Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Mr. Thomas Hughes.) MR. STEPHEN CAVE apologized 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, more. over, 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 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. SERJEANT GASELEE said, 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 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 "R" in their forehead. COLONEL SYKES said, 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. BENTINCK said, 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 mattersmatters 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 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 Mr. Edmunds have been successful-that is to arguments and the evidence adduced on behalf of 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 circumabout in some respects because he could not obstances of very considerable difficulty, brought tain the audits which he asked for, I think, in for 1834, and subsequently in 1852 or 1853, and of January, 1867, in which he proposed brought about also by what is a most unfortunate to refer the case to a legal arbitrator, 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: "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 "Having made that preface, I may add that the expense and delay of instituting a cross proit is not without regret that I have come to this ceeding for enforcing his claims, but would conconclusion that in other respects the arguments sent to the arbitrator disposing of the whole queswhich have been adduced on behalf of the de- tion without any such proceeding." fendant are not successful. I think there is ju- Mr. Edmunds was perfectly willing that risdiction in this Court. I think that the direc- that course should be taken. It might tion asked with reference to stamps must be given in the form which I will presently state. I must perhaps be objected that the offer of arbialso declare that he is not entitled to make any tration having been once made and refused deduction whatever for or in respect of the parch- the matter was now closed. But it should ment used in the preparation or engrossment of be remembered that the offer was refused any document issued by him as Clerk of the Patents, or from the office of Clerk of the Patents, at the time when Mr. Edmunds' character or any other deduction whatsoever, in respect of had not been cleared, and that if he had the preparation and engrossment of any such then accepted it he could not have obdocument. It is with regret that I find myself tained that full and complete vindication compelled by the terms of the Act of Parliament of his conduct which he had since done. 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 128. 10d. 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 Rolt, in a letter dated the 23rd 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. that information a decree was subsequently granted. I do not mean to say anything On HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, July 30, 1868. THE NEW PALACE OF JUSTICE. 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 128. 10d. 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 LORD DENMAN, in pursuance of Notice, asked of Her Majesty's Government, If the Commissioners under the Courts of Justice Building Act had recommended any definite plan in regard to the New Palace of Justice? The noble Lord said, no task could be more ungracious than seeming to under-rate the exertions of a Royal Commission, especially of the noble Lord (Lord Cranworth), and to oppose the opinion of eminent jurists who anticipate the greatest advantage from the concentration of the Courts of Justice; but having since 1864 differed from them all, and observing that but £36,000 was left for the building of a palace, whilst their Lordships' House had carried a clause that all plans and estimates should be laid before Parliament before the beginning of the work (which was given up on condition of a certificate as to the expense of the site not exceeding £750,000, and the another £750,000), he could not but reexpense of the building not exceeding out more than seven acres would be remark that if the present plan were carried quired; whilst to accommodate jurors, suitors, witnesses, and the public as they could now be accommodated at Westminster Hall and Guildhall, no single building could be sufficient. The approaches also to Westminster had been improved, and in a very short time a railway station would be opened at the very place at which Mr. Canning's statue formerly stood. Shortly, instead of merely thinking they were represented, he hoped that the people would feel that they were so, and he trusted that no contract would be entered into without its previously being submitted to the new Parliament. He wished that the present unsightly buildings could be dispensed with; they had been condemned by his noble Relative as settled that on £200,000 being paid for soon as they were built; but it had been them they should be given up to the Commissioners, and it had been suggested that they might become Committee-rooms of the House of Commons. As to the increase of fees for fifty years, his noble Relative (who had done everything in his power to diminish the cost of litigation, counting the loss to his family and him- | self beforehand), could not have approved of such a method of paying for buildings, though it had the authority of an Act of Parliament passed last year. He must conclude joining in opinion with two of Her Majesty's counsel on the Home Circuit that an abandonment of Westminster Hall and Guildhall was unnecessary, and that the evils attending concentration had not been duly considered. He knew that his noble Relative did not approve of the Courts sitting at Westminster Hall and Guildhall at the same time, but that could be avoided. He really believed, in the present state of the labour market, that if these Courts were begun they might remain unfinished for years, like the tower of Cologne Cathedral, and he hoped that the Government would wait until the next Session and not adopt any plan with undue haste. