Star. — London, England, 1822-10-02 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PAPER. THE STATIONERY OFFICE, &c. The following is a Copy of the Report from the , Select Committee oa Printing and Stationery. (ogiered by the Howe of Commons, to be Printed, July 30, 1842.) REPORT. • The Sneer COM - MiTltl appointed to inquire into the manner in which the PRIXIING and STATION'S! are supplied to the Houses of Lords and of Commons, and to the Public Des partments in the United Kingdom ; and to report their Ob servations thereupon to the House ;—Have, pursuant to the Order of the House, examined the same accordingly, and agreed to the following RETORT : Your Committee had already commenced their in quiry into the matters referred to them by the House, when their attention was directed to certain charges, which they conceived it to be their first duty to in vestigate. • They were informed by the Lords of the Treasury that their Lordships had received a letter from Mr. Henry Constantine Jennings, containing the following passage : " That Mr. W. Ready, the Keeper of their Lordships Board Room, had been in the habit of selling stationery, the property of the King, from the Stationery Office, to a very large amount. Sir Robert Wilson, Mr. Peter Moore, Mr. Hume, and others, have been largely supplied from this source. The articles he supplies are of a very superior quality, and much under manu facturing price : post, foolscap payer, red and black wax, red tape, blotting paper, pens ' wafers, ink,&c. of the whole of which I have s amples, being stati onery-office paper. The amount of stationery supplied to the above Gentlemen has been very great." Your Committee called Mr. Jennings befor'e them, and examined him upon these points ; and they beg leave to refer generally to his evidence, and to that - of Mr. Smith and Mr. W. Ready, in the Appendix, for a full account of this transaction. They think it necessary, however, with reference to the allegatior. in Mr. Jennings's letter, that Sir Ro bert Wilson and Mr. Peter Moore had been furnished with Stationery by Ready, to state, that the evidence of Mr. Hanle, one of the Members of this Committee, distinctly negatives the fact Of their having been so supplied ; and that it appears, by the evidence of Mr. Jennings, that the assertion that the three Gentlemen named by him had been furnish ed with Stationery by Ready, was never intended to cast any imputation . upon either of them. Your Committee refer the House to the detail of Mr. Hume's evidence, in which he has fully stated the motives which induced him to allow Mr. Jennings tosend him the paper purchaled from Ready, for th* purpose of establishing unequivocally the existence atlas fraud; and it appeari, that with the same view; it joo_been intended, that some of the paper should have been sent to Sir Robert Wilson and Mr. Peter Moore, to be held in deposit by them ; and that it was senthy Mr. Jennings to Mr. Hume's house, ad dressed to them, but was never delivered to them' from thence, and they appear to have been entirely ignorant of the whole matter. 'ltuppears from the evidence of Mr; Smith (a tailor, who furnished R . .eady with clothes , andahreugh whose agency this paper was obtained), that Ready at first supplied him with•very.small quantities for his own use; that Mr. Jennings, happening one day to see hiM write, rerg`itVif t et# the paper on which he was w4s very geod,'', and requested Smith to get some of the. same sort,for hid), which Smith accord ingly did ; and that from this time Mr. Jennings was constantly urging him . to procure larger quantities. That, in consequence of such solicitation, he applied to Ready, and pressed him . for larger quantities, agreeing to take them in payment of part of his bill, bat that, till he had se urged Ready, he had obtained only very small quantities. Your Committee have been unable, accurately, to ascertain how much paper was so pbtained ; but they examined the books of Mr. Smith, and from them it appeared, that he had given credit to Ready, in the year 1820, for the sum of I.:10. I2s. 4d. for Stationery; and that in the following year, 1821, he had given him credit for the sum of £6. 