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

ney and SOlicitor-General of Ireland, who first gave
it as their opinion that an indictment might be pre-
ferred ngainit Mr. King ; but afterwards they stated
that no such proceedings could be entered upon, be-
cause Mr. King had been called on to make good the
various deficiencies, which were alleged to have been
occasioned by the neglect of a person employed in
his office. The case, however, was at this moment
in a course of investigation; and on that account he
hoped the Noble Lord would feel that his Resolu-
tions were unnecessary. Lord Sidmouth concluded
by moving the previous question.
The Marquisof LANSDOWN said, it was evident'
that the Public had suffered to an indefinite degree
by the frauds which had been committed ; because
it was impossible to say how long those frauds had
been going on. It appeared that an Alderman of
Dublin had the exclusive privilege of supplying the
Government Offices with stationery, and that a price
two or three times greater than its value had been
paid for it. It was no excuse for Mr. King to say
that this fraud had been occasioned by the negli-
gence of a servant. It was a case of great suspicion;
and if any negligence had been practised on the part
of the officers of Excise, that did not diminish the
guilt of Mr. King. Such frauds as these existed to a
greater extent in Ireland than in any other country ;
and it was the duty of the Government to make
every necessary inquiry into them, and see whether
such persons ought any longer to be continued in
their offices. If there was any description of abuses
which ought to be punished more than others, they
were those which were committed under the appear-
ance of patronage, and which had done injury to the
whole population of a country. There should be one
impartial law• with regard to the whole of his Ma-
jesty's subjects. It was by such abuses as these that
the system of peculation was kept up; it was to
these the Legislature ought to direct its attention ;
and on these grounds he would support the motion.
It evidently appeared that a system of peculation had
long been carried on in Ireland; he was happy to
hear an inquiry was intended to be made into it; but
that inquiry would not be sufficient unless the con-
duct of all the parties connected with the business
was strictly scrutinized.
The Earl of LIMERICK said that he would sup-
port this motion if he had not heard the Noble Vis-
count declare that an inquiry was now going on into
the abuses stated to be existing in Ireland, and that'
if this officer were found guilty of the charges im-
puted to him, he should be dismissed. Upon this
ground alone he would support the previous question.
Lord ROSSLYN said no doubt could be enter-
tained that the charges for stationery made by the
officer in question were excessive, and that nb notice
seemed to have been taken of them by the Commis-
sioners of Excise, so that both parties combined to
defraud the Public.

The Earl of HARROWBY defended the state.'
ment ansl views of his Noble Friend, and contended
that the House ought not to form a judgment of the
transactions in question merely from the papers now
before it.
Earl DARNLEY replied, and contended that the
worthy Alderman derived an income of at least
1:19,000 a-year from the abuses of this department.
Paper was supplied, in the ordinary way of trade, in
this country, at something less than half the price
than the King's Stationer in Ireland supplied that ar-
ticle to the Public Offices there. After what had
been stated, however, he would not press his motion.
Viscount SIDMOUTH, in explanation, said that
there was the strongest ground, in page 55 of the
printed papers, for the suspicion that Fox and Wood-
ma,oti had formed a conspiracy for the destruction
of Mr. Alderman Bradley King.
The previous question was then put and carried,
and the House adjourned at Seven o'Clock.