plunder; and, they take special care not to attack the object of their common pursuit.

-We were met for the purpose of considering, whether it was proper to petition the king for inquiry into the cause of a great military failure. You called me to order, because I was making a statement of the expence of supporting the Duke of York, of whose failures and of whose memorable Convention at the Helder, I had just been speaking, as of the example, which had led to all our subsequent disgraceful capitulations and conventions. And, if this was not being in order, what could be so ? Was I not, when I was speaking of the services of a person, to speak also of the compensation, which he received for those services? Why was this, above all other matter, to be avoided? Was it because you did not wish the people to know how their money was expended? Were you afraid, Sir, that they would begin to perceive, that the sacrifices they were making were not for the defence of their country? I can see no other reason ; but, if another such opportunity should occur, the ery of order shall not prevent me from proceeding to discharge what I deem my bounden duty.

With respect to Mr. Garnier and his patent and emoluments, I should be fully justified in refusing to admit into my Register, any answer to what I thought proper to say at a public meeting of the county. The time and place for answering me was when and where the speech was made. I am ready, however, to admit any thing respecting this matter, until the discussion be fairly closed, because it is a matter of deep and general interest; but, I must, before I proceed further, beg you to observe, that it is upon this account that I admit your letter, and not from any persuasion, that I am bound to give an opponent at Winchester an opportunity of reviving the debate in my Register, which is intended for general circulation; for, otherwise, every one who had a dispute with me, no matter of what kind, might claim the insertion of his letters, and the public, as far as they read my publication, would be entertained with, at best, the mere politics of Hampshire.

Mr. Garnier's is a case of great and general importance. I am happy, that he has, through you, challenged this sort of discussion; not, because I am convinced, that he will have canse to repent of having yielded to the suggestions of zealous, though injudicious, friendship; but, because I regard his patent, and the concern growing out of it, as being amongst those flagrant abuses, the exposure of which must, in time, work

a change in the minds of this deceived and torpid nation.

"

You tell me, Sir, that Mr. Garnier "loaths and abhors the very name and nature of war;" and this," from his general feelings of humanity, and from his having lost four sons in the service of his country by the war; and that most hap pily would he restore the money he has "gained by the patent, if the blood he has "lost could be restored to him." Now, Sir, this is very full of fine sentiment, and might do very well in a modern romance But, how far will it stand the test of reason? Why did he place four sons in the army, or navy, if he loathed and abhorred the very name and nature of war? He, surely, intended they should, sometime or other, go forth to fight? Or, if he made them sol diers, or sailors, upon the speculation of continual peace, I see, in his conduct, cothing better than the proof of a desire to obtain for them a livelihood out of the pub lic burthens without any corresponding ser vices. This is a dilemma, Sir, from which, I am of opinion, you will find it very difficult to extricate Mr. Garnier. It is in vain, that you apply a general argument in support of a statement from personal knowledge; it i in vain, that you tell me, that "his liberal

"

education, generous habits, and pr "rental feelings, would prevent him frent bartering affections for interests; "W! shall be satisfied with nothing but clusions, drawn from facts. Look, Sir. into the list of places and pensions; and there you will find proofs of greediness and meanness too hateful to be described, in per sons, who have had, what you are pleased, in the common phrase of the day, to call a "liberal education." Indeed, it would seem, that, in many instances, such educă. tion, instead of having produced dignified notions; instead of having given rise to independence of mind aud of conduct, is look ed upon as a sufficient plea for saddling the possessor as a sort of state panper upon public. This education, call it what you will, has a degrading effect. I have never yet seen it productive of any thing great or praiseworthy. I see it sending forth a train of shameless drones and peculators; and, therefore, I despise it. Of Mr. Garnier's generosity we shall, presently, stances not to be controverted; but, give me leave to make a general observation; that is, that, according to the old maxim, we should be just before we are generous. The Apostle, you well know, Sir, bids us give to those who need, a precept which he had copied from his Master; but, he says

the

see some in

prices. All that you have alledged about long credit, the Apothecaries Company's prices to the Navy, and so forth, was alleged before the commissioners; and, in this extract from their Report, you will find it all completely refuted. Before we proceed to state the course we bave followed "in endeavouring to get at a correct judgment of the prices allowed in "these bills, it may be proper to notice, "that the form of the certificate, at pre"sent signed by the physician and sur geon general, differs from that which was in use when Sir Clifton Wintringham was physician general to the army. His "certificate states, "that the medicines "" and materials, as recited in the invoices,

