himself, and ho
should think it was reasonable that something should
be heard in his behalf. Their lordships should remember
that they were dealing with a man unheard. If he had
been prosecuted, he would have had the advantage of the
speeches of counsel in his favour; but if he were dealt
with in this way, the house would be taking a step which
could hardly be considered quite fair.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE expressed his commise-
ration on the unfortunate position of Mr. Edmunds, but he
was of opinion that with the information they had before
them the house had but one course to pursue, and that was
to rescind the resolution.
Lord TAUNTON said, after the investigation that had
taken place, no one could have the slightest doubt that
this unfortunate gentleman ought not to remain in the re-
ceipt of a pension from the House of Lords.
The Marquis of BATH, wishing the house to stand well
with the public, entreated their lordships to pause before
they passed this resolution. Mr. Edmunds was not the
only person who had been animadverted upon by this com-
mittee and by the publication of the evidence. They had
not had the evidence more than forty-eight hours in their
possession, and it would, he thought, be very hard to deny
to Mr. Edmunds that justice which was given to the com-
monest criminal that was brought to the bar. It would be
said by the country that this wretched man had been sent
to poverty and ruin, and that ho had been made the victim
while others were allowed to pass.
Lord REDESDALE asked the opinion of some noble and
learned lord as to the right of Mr. Edmunds to be heard
according to the prayer of his petition.
Lord CRANWORTII, having been in constant commu-
nication with Mr. Edmunds, felt it most painful to be mixed
up in this matter ; but ho was bound to say that as Mr.
Edmunds had been heard before the committee, he was not
entitled to be heard again.
The resolution was then agreed to without dissent, and
the pension granted to Mr. Edmunds rescinded.
The house adjourned at nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAR= took the chair at four o'clock.

NEW MEMBER.
Alderman J. C. LAWRENCE took, the oaths and his seal
for Lambeth.

ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the table, and
summoned the house to the House of Peers to hear the
Royal assent given by commission to several bills.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed:—
Glasgow Bridges ; Glasgow Corporation Water ; White-
haven and Furness Junction Railway ; and Whitehaven,
Cleator, and Egremont Railway.
GRIEVANCES OF INDIAN OFFICERS.

Lord PROBYN, the Controller of the Royal Household,
brought up her Majesty's answer to the address with re-
spect to the grievances under which certain Indian officers
were said to labour. Her Majesty's answer was to the
effect that she would give directions that the case of these
officers be inquired into, and if it was found that ample
redress had not been granted, she would direct that such
steps might be taken as the case required.

TESTING CABLES.

In reply to a question from Mr. LAmn,

Mr. M. GIBSON said the duty of the Board of Trade
under the Chain Cable Act was to give effect to its pro-
visions, and not to its omissions, and also that if any per-
son applied to take out a license under the act, to see
and report that the machine for which the license
was required was a proper one, and sufficient for
the purpose intended. Thero was no power to give direc-
tions to inquire whether persons so applying are manufac-
turers or not. There had been three applications for
licences, one of which was from Messrs. Lennox, Brown,
and Co., and as their machine seemed perfect for the pur-
pose a license was granted. It was somewhat strange that
the standard machine, known as Lloyd's machine, had been
found defective and not to be relied on. However, he had
no doubt that immediate alterations would be made in re-
spect to the requirements pointed out.
VOLUNTEER PROMOTIONS.
Col. SYKES asked the Under Secretary of State for
War whether a letter dated Aberdeen, Feb. 17, 1865, and
signed by five captains, four lieutenants, and two ensigns
of the Ist Aberdeenshire Volunteer Rifle Corps against the
appointment of Lieut. Wm. Jopp, a supernumerary lieute-
nant in the 10th Aberdeenshire or Inverary Rifle Corps of
Volunteers, to a majority in the let Aberdeenshire Rifle