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
samples, being stationery-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 furnished 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`itViftet# 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-himt- 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 to.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 obvitaust.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 3N itArViltrj
who was a contractor wifh- the Stara:miry. Mite for
the suPplyof 'paper.;. dad he diliabea te 10ittrarlo. 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 of 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