The date and the duration of Mr. Garnier's patent you have accurately stated. It has been in the hands of his father and himself for seventy-four years; during that time they have had, in virtue of their patent, a mono-. poly of the supply of the army with medicines and surgical instruments. Mr, Garnier himself has never, in any instance, performed any part of the duty; and yet, besides the immense profits derived from the monopoly, he, who never has done an hour's duty, who has been proved upon oath never to have given a moment's attendance, in any way whatever in the public service, has been in the receipt, and is now in the receipt, of the pay of ten shillings a day, as being upon the staff of the army, though he "loaths "and abhors the very name and nature of "war!" Sir, fine sentiments will not silence this fact, Talk to me not of the natural effect of a liberal education;" talk to me not of Mr. Garnier's "generosity ; for, if ever there was a proof of consum mate meanness, it is that which we here have before us. Good God! I ook at the estates in and about Wickham; look at the endless church preferment of his sons; look at his splendid mansion and equipage, and his nu merous train of menials. Look at all this; consider that it has all come from the public burthens and without one day's service on the part of the possessor; consider that this possessor still receives, in pay from that public, the sum of ten shillings a day, as an offcer upon the staff of the army, in which office he has never acted for one hour; and then insult us, who are the payers of this man; then insult us again. I say, with an argument, in favour of his disinterestedness, founded on his liberal education" and his generous habits!"

46

I should now enter upon a refutation of the statement, which you have made with respect to the profits of Mr. Garnier. But, Sir, you are not to learn, that, early in the present year, a Report, relative to his department, was laid before parliament by the Commissioners of Military Inquiry, which Report, as far as it relates to the said profits, I shall, before I proceed further with my own observations, quote, word for word. The Commissioners first observe, that there

efficient check to Mr. Garnier's Accounts, either as to quantity, quality, or

66

"had, agreeable to their respective dates, "been carefully viewed and examined ""by him, and that they were found to ""be very good; and further, that he "believes the prices, as far as his inqui"ries could ascertain, were reasonable,

66

as being rated at the current price "which they bore at the time they were ""supplied by the apothecary general." "From this form of certificate we infer, "that the very articles named in the invoices "had been examined by the physician.ge"neral on the dates of their being placed "in the packages; and that the current

tate of price on the days of the supply "was that which was certified by him. "The present form of the certificate states, "that the physican general and surgeon ge"neral" have, from time to time, care

68

fully examined the different articles "contained in the account, and that "they have uniformly found them of the ""best quality." Whatever inference

may be drawn from the words used in "this certificate, we learn from Mr. Clarke, "that there is no security but the " inte

grity of the parties employed," that the articles which have been inspected are the articles which had been issued "from the elaboratory.The present "certificate further states, that "having

66

checking the apothecary general's charges, he always takes into consi"deration the variation in the prices of "the medicines." Ou an inspection, "however, of the two accounts which we have procured from the treasury, one of "which amounts to about forty-four thou "sand five hundred pounds, and the other to upwards of seventy-five thousand pounds, we cannot find, except in one or "two instances, that there is any variation in the prices charged in each year; notwithstanding the supply is extended through the whole of the year; and we have understood that, in one material "article at last, that of bark, there was " a very great variation in its price during of the years. -We have remarked ❝ too, on an investigation of those bills, "that the prices charged by the apothecary general have been uniformly admitted; "for we can find no alteration or deduction in any one of the charges. Yet this allowance for the delay in payment is not "added by the physician and surgeon ge"neral at the end of the account as a per

