The Sun.
London, England, 1821-06-20 00:00:00

THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN.

The Earl of PARNLEY, on rising to mike his
Fomised motion respecting the supply' of Sta-
tionery to the Government Offices in Ireland,
said that he rose to perform a duty in some re-
spects 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,'
having never seen him to his knowledge. That
individual was, at the present moment, Lord
Mayor of- the City of Dublin ; it would, there 7
fore, become a part of his official duty to receive
his Majesty,lf he should carry his intention of
visiting Ireland into effect; and, hr doing so, he
had no doubt that his Majesty would experience
a very warm and a very Irish reception. It was,
-tniwever, a matter of regret to him (Lord Darn-
ley) that the person with whose conduct the pre-
sent question was connected, had always been a
warm partizan of principles which he had as con-
stantly opposed—he meant that of hostility to the
Catholics. But whatever his feelings might be,
)re was resolved to do his duty ; and if the 'task
•
he had to perform appeared in any respect invi-
dious, the fault was not in him, but in those by
whose'conduct he was compelled to undertake it.
'Their Lordships would see, from the papers on
the Table, that a, patent was granted to Mr.
Abraham Bradley King, in 1780, in • lieu of a
former patent granted to Mr. Abraham Bradley,
in 1760, giving him the monopoly by supplying
air the offices of Government with articles of
'stationery. No one, he apprehended, would at
this moment, and in this country, advise such a
monopoly to any person. Under that authority,
the present Patentee continued to supply every
department of the Government, with the excep-
tion of the Commissariat, which was better and
more cheaply provided than the rest.' And it.
appeared, that during the last ten years the sum
of :..)28,6061. 17s. Sid. had been paid by Govern-
ment to this Gentleman, amounting to an average
of 35,1291. 13s. Bd. a year. In 1814, Mr. King
claimed the right of supplying the Excise De-
partment with stationery, which was admitted,
and it had been since discovered that various
frauds were committed which could not haVe
taken place if the offices had been supplied as in
this country. The monopoly was in itself a
temptation to abuse and fraud, and the circum-
stances contained in the papers constituted at
least a case for inquiry, as he trusted their Lord-
ships would see. If the individual was entitled
to compensation for the removal of this right, the
compensation should be regulated by an estimate
of his fair profits, but the very suspicion of fraud
rendered it 'incumbent on the House.or the Go-
vernment to proceed to an investigation. If in
one instance there was reason to think ,that any
unfair dealing had taken place, it would justify
a suspicion of fraud in more extended transac-
tions. In the article of rulers alone, he under-
stood there was a considerable overcharge, and a
fraud appeared to have been practised by the
substitution of an inferior binding for vellum,
amounting to an overcharge of 1,1921.165.6 d. It
did not appear that this fraud could be traced to
Mr. Bradley King, or that lie could be proved
to have any corrupt participation in it. But even
if it happened through neglect, it was an abuse
which ought to be remedied. The 1,1921.165.6 d.
overcharged in the binding department, was not
the whole of the loss stsstained by the public ;
for it was stated in a lettbr from Mr. Roe, Chief
Clerk in the Stationery Office, that the paper
was of an inferior quality, while the.price charg-
ed amounted to nearly double the. price in Eng-
land. After some further details, illustrative of
this part of the case, the Noble Lord concluded
with moving the following Resolutions, in which
all the facts are particularised
" That it appears, by Papers laid before this Ifouse that on
the 21th of December, 1780, a patent was granted by his late
Mejsty to Abraham Bradley and Abraharn Bradley.. King,
saddle survivor of them, during his Majesty's pleasure, to
save 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 dif-
ferent times under the said Patent, the said Abraham Bradley
King has for many years past enjoyed the exclusive monopoly
of furnishing the principal Departments of Government in
fe,aland, with stationery, and that during the last ten years
tine sum of £223,606 17s. fi4d., appears to have been paid by
Government to the aforesaid Patentee, Abraham Bradley King,
the average of which, calculated on the number of years in
each case, will be found to amount to the sum of .£35,129
13s. Bd. 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 Ex-
me 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 respect-
able 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 1,1921. 16s. 6d. with-
out adverting to any overcharges Which may have been made for
similar hooks in the quarterly Bills which could not then be as-
certained.' In consequence of which, and ' having fully consi-
dered the manises, and the whole of the matter as, it stood be-
fare 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
tEs declared opinion of the Commissioners of Excise, the Board
i.; still supplied with Stationery by the Patentee; ' on the same
conditions as previously,' by the express directions of the Go-
vernment of Ireland.
" That it. addition to the frauds so detected in the binding
branch bf Stationery supplied to the Excise, it appears by a let-
ter from James Roe, first Clerk in the Stationery Stores, to the
Commissioners of Excise, dated 18th February, 1319; that the
quality of the pmier 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 de-
SeriP4OV. WA such that certainly the very 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 Revenucpmpcses.' .That in the lest Bill furnished by the
Stationer' (the said'Abraham Bradley King), there was-a
charge for 103 reams of Second Imperhil, charged at 51. 6s. Od.
per ream, which Yudges more competent than' himself valued at
no more than 21. 10s. per ream, making a difference in that item
of the bill of 30111. 16s. Bd.

