"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 valu *ation. They have also calculated their prices on the small quantities of me"dicines usually furnished to apothecaries; "but if such large quantities were furnish"ed, as were described to be furnished in "a year by the apothecary general, Mr. Mes ser (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 months, 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. "We observe, on an inspection of the "medicine bills of the ordnance and trans"port boards, for the years 1804 and 1805, "that the prices of some of the more valu̟"able articles, unlike what we had observ. "ed in the apothecary general's bi ls, vary frequently in the course of the same year. This circumstance, at the same time that "it proved the inefficiency of the check on "his prices, made it difficult for us to com " pare them with those charge to the two "boards. We have extracted the prices, "however, of some of the articles most commonly in use, from his bill for the "month of July, in the year 1805, and the prices for the same kind of articles charg "ed to the ordnance board by Messrs. Bush "and Howard, and to the transport board by the apothecaries company in the same year and month, and we have arranged "them in separate columns. This arrangement shews, that the prices of the apo " ་་ ་ thecary general do not much exceed those "of the apothecaries company; but that "they exceed those of Messrs. Bush and "Howard nearly sixty per cent. It must "not be overlooked, however, that the "bills of the apothecaries company are de"livered in quarterly to the transport board, and, after having been examined, are 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 excess of charge "beyond the apothecaries company. The "ordnance medicine bills are also made out 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 bave 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 in-.. "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 "allow bim, to the extent of 10 per cent. 66 "Mr. Garnier added, "that such a plan, ""if adopted, would have been attended 66 66 with considerable loss to government; "" for that then the instruments must have "been bought on the same credit as go"""vernment took of him, and that Savigny and Evans were the only two per""sons in the trade competent to give """credit; and he alledges that these per"sons' charge to him on an annual credit, s" would have exceeded, by 10 per cent. ""what Mr. Garnier charged, which, ad"ded to the proposed commission, would " 86 "have made a real loss to government of "" 20 per cent." Mr. Garnier subjoined of 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 had been adopted. "In this he states, that his charge was "₤17 17s per set; but that, if bought on annual credit, the charge to him would "be £19 9s to which adding 10 per cent. commission, the whole price would be "21 8s, or a loss to government of "£3 11s, (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 "are about to state will shew that he was altogether mistaken in his representation 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 are called full sets of capitals, and portable sets of capitals, are particularly enu"merated; and therefore, when Mr. Evans speaks of these different collections, it is evident that he speaks of the same as are sedan the apothecary general's bills In these bills for the 1805, we find that the ts is always nineteen Sillings each, and thirhillings for each set of Ting this period, Mr. "Evans has charged sixteen pounds sixteen shillings for the first, and nine pounds "nine shillings for the second, including in "both the price of the cases. These are "Mr. Evans's prices, however, when these "articles were sold on the usual credit; "and therefore it may be remarked, that they can be no fit criterion by which to judge of the apothecary general's prices, "for that he was seldom paid under eighteen months, and sometimes not until two years after the supply. To meet this objection, Mr. Evans was asked, what "would have been his prices :nder such a "circumstance? But adding to the question 66 at the same time (what was the fact in "respect of the apothecary general), that "the supply of surgical instruments in each year had amounted, on an average, to 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 con"tends. His charge, however, for a fuil "set of capitals, is about 19 per-cent. above "Mr. Evans's, and 40 per-cent. above Mr. "Evans's charge for a set of portutles: 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, on 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 ench "are sold singly by Mr. Evans at ten shitlings and sixpence, and under a sort of contract with the transport board, are supplied by him to the navy at eight shil"lings 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 to the public interest in making such a provision. The apothecary general's bills "for 1804 and 1905 inciule large charges "for sugar, pearl barley, oatmeal, paper, "sheets, bottles. packing-cases, &c, Ma66 n" of these articles are not usually pro"vided by apothecaries, and therefore it may be