10s. on the same ac count, in part payment for clothes furnished to him and his family. It appears that Ready had a small allowance of paper (twelve quires halt-yearly) for his own use ; and that having charge of the Stationery designed for the use of the Board, he had always taken, as a perquisite, the broken sheets and quires which were left upon the Board-room table, after each day's board. But it further appears that of late, when he made a requisition to one of the chief clerks for a fresh supply of stationery for the use of the Board, he with drew from the store whatever remained of the former supply ; and Mr. Speer, the chief clerk, by whom the stationery for the use of the Board was ordered, in formed the Committee that the total cost of the sta tionery placed in Ready's charge for one year, and out of which all that he supplied to Smith in the same year must have been taken, was only £62;. and it is therefore obvious that the total amount of stationery , thus withdrawn by Ready cannot have been very considerable ; but it is not the less true that he ap propriated to his own use and profit a certain quap. tity of paper froM the public stares committed tops charge, to which he had no right ;whatever ; and that he did this the mote readily under the colour and pretest of the allowance and perquisite to which he really conceived himself entitled. Your Committee, therefore, feel it their duty to recommend, that in all instances such allowances should be discontinued,. and such perquisites imme- - diatily prohibited. Your Committee have been informed, that Ready , has fallen under the displeasure of the Lords of the Tit-:Luny, and that he has been suspended from his office: they also learn that he is a needy atm, with a faMily of ten children, entirely dependent upon him and his office for support: under these circum stances they would regret that any measures should be taken, the consequences of which might be to leave hint without bread and to deprive his family of support ; but they feel.ii their diny to state, thathe hit 3 proved himself unworthy of the trust which has been reposed in-him t - and unfit to have the custody of any public stPti, hoWevei small. To pass over his misconduct without any - other punishment than }mita% already teceivedi..would be of evil example, at .would not held Galt toOthers, in like situations, a sufficient warniogagalint tronnpitting similar offences. Your Committee ,next pipageded t o. inquire into' ciatlin alleged abuses in the made of conducting Public and Parliamentary Printing. These were brought-to the*.notir by a printed paper which was circbUted aho4 . otet, ago •by its author; Mr. and puble of proof. Mr. Jennings was called upon to name the parties against whom he conceived that this serious charge could be established ; and he gave to your Committee 'several names, amongst which was that of Mr. Hart *ell, a printer, who had contracted with the Sta tionery Office for executing the printing for some of the public offices. Your Committee immediately proceeded to inves tigate this charge against Mr. Hartnett, and called before them the several persons who were named to them by Mr. Jennings, as capable or giving informa., tion in support of the charge ; some of those indivi duals then were, or had at former periods been in Mr. Hattnell's employment ; and their evidence wills appear in the Appendix, to which your Committee beg leave to refer the House for all matters of detail. To enable the House to understand the nature of this charge, it will be proper to explain the mode in which the contractors for the execution of the Print ing for the public service, are supplied with paper from the Stationery Office. At the commencement of the contract, a deposit of paper is placed in their hands, amounting to a larger or a smaller quantity, according to the probable extent of work which may be required of them. The object of this deposit is to prevent any delay in the execution of work which may be suddenly ordered, and which; but for this deposit, the printer might be unprovided with the means of executing. The orders for printing papers for public offices ate, to save time, frequently sent direct to the printer, without, in the first instance, passing through the Stationery Office, and the work is sometimes executed before the regular and official order is sent to the. printer by the Stationery Office, accompanied, as it always is, by the quantity of paper required for the work. The printer is, at all times, accountable for the total amount of the ori ginal deposit, and the paper issued to him after the execution of the work, replaces the quantity taken for the work from the original deposit. Your Committee has no hesitation in saying, that under whatever regulation the future supply of paper for printing for the public departments may be placed,. it will always