"'1 hat 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, regu-
lated by the highest or retail scale for articles of the best qua-
lities,' but that of the papers in store, very few were, in'his
opinion, of the best qualities, and the quality of the inferior de-
nominations was extremely low.'
That by the letter of James. Roe aforesaid, to the Honour-
able the Commissioners of Excise, dated March 16, 1819, it ap-
pears that 8276 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 61621.
18s. sd. 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
anv 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 in-
terests have materially suffered under a Patent 'of Monopoly.;
vicious in principle and in practice, liable to the greatest
abdses."

Lord SinmouTit said, that the Resolutions
Vvhich the Noble Lord had read, involved a
charge of fraud and, imposture against a person
concerned in the supply of Stationery to the pro-
vernment of Ireland, and of gross neglect on the
part of the Patentee. With respect to the fraud,
it appeared to have been committed by a perion
of the name of Fox, of whom it should be con-
fessed at the same time, that he derived-no bene-
fit whatever from the imposition. As soon as
Mr. Bradley King was named patentee, he ap-
pointed this man, at the recommendation of some
of those .who now inculpated his conduct: " It
was to be observed, that the very officer whose
duty it was to examine the article, and who made
the complaint at last, had neglected his duty, or
the fraud could never have been committed: When
the complaint Was made to the Lord Lieutenant,
he wrote immediately to Mr. Bradley King, who
called for an investigation in reply. An inquiry
then took place before the Commissioners of
Excise, and on the case being filially referred to
the Attorney and Solicitor General, their opinion
was, that there was no evidence to sustain the
charge. He was accordingly acquitted of con-
nivance or participation, but ordered to make
good the losses which the public had sustained.
With respect to-:.4.1e overcharges, an inquiry had
been instituted, and certainly a respectable per-
Son, who was appointed to investigate the sub-
ject, had reported that the charges were too high.l
The prices paid in England, hoWever, would fur-
nish a bad criterion of the prices in Ireland. An
investigation was now going on, under the direc-
tion of the Irish Government, to ascertain whether
overcharges -had been made ; and if it should
turn out that such was the case, the patentee
would be immediately deprived of his patent.—
The public had not suffered, as was stated in
the last paragraph of the Resolutions, for the
loss had been replaced ; and the average of the
yearly receipts was taken too high, at 35,0001.—
it did not exceed 22,000/. His Lordship con-
cluded by repeating, that the inquiry was now
in progress, and moving the previous question.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN expressed his
satisfaction at hearing that the investigation was
goit, forward, which he was sure would be at-
tended with great public benefit. 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 ac-
counts he had received, the inference seemed to
be that double price was charged, and in some
instances, more than that upon the articles pro-
vided 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
people, who ivere sufficiently exposed to severe
proceedings in the Department of. the Excise,
should be taught to feel that in this land we had
but one law for the rich, and the poor. He would
not disguise his satisfaction at the statement of
the Noble Lord, nor refuse" his thanks to his
Noble Friend, to whom the country was obliged
for .having brought the subject forward, and so
duced the explanation.
Lord SIDMOUTII explained.

The Earl of LIMEIiICK thought 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. He
could not but think that the charges were ex-
cessive, yet as an inquiry was going on, he would
vote for the previous question upon that ground
alone.

The Earl of ROSSLYN concurred in thinking
it most extraordinary that Fox should have com-
mitted the fraud without reapingg-any advantage,
and that Mr. Bradley King, who reaped the ad-
vantage; should know nothing about it. The
negligence of the public officers was also highly
reprehensible,'and that the public had sustained
a loss could scarcely be denied by any one who
read the papers.
The Earl of HARROWBY said that the inquiry
was now going on which would prove whether
the public had been a loser or not.
The Earl of DARNLEY, after a brief reply, de-
clared that he would not press his motion.
Lord SIDMOUTII referred their Lordships to the
59th page of the printed papers, and said that
the letter of. Mr. Woodmason, which it contained,
justified a suspicion that Fox had entered into a
conspiracy with some other person to ruin Mr.
Bradley King.—Theprevious question wus then
carried.—Ad journed.