66

66

one

centage for a certain specified period on the sum total of it, but forms, part of "the charges on some or all of the items; "and must be considered, therefore, as being left to the discretion of the apothe It is obvious how difficary general.cult it must be to check such charges, by comparing them with the charges made by others in the trade. But, conceiving that the most satisfactory mode of doing "it would be to compare the total amount charged by the apothecary general for certain invoices of medicines furnished "to the army, with the total amount "which others would have charged for "the same under similar circumstances,

we submitted particular invoices of me"dicines, furnished by the apothecary ge "neral in the years 1804 and 1805. but "without his prices affixed, to the con"sideration of two or three eminent drug

gists and chemists, and we desired them to aflix the prices which the best articles of the kind bore in those years. And, "for a future comparison, we procured "from the ordnance and transport boards

on an inspection of the two columns in "which the different rates of charge of "the apothecary general and of Messrs. "Kempson and Co. are given, that the

rates of the first are almost in every "instance higher than those of Messrs. Kempson, and, on the amount of the whole, are 40 per-cent. higher than "theirs yet Mr. Kempson says, that his prices would have afforded him something handsome in the way of profit; and that the price of bark, particularly, is taken at a high valu "ation."The blank bills submitted to Messrs. Godfrey and Cooke, and to "Messrs. Corbyn and Co., also chemists "and druggists in London, were copi d "from invoices of much larger quantities "than that submitted to Mr. Kempson, "and were selected from the apothecary "general's bills for 1804 and 1805. Oa

cary general; but that, on the wh "his prices exceed those of Messrs. Godje ana Cooke by 41 per-cent, and of Messrs. Corbyn and Co. by 18 per-cent in the year 1804; and in 1805 they exceed the first by 37, and the second by 19 per-cent. Some explanation, however, is necessary in this place; it is well known that "the prices which merchants and tradesmen charge for the articles they furnish are, "in a great measure, regulated by the quantity furnished, by the credit which "is given, and by the risk of payment; and, without a consideration of these "circumstances, no comparison can be justly made. In the present case, we "learn from Mr. Cooke, the partner of "Mr. Godfrey, that his prices are fixed

"and sometimes not until two years after "the supply was made. With respect to "Messrs. Corbyn and Co.'s prices, it is to "be understood that, in fixing them, they "have proceeded on the principle of the "articles being furnished to apothecaries, "to whom they give twelve months credit: "but they look on the risk, it seems, in "this case, to be considerable, and they "have taken it accordingly into their valuation. They have also calculated their "prices on the small quantities of me"dicines usually furnished to apothecaries; "bat if such large quantities were furnish"ed, as were described to be furnished in "a year by the apothecary general, Mr. Messer (of Messrs. Corbyn's house) thought "that Messrs. Corbyn's prices should be "reduced 10 per cent. on drugs, and 20 per cent. on chemical preparations; and, were the payment delayed for eighteen mouths, or two years, Mr. Messer says, taking into consideration the quantity of "the supply, with certainty of payment, "that he still thinks the prices which his "house had affixed to the bills ought to satisfy any person. On the whole, there"fore, we may consider that the prices of "Messrs. Godfrey and Cooke, and of "Messrs. Corbyn and Co. uuder the circum

cumstances of a wholesale supply, and 18 months credit, without risk, would not have materially differed from each "other. But these are the circumstances "under which the apothecary general has "furnished medicines, &c. to the army. "and these prices are about one fifth higher "than those which we have last considered.

paid by 90 days bills, but without interest. "Such a difference in the time of payment may sufficiently account, perhaps, for "the apothecary general's exces, of charge "beyond the apothecaries company The "ordnance medicine bills are also made out

quarterly, and, after being certified by' "the surgeon general belonging to that de"partment, are sent to the surveyor gene"ral's office, and are discharged in course. "In this case too, therefore, an addition ought to be made to the prices, in order to make a correct comparison between "them and those of the apothecary gene"ral; but this addition must be much less "than sixty per cent.-The result of this

checking the account, it would have ap"peared that, even taking into considera"tion the delay of payment, the prices of "the apothecary general have exceeded, "BY ONE-FIFTH AT LEAST, what "should have been allowed him.-We have

already noticed that the subject of the supply of surgical instruments for the "use of the army, by the apothecary gene"ral, had heretofore been under the con"sideration of the lords of the treasury,

and that their lordships were pleased to approve of his continuing to supply these "articles.-In Mr. Garnier's representation