be found necessary that the printer should have in his custody and charge a certain.quan thy of paper, to be applied in the execution of work suddenly required, bdt this deposit should not in its amount be more than commensurate with the probable, demands of the public service for sudt Work. It appears from the evidence, that the deposit en trusted to Mr. Hartnell amounted to no less than 360 reams, which must have been much more than ne cessary to enable him to comply with the sudden demands to which he was sUbject; because, on the occasion of a theft upon his premises, in order to avoid the risk of the custody of this large • store future : he returned one half of it to the ,Stationery Office; and it does not appear that the public service sustained any inconvenience by this circumstance. • Mr. Hartnett, besides his employment for the-pub- lie under his' contract with tip 'Stationery Office, is. engaged in private business as a printer ;.and it ap- I pears that he has not. scrupled, on.pressing occasions,. to apply the Government paper under his chaigeao his private business, holding himself bound to mane good to the Stationery Office, at the end of his con tract, the value of the paper so applied. An exact account of the paper placed in his charge being' kept at the Stationery Office, it Would have been isopOssr. ble for him ultimately to have defrauded the Public without connivance or great neglect on the part of the persons at the head of that department; and Mr: Hartnell alleges that he considered himself in the light of a person having a money account with the Government, and that he thus conceived himself jus tified in using the public paper as an accommodation to himself. It appears also that. he sometiMek has used his own„paper for Government, When, upon a sudden demand he had not in store any Government ' paper of the kind required pand,nponthese occasions, he has repaid himself by appropriating afterwards to his own use 4 ,corresponding quantity of the paper issued from the .Stationery Office for the execution of the order. • It is stated by Mr. Hartnett, that Mr. Poison, or the Stationery Office,was aware of the fact that pub lic paper had been occasionally used by him in his private trade; and your Committee were surprise. to hear that Mr. Parson contented' himself 'with 'in forming Mr. Hartnell that, before his last bill would be accepted at the Stationery Office, the value of. the paper of every description which 'might be deficient from the original quantity delivered to him would be. deducted from his bill; but that. Mr. Parion did.net point out to Mr. Hamel], as it was his duty to do,. the impropriety of so borrowing the Goverameat paper for the purposes of private trade. Although your Committee do not accuse Mr. Harf= . . nett of any .intention to defraud the Public bysubject ing them to any ultimate loss, yet they must remark, that his using the Government paper-, - placed -ht his charge, for other purposes than those for which it was intrusted to him;wasirreiular add highly improper. . -With reference to the charge, that-considerable portions of paper had been detained by Mr.. Hart nett for his own use, by means' f short deliveries of the work . ordered, your C.omtnittek have not been able .to satisfy themselves that these assertions are made out. They, 'however, -think it their duty to state,- that in mast of the, public offices, - it does.nut appear to . be . the practice . ;buntthe nitm.berlof sheets or quires of •paper delivered from the-printer for the purpose of ascertaining the. accuracy of the deliveries, but that too frequently receipts are given is matter pf ;aurae, altlipugb itjs obvitaus t .ihat when the,precatitionof counting is neglected, frauda may be committed-without- -detection. This statement is quite sufficient tosuggeseta the different?oifiCes'the necessityof.luipoqp• g apcat rote . tasii6nale:penen in each, the duty. of. reeeivuag paper fromthepnne ters, and of counting its to-ascertain the accuracy of the delivery:before arty •• It appcv , ! thitMr, 4'14 gig 'xistenCi of ills rontraci,..beCanne.-.disiesus of,procustig.' son* paper fromaanataufacturer of the name of 3 N itArViltrj who was a contractor wifh - the Stara:miry . Mite for the suPplyof 'paper.;. dad he diliabea te 10i tt rarlo. n. .an offi i cer n that departmeat, to proctathis. paper. for him, which Mr. Parson accordingly the parv:lP;ing charged to . Mr:Mutual arstsinct • . ~ .. a Henri Cavities* limnitig 'ilia:views Ins, *twig others, the follovointallertiTi:_. That many of tie patters urn's! Wei o f the Government paper (supplied by the Stationery 011isei as pays diem for the worlewithout any other profit s' and it canto proved by sample and evidence, that they use this paper foe private work.