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he would endeavour to answer the Question of the noble Lord without attempting to enter into the wide subject introduced by him. The Commissioners under the Courts of Justice Building Act had not as yet actually recommended any definite plan, and therefore of course the Lords of the Treasury could not have adopted any recommendation. At the same time he was bound to add that the members of the Commission-of which he was one-held a meeting a few days ago, at which they agreed to a draft letter to be accompanied by sketches of certain floor plans, to be approved of. That letter and those plans had not, however, as yet been dispatched, but they were about being so. That was the state of the matter between the Government and the Commissioners. LORD DENMAN said, that it was made clear that Parliament would have to exceed greatly the original estimates. House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, July 31, 1868. MINUTES]- PUBLIC BILLS - Royal AssentConsolidated Fund (Appropriation) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 85]; Sir Robert Napier's Annuity [31 & 32 Vict. c. 91]; Liquidation [31 & 32 Vict. c. 68]; Land Writs Registration (Scot land [31 & 32 Vict. c. 64]; University Elections (Voting Papers) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 65]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements [31 & 32 Vict. c. 66]; Metropolitan Police Funds [31 & 32 Vict. c. 67]; Fairs (Metropolis) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 106]; Libel (Ireland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 69]; Railways (Ireland) Acts Amendment [31 & 32 Vict. c. 70]; Promissory Oaths [31 & 32 Vict. c. 72]; County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 71]; Revenue Officers Disabilities Removal [31 & 32 Vict. c. 73]; Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 74]; Petit Juries (Ireland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 75]; Admiralty Suits [31 & 32 Vict. c. 78]; Railway Companies [31 & 32 Vict. c. 79]; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Court [31 & 32 Vict. c. 77]; Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment [31 & 32 Vict. c. 80]; Army Chaplains [31 & 32 Vict. c. 83]; Assignees of Marine Policies [31 & 32 Vict. c. 86]; County General Assessment (Scotland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 82]; Entail Amendment (Scotland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 84]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [31 & 32 Vict. c. 130]; Court of Justiciary (Scotland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 95]; Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 96]; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Accounts Audit [31 & 32 Vict. c. 97]; Railway Companies (Ireland) Advances [31 & 32 Vict. c. 94]; Vaccination (Ireland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 87]; Courts of Chancery and Exchequer (Ireland) Fee Funds [31 & 32 Vict. c. 88]; Tithe Commutation, &c. Acts Amendment [31 & 32 Vict. c. 89]; Public Departments Payments [31 & 32 Vict. c. 90]; New Zealand Assembly's Powers [31 & 32 Vict. c. 92]; New Zealand Company [31 & 32 Vict. c. 93]; Clerks of the Peace, &c. (Ireland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 98]; Militia Pay [31 & 32 Vict. c. 76]; Hudson's Bay Company [31 & 32 Vict. c. 105]; Indorsing of Warrants [31 & 32 Vict. c. 107]; Bankruptcy Act Amendment [31 & 32 Vict. c. 104]; Burials (Ireland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 103]; Compulsory Church Rates Abolition [31 & 32 Vict. c. 109]; Court of Session (Scotland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 100]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act Amendment [31 & 32 Vict. c. 102]; Municipal Elections (Scotland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 108]; Marriages Validity (Blakedown) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 113]; West Indies [31 & 32 Vict. c. 120]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners [31 & 32 Vict. c. 114]; Larceny and Embezzlement [31 & 32 Vict. c. 116]; Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment [31 & 32 Vict. c. 115]; Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 101]; Sale of Poisons and Pharmacy Act Amendment [31 & 32 Vict. c. 121]; Regulation of Railways [31 & 32 Vict. c. 119]; Expiring Laws Continuance [31 & 32 Vict. c. 111]; Electric Telegraphs [31 & 32 Vict. c. 110]; Public Schools [31 & 32 Vict. c. 118]; District Church Tithes Act Amendment [31 & 32 Vid. c. 117]; Poor Relief [31 & 32 Vict. c. 122]; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) [31 & 32 Vict. c. 123]; Inland Revenue [31 & 32 Vict. c. 124]; Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [31 & 32 Vict. c. 125]; Danube Works Loan [31 & 32 Vict. c. 126]; Saint Mary Somerset's Church, London [31 & 32 Vict. c. 127]; Colonial Governors Pensions Act Amendment [31 & 32 Vict. c. 128]; Colonial Shipping [31 & 32 Vict. c. 129]; Registra |