"to

their lordships, after stating the grounds on which he claimed the right, "under his patent, to supply surgical in"struments (which we have before alluded "to), he insists further, "that he has an ""equal right to be paid for them in the ""same manner as his predecessors have been paid, that is, by charging the m""struments to government at a fair pro▾ fit, as between tradesman and consumer, and not by a nett commission "on the first cost of the commodity," "which it appears, it had been proposed to

"Mr. Garnier added, "that such a plan,

if adopted, would have been attended ""with considerable loss to government; "for that then the instruments must have been bought on the same credit as government took of him, and that Savigny and Evans were the only two persons in the trade competent to give credit; and he alledges that these per66 "sons' charge to him on an annual credit, "would have exceeded, by 10 per cent. "what Mr. Garnier charged, which, ad"""ded to the proposed commission, would "have made a real loss to government of " 20 per cent." Mr. Garnier subjoined a statement of what he then (1797)

"

charged for each set of instruments cal"led capitals, and what would have been "the charge if the plan bad been adopted. "In this he states, that his charge was "£17 178 per set; but that, if bought on "an annual credit, the charge to him would "be 19 9s to which adding 10 per cent. "commission, the whole price would be "£21 89, or a loss to government of "3 118, (i. e.) 20 per cent.-It is mani"fest, on a view of this statement, that it "cannot be correct; for it assumes the

point in question, and proceeds on the

supposition that the instruments could not "have been procured by Mr. Garnier at "less than 10 per cent. above the price "which, even under the circumstance of "the long delay in payment, was charged "by him to government. That which we "c are about to state will shew that he was

altogether mistaken in his repre-entation on this point. For we have examined "Mr. Evans, one of the tradesmen to whom "Mr. Garnier alludes, on the subject. We "selected Mr. Evans, because it appeared

that his house has furnished surgical in"struments to the navy hospitals, under "the orders of the transport board, for a

considerable number of years. We have "confined our inquiries relative to Mr.

Evans's prices to the period subsequent to "1802, because, by a prior regulation, the "'instruments which are to constitute what 86 are called full sets of capitals, and port"able sets of capitals, are particularly cau

merated; and therefore, when Mr. Evans "speaks of these different collections, it is evident that he speaks of the same as are charged in the apothecary general's bills by those names. In these bills for the years 1804 and 1805, we find that the charge for full sets is always nineteen, pounds nineteen shillings each, and thirTen pounds five shillings for each set of portables. During this period, Mr.

sever thousand pounds, with no ultimate "risk of payment. His answer shews, "that under all these circumstances, he "would not only not have added to the prices "before named by him, but that he would "have deducted from the total amount

certainly not less than 5 per-cent." "This, therefore, ought to have been the "principle on which the apothecary general "should have made his charges; for it is "the rule of charging between the trades "man and the consumer, for which he "tends. His charge, however, for a

set of capitals, is about 19 per-cent, ab "Mr. Evans's, and 40 per-cent. above ðir, "Evans's charge for a set of portables: and "these prices have been allowed (as it "should seem without inquiry) by those "whose duty it was to check the charge"We have learned another fact from Mr. "Evans deserving of attention, also, ou a

view of the prices which have been char

ged, and allowed, in the apothecary ge. "neral's bills. The screw tourniquets, "for which the apothecary general always charges twelve shillings and sixpence each, are sold singly by Mr. Evans at ten shil lings and sixpence, and under a sort of contract with the transport board, are Supplied by him to the navy at eight shilJings each; being an addition to Mr. Evans's prices of above 50 per-cent. by the apothecary general, as a compensation **for an extension of credit of 15 or 18 "months. The evidence which we have thus produced shews, we think, a very blameable inattention in checking the apo thecary general's charges in respect of surgical Instruments; for the slightestin quiries would have enabled those to whose consideration the prices were reterred, to have ascertained that the ohar