imagined, that neither the play"sician general nor surgeon general can be very competent to judge of the propriety "of the prices charged for then. Had they " inquired, however, into the matter, they would have found, perhaps as we "have found, that even admitting an extra period. It must be observed, that in "Messrs. Trotters' course of dealings with government they have been used, at "least during 1804, calculating on a year's credit to government, to charge "about 20 per cent. on the money price of "the articles furnished by them; yet their charge for hospital sheets is seven shillings "and four pence, at the time that the apothecary general's charge is ten shillings;· "and, when the apothecary general charges eleven pence per pound for Muscovado sugar, Messrs. Trotters' charge only eight pence per pound: their charge for corks "is two shillings and four pence per gross; "the apothecary general's six shillings; he charges for bottles at the rate of 60 shillings "pergross for quarts, and 56shillings per gross for pints, at the time when, we learn from "Messrs. Harrisons, the first were sold by "them at 40 shillings per gross, and the second for 36 shillings per gross on a cre"dit of six months, and with a discount, "for money, of one shilling and sixpence 66 per gross; and these prices we understand to have been the current prices of the "trade for the last four years. The market price for oatmeal in 1804, as is to be seen "in the returns, fluctuated between 17 and 23 shillings, and averaged during the 12 "months neteen shillings; and for Scotch barley, between fourteen and twenty-two shilings, and averaged during the same period eighteen shillings; yet the first ar"ticle is charged by the apothecary general, throughout the year, at twenty-six shitlings per cwt. and the second at twentyseven shillings per cwt. The total of the charges for this description of articles "makes comparatively but a small part, certainly, of the certified amount of the apothecary general's bills; yet it con"firms our opinion of the inefficiency of "the check on his charges, and of the great "loss which the public has sustained from a "loose observance of the order of the "treasury directing the physician general "and surgeon general, in considering the justness of his prices, to pay attention to the delay of payment to him." Now, Sir, unless this Report of the Commissioners is false; unless they, or the persons they examined, have lied, what you assert, respecting the amount of Mr. Garnier's gains, is not true, but, on the contrary, is greatly and manifestly wide of the truth.I stated Mr. Garnier to pocket of the public money 12,000 and some odd pounds a year. This I took from his own amount of profts for the last three years. You deny that this is a fair way of calculating; and, you assert, that the average of his gains is not nearly so great. If, by an average, you mean the average upon all the 74 years that the patent and monopoly have been in the family, your assertion is, doubtless, true; because when the patent was first granted, the army did not, in all probability, amount, upon a run of years, to thirty thousand men, instead of three hundred thousand men, as it now does.' But, you well know, that I could have 16. such average in contemplation; you must know, that what I meant to state, and” what I did state, was the sun he now re ceives and clears annually; and, in making. this statement, how could I act fairer, than to take the average of the three last year, all the years of which I, or the parliament, possessed an authentic and acknowledged amount of profits ? You tell me, Sus, that Mr. Garaier is to be looked upon merely as a merc's at ; as a wholesale dealer. You make him cuat his skin, as a "gentleman of liberal edu cation and generous habits," and place bim be:ore me as a mere trader; a Diere wholesale apothecary; a worker of the pestle and mortar; a downright tradesman nd shop-keeper. Boastful and high, your first's a country 'Squite; "Your next's a tradesman, meek and mach a liar." I do not impute the latter quality to Mr. Garnier; but, I think, it will appear to the reader, that the Commissioners do really charge him with having, for his own interest sake, stated, in a most formal manner, chat was not true. But, Sir, making Mr. Garnier a tradesman will not answer your purpose, unless you could show, that he had no monopoly; unless you could show, that he ran a fair race with other tradesmen; unless you could remove the fact, proved before the Commissioners, that he sold his goods to the public at a much higher price than those goods might have been supplied from other tradesmen's shops. the I stated that Mr. Garnier pocketed £12,000 a year of the public money, with out rendering any services whatever in return. This is my statement. You call these £12,000 profils; and tell me, that I may as well charge any merchant with pocketing the public money to the amount of the annual profits of his concerns; fallacy of which, the miserable sophistry of which, we shall see in a moment.In the first place, the merchant, properly so called (and when properly so called no character is