Star.
London, England, 1821-06-20 00:00:00

.'~` , ~ ~

.ti

. '

' -

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

• • e.•. HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 19.
• .1k •
Dlr. Serjeant BLOSSVIT was heard for the Appellant in the
Strathmore case, and Mr. Werneaett. in reply.—Further
proceedings postponed to Tuesday next.
Mr. JOSINSON, from the Office of the Secretary of State for Ire-
land, presented certain Returns, pursuant to order.—Laid on
the table.
Counsel -nd evidence having been heard at the Bar in favour
of the Lawton Wharfs Bill, that Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Friday.
The Justice of Peace Regulation Bill went through a Com-
mittee, and the Report was received.
The Marquis of LA NSDDW N postponed Isis motion re-
specting the Foreign Slave Trade to Monday next, as the Papers
which had bees, printed on that subject were very voluminous
and had but just been delivered.
The Earl of DARNLEY also postponed his motion respect-
ing the Navy, to next Tuesday, for which day their Lordships
were ordered to be summoned.
SrATIONEHY OFFICE IN IRELAND.
The Earl of DARNLEY rose to make the motion
of which he had given notice on this subject. After
directing their Lordships' attention to the Papers be-
fore them, he noticed the monopoly already enjoyed
by the Lord Mayor of Dublin—an individual who,
he believed, was very respectable, and who was
likely very soon to give a, most hospitable reception
to his Majesty during his visit to Ireland. It ap-
peared by the Papers before the House, that in the
year 1780, the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
granted a Patent to Abraham Bradley and Abraham
Bradley King, and the survivor of them, to supply
certain Government Offices, exclusively, with Sta-
tionery. This was evidently a monopoly which be
was sure the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack would not venture to :ay ought to exist, and he
was sure no Minister at this time would advise his
Majesty to grant such a monopoly to any individual.
Alderman Bradley King, the present Mayor of
Dublin, and sui riving Patentee. had since claimed the
right of serving all the Public Offices in Leland with
Stationer% , and they were so supplied by him. The
words of the Patent were very remarkable; they set
forth that the Patent should continue during plea-
sure. A question afterwards arose as to whether
Mr. Kin; was entitled to supply, certain offices ; and
a cons; Lunt was made by the Commissioners of Ex-
cise, setting forth that he had furnished them with
articles of a very inferior quality, for which he had
charged a very high price. It appeared that, during
the last ten years,. this Gentleman had charged for
stationery to the Government Offices, no less a sum
than £228,606. He would be able to prove that half
the sum pall to Mr. King might have been saved to
the Public, if the Offices were served in Ireland in
the same manner as in this country ; and a case might
be made Mt which would be sufficient to induce
their Lordshies to address his Majesty, beseeching
him to put an end to the Patent, so that the Public
should not have to pay so enormous a sum for the
article in question. At all events, it was the duty of
the Government to institute a strict inquiry into this
department. After several other observations, and
referring to the Papers on the table, the Noble Lord
concluded with moving the following Resolutions :
hat it appears, by Papers laid before this House, that
on the 20th of December, 1780, a Patent was granted by his
late 111..3 ~y 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 the proper charge.
" That in consequence of claims made and allowed at diffe-
rent 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 Ire-
land with Stationery, and that during the last ten years the
sum of' £228,606 17s. 81d. appears to have been paid by Go-
vernment 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 £55,129 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-
cise Department with Stationery for its use, he was recognized
by Goventment as having a preferable claim thereto, provided
Ise undertook to supply them of as gond 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 F 1,192 16s. 641. ' with-
out adverting to any overcharges which may have been made
far similar books in the quarterly bills, which could not dm
be ascertained.' In consequence of which, and ' having fully
cansidered the premises, and the whole of the matter as it stood
before them,' the Board ' were of opinion that Alderman King
bad forfeited his preferable claim to supply that Department
with Stationery.
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 Go-
vernment 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
eery inferior, although the price allowed by the Board for each
de.:rirtion, was 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 gee( rally 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 .C 5 6s. Bd. per
ream, which judges more competent than himself valued at no
more than 1:2.. los. per ream, making a difference in that item
of the Bill of £3OB 16s. Bd.'
"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, ' regu-
-1..,d by the highest or retail scale for articles of the best quali-
ties but that of the Papers in store, very few were, in his
eeiaion, 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 Hen.
the Commissioners of Excise, dated March 16,1819, it appears
that eight thousand two hundred and seventy-six reams of Paper,
it 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 18s. sd. but it does not ap-
pear, by the Papers before the House, that the difference be-
tween the prices and qualities of the l'aper so furnished by the
Patentee, and its actual value, has occasioned any proceedings
on the past of the Board of eise, or of any other Depart-
ment of Government.
" That, under all the circumstances of the case, as set forth
it. the Papers before the House it appears that the Public inte-
r.- h-tve materially suffered under a Patent of Monopoly,vicious
iu principle and in practice, and liable to the greatest abuses."
Lord SIDMOUTH admitted that it was the very
nature of a monopoly like this to create the abuse
complained of. In consequence of the complaint
that had been made in the year 1819 by 'the Corn-
foissioners of Excise, relative to the frauds alleged to
be committed by the Patentee, an investigation was
totered into in 18'20, by order of the Lord Lieute-
; Use case was Afterwards referred to the Attor-

liih.