—Ca • OMB game the Pike s& which Mr. Wiekwar supplied satisfieeterry *sport Upon that branch of the'snliject itse Stationer . / Office with - paper of a eimilar quality. referred to them. They hoist s however, collected a Hi pitiaini for this, Mr. Wickwar drew a bill at two con&derable luau ofevidence;oral and docbliientatyt qr Int* 'months.date upon Mr. HartOell, and sent it and they strongly recommend that a Committee jo►Str:Paisrm,' desiring, that he would obtain Mr. should be appointed in the course of the next Session ; Hartnell's acceptance. Mr. Hartnellrefused, alleging ; to examine and digest this evidence, sited to insratute that hesclid not like to accept a bill fin. so small a ; some further inquiries for the more complete eluci , sum at so long a ate; and Mr. Wickwar, becoming dation of a subject connected with an important urgent, and applying to Mr. Parson to procure pay- branch of the public expenditure. ment, Mr. Parsorthimself advanced the money, which Although your Committee are compelled to ; post• was some time afterwards repaid to him by Mi. Hart- _pule this part of the matter referred to them yet nell; This matter may seem to the Holm to be they think it ; due to Mr..Hansard, Mr. &raison, 3i! r. scarcely worth noticing; and it certainly appears Nichols, and to the other individuals employed it that no favour was shewn in the price charged for the Parliamentary Printing, to state, that nothing tending parer; but considering the relation in which Mr. in any degree to countenance imputations against Hartnell and Mr. Wickwar respectively stood to Mr. the characters of these persons, hat appeared in dal Parson, it will no doubt strike the House, as it did the course of the inquiries of your Committee. Committee, that a transaction of this kind ought not 30th July, 1823. to have taken place between a person in the Stationery Office, -and tradesmen with whom that office bad er isting contracts; and there appeared in all these par ties a Marked anxiety to'conceal the truth, evinced by a mode of giving their evidence, to which your Committee cannot but express their extreme disap probation. But your Committee think it, however, right to state; that there does not appear to hive beep anything in the conduct of those persons with reference to this matter, deserving of -a more severe reprehen► sion, than that which they have thus deemed it their duty to express. Allegations, similar to those preferred against Mi. Hartnell, having also .been preferred against Mr. Thorowgood and Mr. Ciowes, who have contracts with the Stationery Office for printing, your COM niittee proceeded to investigate those charges; and they have the satisfaction to report, that no part of, the conduct of these two persons seems liable to cen sure. A deposit of paper appears to he intrusted to the charge ()leach; but it is inconsiderable, and pro. bably not more thin necessary to answer the current' demands upon them. They seem to have been ofteW in the habit of using their own paper for the public service, and not to have authorized- their servants to employ the Government paper for their private use, except to replace paper of their own so previously lent to the Public. • • • During the proceedings of your roMmittee, Mr. Jennings, the person already named, thought fit to address a letter to the Board of Treasury: in which, amidst a great deal of wild and extravagant matter, and many vague and unintelligible insinuations, he asserted his belief to their Lordships that a member of this Committee (meaning, as he afterwards stated in evidenCe, Mr. Thomas Courtenay) had sold the place of Cashier of the Stationery Office, held by him a number of years ago, and the value• of which*ip pears to have been at•that time 5001. per annu m, to Mr. Church, the present Cashier, for 1,800/..' — The Board of Treasury transmitted• this' letter to the Committee, who called upon Mr. Jennings to ex plain' and make good his tharge. He was not ena bled to give anything like a precise explanation upon the subject, but named tb the Committee . five - wit nesses (Mr. Chidch being one) ivhom your Commit- ' tee immediately proceeded to examine touching . this matter, so deeply affecting the honour of a member' of this Hchise;.knd the result of thii inquiry will beat appear from