SUPPLY.—COMPENSATION TO SIR A. B. KING. (Hansard, 3 August 1832)

§ Lord Althorp
said, that the question he was about to move being that of granting compensation to Sir Abraham Bradley King for the withdrawal of his patent, and having formerly objected to the claims of that gentleman, it was, therefore, necessary that he should explain the grounds on which he at present brought forward a proposition apparently inconsistent with his previous opinion. When the present Administration came into power, it was considered proper to abolish the office of King's printer in Ireland, the patent of which office being granted during pleasure, afforded full opportunity of effecting the change. The former Administration had, however, entered into an arrangement for the resumption of the patent, and had agreed to refer the amount of compensation for the loss to be sustained by the holder to arbitration. When he (Lord Althorp) entered upon office, he was informed that the Government was not pledged to abide by the results of the arbitration, and he, therefore, felt called upon to examine whether Sir Abraham Bradley King were entitled to any compensation. At a subsequent period, it was represented to him, that he had been misinformed as to the intention and pledge of the late Government, which, according to the statement of the friends of Sir Abraham Bradley King, had agreed to abide by the decision of the arbitration, in case the office of King's Printer were abolished. On hearing this communication, he proceeded to ask the right hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), if it were true, and he avowed that he did consider the late Government to be pledged to the award, with the discretionary power of declining to abolish the office, should they 1089 think its continuance less disadvantageous to the country than compliance with the decision of the arbitrators. On this understanding it appeared the arbitration took place. Finding this to be the case, and holding that no principle could be worse than, if one Administration gave a pledge, for the succeeding Administration to conceive itself absolved from it—under these circumstances, he conceived himself bound in justice to Sir Abraham Bradley King to propose and support the vote about to be submitted to the Committee. He begged it to be understood that he did not support it on the ground of claim on the part of the patentee, but because he considered the present Government pledged to the arrangement proposed by the late Government, just as much as if the proposition had originated with themselves. The noble Lord moved, "that the sum of 2,500l. be granted to Sir Abraham Bradley King, as annual compensation for losses sustained by the revocation of his patent, as King's stationer in Ireland."

Mr. Hume
had been afraid that, if strong application was made to Ministers as to compensation to Sir Abraham Bradley King, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's virtue would give way. He now found that his melancholy anticipations were verified; the noble Lord having yielded against his own conviction. If any new matter connected with the subject had been brought forward since the former decision of the House upon the question, they had a right to expect that it should be laid before them. With the facts already brought under their cognizance, he submitted to hon. Members whether they would be warranted in acceding to the vote? The Committee of 1829 had recommended the abolition of the patent. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had consulted the law officers of the Crown, who declared that Sir Abraham Bradley King had no claim whatever to compensation. There were no documents before them to warrant the House in receding from its former decision; nothing was there to guide them, but a conversation of the noble Lord with the right hon. member for Cambridge. Thinking that no valid plea had been adduced for altering their opinions, it was his intention to pronounce a negative on the Motion, unless new information were laid before the House,

§ Lord Althorp
said it was impossible to produce any new matter on the ques- 1090 tion. He had changed his opinion in consequence of having learned circumstances previously unknown to him. He could not allow that his virtue was easy; and if he thought he had a choice, he certainly would not propose the vote.

§ Mr. Leader
was of opinion that Sir Abraham Bradley King's case was fair, clear, and honest, and entitled to the consideration of the House.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, that although patents of this kind were only granted during pleasure, still the usage was, to continue them where there were no instances of misbehaviour. Sir Abraham Bradley King had purchased his patent. He had been a member of the Committee of 1829, and yet felt himself justified in supporting the vote. But even the present arrangement would prove to be economical. In consequence of the revocation of the patent, a saving equal to 10,000. a year would be effected in the supply of stationery to Ireland. Had the facts now brought forward been known in due time to the Treasury, the vote would have been proposed last year.

§ Sir Adolphus Dalrymple
supported the grant, the propriety of which, he thought, had been fully shown by the statement made by the noble Lord. The preceding Government had considered themselves bound by what had taken place, to give Sir Abraham Bradley King the money now proposed.

Mr. Warburton
supposed that, as this had been the case of an award, there were, probably, instructions to the referees. He wished to know whether the referees were informed that the patent was revokable at pleasure, and whether the Treasury minutes, and the instructions to the referees could not be laid before the House?

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, that the instructions and Treasury minutes would be produced if called for, but they bore no relation to the point at issue.

§ Mr. Shaw
supported the grant. He contended, that from the acknowledgment of Lord Leveson Gower, as appeared by his letter, the Government of that day were fully aware of all the circumstances connected with the patent at the time the award was made.

§ Sir Charles Forbes
also supported the grant, which he contended no man could in equity and justice refuse.

Mr. Hume
said, that the grant now proposed was not a compensation for a 1091 patent that had been purchased; for, though the patent had been originally purchased, that patent had expired, and the present claim was made on the renewed patent, which had been so renewed without purchase. He wished the question to be postponed till Monday, when the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could produce the Treasury minutes, and they would show what were the instructions to the referees, and whether all the circumstances had been fully taken into consideration. He denied that the late Government considered themselves bound to pay the sum stated in the award.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that the Treasury minutes could throw no further light on the matter; and it would be useless, therefore, to postpone the discussion on that account. The House had now before them all the information that it was in the power of the Government to afford.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, that he had heard the former debate on this subject, and nothing which was then stated by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, or Secretary of the Treasury, had been sufficient to convince him that this grant ought to be made, nor had anything he had since heard altered his opinion. The statement, that 10,000l. a-year was now saved, showed that Sir Abraham Bradley King had long been enjoying a large amount of public money to which he had no right, and surely that was no reason for granting him 2,500l. a-year now. He should oppose the grant.