Lords Sitting of 19 June 1821

IRISH STATIONARY.
The Earl of Darnley,on rising to make his promised motion respecting the supply of Stationery to the government offices in Ireland, said, that he rose to perform a duty in some respects painful, as he should be obliged to make some personal observations on alluding to the papers before the House. Of the individual to whom those papers referred he knew nothing. That individual was, at the present moment, lord mayor of Dublin; it would, therefore, become a part of his official duty to receive his majesty, if he should carry his intention of visiting Ireland into effect; and in doing so, he had no doubt that his majesty would experience a very warm and a very Irish reception. It was, however, a matter of regret to him, that the person with whose conduct the present question was connected, had always been a warm partizan of principles which he had as constantly opposed, he meant that of hostility to the catholics. But whatever his feelings might be, he was resolved to do his duty; and if the task he had to perform appeared in any respect invidious, the fault was not in him, but in those by whose conduct he was compelled to undertake it. The noble earl then went into the detail of, the charges contained in the following resolutions, with the moving of which he concluded:
"That it appears, by papers laid before this House, that on the 20th December, 1780, a patent was granted by his late majesty to Abraham Bradley and Abraham Bradley King, and the survivor of them, during his majesty's pleasure, to serve with stationery ware all offices within his kingdom of Ireland, which Were supplied therewith, at his proper charge.
"That in consequence of claims made and allowed at different times under the

1215
said patent, the said Abraham Bradley King has for many years past enjoyed the exclusive monopoly of furnishing the principal departments of government in Ireland, with Stationery, and that during the last ten years the sum of 228,606 l. 17 s. 8¼d. appears to have been paid by government to the aforesaid patentee, the average of which, calculated on the number of years in each case, will be found to-amount to 35,129 l. 15 s. 8d. per annum.
"That in the year 1814, it appears that the said 'Abraham Bradley King, his majesty's stationer for Ireland, having claimed the right, as patentee of the Crown, to supply the Excise department with Stationery for its use, he was recognised by government as having a preferable claim thereto, provided he undertook to supply them of as good a quality, and at the same prices at which they could be procured from any respectable and unexceptionable person in Dublin.'
"That in the supply of Stationery to the Excise department, by the said Abraham Bradley King, considerable frauds and impositions appear to have been practised in the binding branch thereof, amounting to an overcharge of 1,192 l. 16 s. 6d. 'without adverting to any overcharges which may have been made for similar books in the quarterly bills, which could not then be ascertained.' In consequence of which, and 'having fully considered the premises, and the whole of the matter as it stood before them,' the Board 'were of opinion that Alderman King had forfeited his preferable claim to supply that department with stationery.'
"That, notwithstanding the foregoing circumstances, and this declared opinion of the Commissioners of Excise, the Board is still supplied with Stationery by the patentee, 'on the same conditions as previously,' by the express directions of the government of Ireland.
"That in addition to the frauds so detected in the binding branch of Stationery supplied to the Excise, it appears by a letter from James Roe, first clerk in the Stationery Stores, to the Commissioners of Excise, dated 18th February, 1819, that the quality of the paper generally supplied by the stationer (the said Alderman King), for the use of that department, was very inferior, although the price allowed by the Board for each description was such that certainly the very
1216
best quality of each should be supplied, and that if it bore a fair ratio with the price charged, the officers would have had no reason to complain, as they generally did, of the badness of what was furnished them for revenue purposes. That 'in the last bill furnished by the stationer' (the said Abraham Bradley King), there was a charge for 109 reams of Second Imperial, charged at 5l.. 6s. 8d. per ream, which judges more competent than himself valued at no more than 2l. 10 s. per ream, making a difference in that item of the bill of 308 l. 16 s. 8d.
"That by the report of Mr. James Bourns, Inspector of Paper Duties, it appears that the prices charged by the said patentee to the Board of Excise, were, in his opinion, 'regulated by the highest or retail scale for articles of the best qualities,' but that of the papers in store, very few were, in his opinion, of the best qualities, and the quality of the inferior denominations was extremely low.'
"That by the letter of James Roe aforesaid, to the Honourable the Commissioners of Excise, dated March 16, 1819, it appears that 8,276 reams of paper of various denominations had been 'received from the said patentee,' on which, according to the estimate of Mr. Bourns, there was an overcharge of 6,162 l. 18 s. 3d. but it does not appear by the papers before the House, that the difference between the prices and qualities of the paper so furnished by the patentee, and its actual value has occasioned any proceedings on the part of the Board of Excise, or of any other department of government.
"That, under all the circumstances of the case, as set forth in the papers before the House, it appears that the public interests have materially suffered under a Patent of Monopoly, vicious in principle, and in practice liable to the greatest abuses."
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that the frauds which had been discovered were committed by a person named Fox, who was in the service of alderman King, but who had derived no advantage from them himself, and that there had been neglect on the part of the persons who now came forward to complain in not detecting the mal-practices sooner. The man by whom the practices had been committed had been originally employed by Mr. Wood-mason, who formerly supplied the articles, and continued by Mr. King. But

1217
the frauds could not have gone on, had not the persons in the different departments neglected their duty of examination. From the papers before the House, their lordships would see that there was no ground for presuming fraud against alderman King, or any neglect of inquiry on the part of his majesty's government. With regard to the overcharges, an inquiry was making; but he believed that the prices paid for stationery in England would not form a fair criterion for determining what the prices in Ireland ought to be. The lord-lieutenant had, however, caused an inquiry to be instituted, and if there should appear proof of intentional overcharge, he would enforce the right he possessed of taking the supply out of the hands of alderman King. The investigation was at this moment actively prosecuting; and, under such circumstances, he should move the previous question.
The Marquis of Lansdownexpressed his satisfaction that the investigation was going forward. It appeared, notwithstanding the argument of the noble lord, that the public was a loser in a definite degree, but to what extent was not yet known. Judging from the papers in his hand and the accounts he had received, the inference seemed to be that double price was charged, and in some instances, more than that upon the articles provided by the alderman. The negligence of the officer could not be pleaded in excuse for the commission of fraud, and it was incumbent on the government to punish abuses, especially when they were connected with power.
The Earl of Limerickthought that the case was one of great suspicion, especially when he was told that the person who committed the fraud derived no benefit from it, and that the alderman was ignorant of what was done.
The previous question was agreed to.