the followibg unanimous Resolution of .the Committee, irrstipport of which they beg leave to refet to the evidence in the Appendix: • ResolVed, That this Committee having examined i‘fessrs." Pation, Hunt, Galliets, King, and Church, of the'Stationery Office, the only persohs named by Mr. Jennings to them to be examined, relative to the statement contained•in Mr. Jennings's letter to the Lords of the Treasury, that Mr. Courtenay had sold the 'office of Cashier of the Stationery Office to Mr. Church, are unanimousli of opinion that the said chirte is locally ea founded." • Yout Committee regret that so snitch of their time should have been unavoidably taken'up by these dif ferent heads of inquiry; but they trust that the result . will not prove useless to: the Public. - The transac tions detailed in the evidence, and Itir . which they have commented, have tended to con/Ante them that the Stationery Office'onght:` to be - raumodellhd; and placed under a more efficient supeyintendence; •• ' - It appears tharthrei persons high in The Otte, namely, Sir M. Bloxam, Mr Dickens; arid Mr. Par son, have borrowed money frbni contractors finder the department: Nour - Commiltte 'lre persuaded that it cannot he necetsary fc<th'im' to point out eat such a practice deierves the severest ihimidversion; and that when a public'officer platei himself under petuniary obligation to a contractor, Whom he ought to check and cotitrohl, if fie ddes nOt disqualify him% selffrom an upright discharge of his public duty, he at least exposes 'himself to imputations from whith the servants of the Public Oriiht at all times to' be -free The Committee submit that these transactions afford a strong ground in support of the recommin- . &dots above given. Your Committee would theiefoie recommend to the Treasury to revise the Establishment, and to place it..opon a different -and more efficient footing. It is only 'necessary upon this head further to add, that whatever arrangement it may be thought expe dient to adopt, it is the'decided opinion of your Com mittee that the interest of the Public will behest con sulted by continuing the present system of supplying the various Public Offices lay.general contracts, ra ther than by reverting to the old system of allowing each Office to provide its own stationery ; t and it ap pearing that sonie of the Public Offices still continue to procure articlesof stationery from private trades men, your Committee strongly reconunend.that the whole supply ot. stationery for the public service should be made in one and the same manner, under whatever arrangement they may think fit to adopt. Yoty Committee, without being prepared to give 29 . opinion upon , the subject, would suggest the pro, prietTof iskquiring whether it might not be desirable to have paper manufactured for the use of the pub lic O ffi ces with &peculiar mark by which it might al ways be kipasin,an4 which would render .fraud or embv,;lejuent more hazardous ; 'and they would also recommend, with a view to economy, that the com mon- and inferior work done for the Public offices 1 (particu)4rly,tlus differenthoards of Revenue), should e executed upon paper of inferior quality, and of a ley, Nice ? . The Committee : tate to regret, that the time they have been obliged to devote to the. investigation of, the,.different charges brought before:them, should have rendered it impossible for, them so to. arrange and method* the information they have received upon the subject of the printing for the two houses of Parlispeut t as to be enabled t 6 make a distinct and ~ - Y~. LONDON SESSIONS. ti t Yesterday the adjourned Sessions for the Ci itt London were held before the LORD MAYO*, the 'L`4. CORDER. Aldermen AKSLEY, SMITH, THOR?...'' WAITfiIIAN. . . John Dutton, a Bow-street patrol superintendent, was convicted of an, assault on Mr. Wil;iani Watson, the proprietor of the.floating-hath, near Blackfriars• bridge, on the 9th of July. The Comm, in passing sentence eiron him, .said that he, as an &Bier, whose duty it was to keep the peace, should have been the last to violate it, and that 'such . violation of the peace as he had been gu ilty of deserlted heavy punishment. That he had more than once subjected himself to a charge of,ucii a nature was evident from the. acknowledgment of one of the called for the defence. The sett tencedaf _the .Coint, under such circumstances, was, that the defendant should be imprisoned four months lin the Giltspur-street Compeer. ...