The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-07 00:00:00

FULMER COMMON.

Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, in the absence of Mr. Doulton,
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention
had been called to a provisional order of the Enclosure
_Commissioners for the apportionment of Fulmer-common,
within twenty miles of London and four miles of the
towns of Slough and Uxbridge, and whether he would
undertake that all further action should be stayed in the
matter until the report of the Committee on Common
Spaces had been presented to the house ?
Mr. P. PEEL said that the matter had not yet been
decided on.

PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
Mr. BAIRD asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he
had any objection to lay upon the table copies of the plans
finally approved by the Admiralty for the extension of
Portsmouth Dockyard ?

Lord C. PAGET said it was his intention to lay on the
table the copies alluded to, and place the same in the
library of the house for the inspection of hon. members.
CATTLE DISEASE PREVENTION.

Mr. LESLIE asked whether or not Government intended
to reintroduce the Cattle Diseases Prevention and Cattle,
&c., Importation Bill, as amended by a select committee of
the house last session ?
Mr. BARING said it was not intended by Government
to introduce any such bill during the present session.
NATIVE ARTILLERY IN INDIA.

In answer to Mr. VANSITTART,
Sir C. WOOD said that considerable misapprehension
prevailed on this subject. It had been considered advis-
ableinaia to retain a large number of the natives in
in tho artillery, and that no danger was to be
apprehended from the disproportion between the native
and European troops. The right hon. baronet then quoted
some statistics to show that it was necessary to increase,
not to reduce the number of natives employed in India,
whether in regard to the military or police force.
THE DEFALCATIONS IN THE PATENT OFFICE.
Lord STANLEY asked the Attorney-General whether
the inquiry instituted by Government into certain alleged
irregularities in the accounts of the Patent-office had been
concluded ; whether the report of the commissioners ap-
pointed to conduct that inquiry would be laid upon the
table ; or, if that were considered inexpedient, whether ho
was prepared to state the conclusion to which they had
come ; and whether it was the intention of Government to
found on such report any proceedings either for the recovery
of the sums alleged to be deficient, or for the punishment
of those who might be responsible for the loss.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—In answer to the q nes-
tion of the noble lord, I have first to state that the inquiry
to which he refers was not strictly instituted by the Govern-
ment. It is an inquiry instituted by the Lord Chancellor
and the Commissioners of Patents, in consequence of infor-
mation which reached them as to certain irregularities and
disputes in the Patent-office, which did not in the first in-
stance involve any question of pecuniary defalcations.
Those inquiries, conducted by gentlemen employed for the
purpose, led to two reports—the first in July last, which
was a preliminary report—and a second and final report in

the month of January last. The inquiry, therefore, has
been concluded, and I am perfectly ready to lay those re-
ports on the table but for two reasons which I think will
appear satisfactory to the house. First, the-names of
certain officers employed in the Patent-office are affixed
to those reports, in a matter which requires serious con-

sideration as to the proper mode of dealing with the sub-
ject. The whole measures to be taken in consequence
nave been finally decided on. Secondly, the late Clerk of
the Patents, who is the person principally concerned in the
matter of these reports, complains—with or without rea-
son I don't know—that a considerable part of the matter
comprehended in the fival report, involving a large amount
of pecuniary charge, he has not the opportunity which he
desires to have of answering and giving explanations,
which he says he is now prepared and is desirous of doing.
It would therefore, I think, be felt by the house that it
would be premature to lay the reports on the table until
they at all events couldbe accompanied by such further ex-
planations and answers as the gentleman concerned may
think himself able to offer. With regard to the result, I have
no objection to state to the noble lord that, if the conclu-
sion arrived at by these gentlemen are correct, there re-
mains a considerable sum to be accounted for to the public
by the officer to whom I have alluded. In July he paid
into the Treasury, acknowledging it to be due to it as from
him, the large sum of £7,872 odd. The report then was not ,
finally concluded, and he made it unnecessary to prosecute
the steps which had been taken with a view to his displace-
ment by voluntarily relinquishing that office, without pre-
judice to his pecuniary responsibilities. If the grounds
stated by the commissioners are tenable, and all the facts
proved, there remains a-further balance claimable of £9,100
odd. The noble lord asks what steps we propose to take.
The first thing we propose to do is to wait for, and give a
full consideration to, the further statements and explana-
tions which that gentleman may desire to make. Subject
to that, it has been a matter of serious consideration on the
part of the Government, whether, assuming the facts as
stated to be true, they might lead to proceedings not of a
civil character. Taking all these circumstances into account,
and including amongst other things the fact that a good
deal of the information obtained was given by the gentle-
man himself in answer to questions put to him by the com-
missioners, and taking also into consideration other cir-
cumstances, it was decided that the case was not one in
which it would be expedient to institute any species of cri-
minal prosecution ; and with regard to the other measures
pointed out in the alternative of the noble lord, I am en-
titled to state that it is the intention of the Government to
take civil proceedings to recover the whole balance of sums
due by the officer to whom I have referred.
MEMORIAL OF THE OFFICERS OF THE 3/lILI-

TARP STORE DEPARTMENT.

In reply to Mr. GREaoRY,

The Marquis of HARTINGTON said that no memo-
rial sent by the officers of the Military Store Department as
a body had been received ; indeed, it would be contrary to
discipline to allow such a memorial. Individual statements
had been received, and were still under consideration. It
would be undesirable to lay such correspondence on the
table, but if the hon. member wished for further information
he would give it in committee on the army estimates.
MR. EDMUNDS'S RETIRING PENSION.

Mr. H. SEYMOUR asked whether Mr. Edmunds would
receive any retiring pension until his Patent Office accounts
were cleared up, and whether it would not be desirable to
appoint a committee of that house to inquire into the whole
matter.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no information
whatever on the matter, but he should think it would not
be proper for Mr. Edmunds to receive any pension until he
had discharged his liabilities. It was a question for the
house itself to determine whether there should be a com-
mittee appointed. But, as civil proceedings were pending,
he did not think it expedient that a committee of the house
should take the matter into consideration.

THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. BETHELL TO THE
OFFICE OF READING CLERK.

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE asked whether it was true that
the Lord Chancellor had appointed his son to the office of
Reading Clerk in the House of Lords ? (Hoar.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had seen by the news-
papers that the Lord Chancellor, in the exercise of the pa-
tronage which he believed had always belonged to his office,
on the vacancy taking place in the House of Lords, had ap-
pointed a gentleman who he believed stood in that relation
to his lordship.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE then asked the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether the Lord Chancellor, having originated
those proceedings against Mr. Edmunds, had not, when he
was turned out of office, appointed his son ; and whether
that was not a question of more gravity than that which had
been brought against Lord Chelmsford at the beginning of
the present Parliament ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
aware that he could add anything to what had fallen from
his learned friend the Attorney-General. He understood,
like that learned gentleman, that the gentleman referred to
had been appointed.
in reply to Mr. WHITESIDE,

The CHANCELLOR of the P. KCHEQUEE said he had
not any knowledge of the appointment of officers of the
other House of Parliament, and that the Treasury had no
authority with regard to the grant of their pensions.
On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Lord PALMERSTON appealed to hon. members who
had notices on the motion to defer their motions,
.so as to
allow the Secretary of the Navy to make his statement on
the introduction of the navy estimates.
ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS.

Mr. BENTINCK proposed his motion on this subject.
Mr. JACKSON seconded the motion.
Mr. GIBSON stated that he did not think it would be
advisable for Government to take the entire management

of railway affairs.
After some further discussion the motion was wit