• CARELESS DRIVING. George fining., a hackney-coach man, was tried a pon anindictment, charging him with having assaulted and driven over a carpenter msmed Bilborough. It . appeared from the evidence called by the COW NON SRIURANT, Who co' ndikted the ptcsecution on behalf of the City, .that on the SI st 'of July List,. in the, afternoon; Mr.- Ililborougb,--after hiving been at a dinner, where hesdrank 7 rather fieel, was returning home with friend. As they were crossing Lud ' gate-hill, near the Old Bailey, Mr. Bilborough was . stuldenlr knocked clown-by coming in . contact with the pOle'of a each or .. tise 'horse, and was run over; ' he aid :not kiwi' witether by the coach or the horses. When he recovered his senses,. he found himself in a surgeon's shop, with three of his sibs broken, and one of his fingers - shattered to pieces. A surgeon proved that it had become necessary to amputate the finger, and that the injury sustained by Mr. Bilborough was such as was likely to debilitate him for life. - . The defendant was seen by a porter of Lincoln's- Inn driving away, leaving the prosecutor on the ground, and was followed by the porter, to whom the defendant appeared to be sensible of what he Lad done, from .the circumstance of his having put his horses to their utmost speed as soon as the mischief was done. The pursuer, who was on horseback. swore that he would follow the fellow to the devil stoner than let him escape, and secured him with the assistance of some other persons. • In the prisoner's defence,' it was set forth that Mr. Bilborough was too much intoxicated to g et out of the way, and the mistress of the cooch proved, in be half of her driver, that one of the horses he dtove was a spirited mare, which was not likely to have stopped readily. It was stated also that hi, family had been reduced to beggary by his confincmen t under the charge, since he had been taken into custody. The Jury found. the defendant Guilty, but recom mended him to mercy, on account of hi, family. The COURT said, that the crin,inal carelessness of •coachmen in general as.to the lives of toot passengers had been manifested on so many occasions recently, that they could not, consistently with their duty to the Public, listen to the recommendation of the Jury. ' To check the serious evil of careless driving it was "necessiry that frequent examples should be made.— . The sentence of the Court - was, therefore, that the de ' feodant:should be imprisoned for the space of three 'calendar months in the Giltspur-street Compter, in addition to his former confinement. BIRTHS. In Rutland-square, Dublin, on the 26th of September, the Countess of Longford, of a son. Sept. 26, at C4stkcraig, the Lady of the Hon. Capt. W. J. Napier, R.N. of a daughter. Sept. 25, at Conway, North Wales, the Lady of Sir David Erskine, Bart. of a daughter. Sept. 25, at her father's house, Carlton-place, Glasgow; Mrs. Matheson, wife of the Rev. Jas. Matheson, of Durham, of a.son. Sept. 24, at Aberdeen, the wife of the Rev. John Murray, of a son. MARRIED. Sept. 11, Capt. Henry Davidson of the East India Conspany's Service, to Jane, daughter of the late IV. Morris, Esq. banker, of Carmarthen. DIED. On the 29th of 'September,atlqotton Lodge, near Chippen hams, Wilts, the Dowager Lady Call, widow of the late Sir John Call, Bart. of Whiteford, Cornwall. On Monday evening, in Nelson-square, after a protracted ill ness. Lady Aldis, in the 4Llti year of her age. July 8, at William Henry, Canada, after a lingering illness, aged 22, Lieut. Henry Hall, on half-pay of the late 99th Ref,!. Sept. 17, at Jedburgh, Mr. George Borthwick, merehan!, aged 84. Mr. Borthvrick carried on a respectable business in the same shop fur upwards of CO years, during which periad he frequently filled the office of a Magistrate in the Burgh, altsl was, at the time of 7 v death, the father of the Town Council COURSE OF Amsterdam l4 7 C.F. Ditto at siOt 12 4 Rotterdam... l2 6 AntAwrp, ex-rno. 12 6 38 0 4U. .tuna lB 1 IU. Paris,sday'ssight 25 CO U. Ditia 0 5 PO 2D. etlextiv'e 36} Cadiz effect.-- ns 133scelona ...... ssk Dilboa, elrct:tive EX CIIANGE. Seville ..... 3sf Gibraltar.-- Mk Leghorn 47 Genoa . 43f Venice haLLiv. 27 51/ klalta ...... " 43 Naples ..... 39} Palermo • 117 per Mr iAshoo...— ..... Rio Janeiro—. 49 Dublin —.—... 91 C0rk......... . .. 91 . PRICES OF GOl.l . Foreign Gold in Bars . New Doubloons D ANDSILVER. • 5. 7.1 s. 3 15 .a New ........... . Silver, in bars, standard .................. 0 4 - II 4 lit LONDON Primed and puhiNtked by Lava Kg" rlekeur OW, Tr:nide-Bar. 1. 4 .i • t 4 s t .*1