more respectable ;)' the merchant has no monopoly; there are no part of the public fools enough to have entered into a bond to deal with nobody but him for merchandize. The merchant has to look for customers; he has a competition to contend with; and, there is, all through, a rigorous inquiry into the quantity and quality of his goods. All these circumstances are wanting to make the case of Mr. Garnier like that of the merchant. received this one-fifth clear into his pocket. Now, divide 67,340 by 5, and you wui see, that, over and above his profits as a trades man, supplying so sure a customer, he has, of the public money, for the last thirteen years, pocketted 13.468 pounds a year, for which he has never rendered the public any service, in any way whatever. Either, Sir, this statement is true, or the Report, signed by the seven Commissioners, and laid before parliament, is false. Yet, Sir, he, notwithstanding his "liberal education aud generous habits," condescends to receive, besides this immense sum, ten shillings a day, as an officer upon the staff of the army; yes, as a staff officer, though you yourself declare him to be purely a gentleman, and quite incapable of any official attendance of any sort. Sir, you would fain have it believed, that Mr. Garnier cares little about the preserva tion of his patent. If this were the case, and if his profits were no greater than what they ought to be, would he not have resigned the patent long ago, and, if he had chosen to continue in the trade, have met the com petition of other tradesmen? But, Sir, not only is the presumptive evidence against this assertion of Mr. Garnier's disinterestedness, we have positive proof of his rigid adherence to the privileges granted in his patent. In the year 1797, at the end of 63 years enjoy. ment of this lucrative monopoly, it was proposed, or hinted at, that the supply of sur gical instruments had better be taken out of his hands; whereupon he wrote a letter, asserting his privilege to the exclusive supply of those instruments; stating certain facts as to the comparative cheapness of his arti cles, which statement the Commissioners have proved to be untrue; and, concluding his letter, with saying, that he “humbly hopes that he shall be permitted still to supply the said articles." Does this, Sir, discover a carelessness about the gains arising from the patent? The ageut, Clarke, swore, that Mr. Garnier never meddled with any part of the business; but, you see, becould meddle, when the object was to preserve a small part of the monopoly that appeared to be in danger. Is this the mark of “ a libe ral education and of generous habits?" It is stated in your letter, Sir, that one half of the gains are given up, by Mr. Gar nier, to his agents. But, what is that to the public? The reason for this participation is manifest enough. "Snacks" is the old Now, then, as to the sum which Mr. Garnier annually packets, without any services rendered to the suffering public in return. And here, Sir, we will take the average of the last 13 years: his average charge against the public has been £67,340. Upon which the commissioners state, that he has charged one-fifth of the gross amount more than other tradesmen, in the same line, would, under circumstan-word; without snacks, in such a case, Mr. ces exactly similar, have charged the public. Consequently he has received all the profits that he ought, as a tradesman, to bave had; and has, besides those profits, Garnier could not possibly carry the thing is it not upon this principle of snacks that all the extortions on the public are prac tised; and, without snacks, would the pub lic treasure be, in any case, wasted as it is, and the taxes increased to the present insupportable weight? In a letter, from you, Sir, I should not have expected the assertion, that any thing granted by patent was as sacred as a man's freehold estate, much less should I have expected to see you apply this similitude to the grant in question, the very nature of which has been changed by the lapse of time and the change of circumstances. The grant to Mr. Garnier was made in the year 1747. Itis notorious, that, at that time, it could not be in the contemplation of any one, that the army would, even in time of ordinary war, exceed forty thousand men. Time and circumstances have quite changed the effect of the grant, and, would not any man, who had imbibed high and generous feelings from a "liberal education," have been contented with the grant as it was at first intended ? Instead of which, Mr. Garnier has not only grasped at the whole of the profits arising from this change, but has also procured him self to be placed as an officer upon the staff of the army, at the pay of ten shillings a day, Freehold estate, indeed! Oh what a proof of the humbled, the debased state, of this once-high-spirited nation! From no other idea than from that of the people being lost to all sense of injury and of insult could such an assertion have been made. Suppose the king were advised to grant, by way of patent, pensions to the amount of all the taxes now raised, and of that of all the incomes of all the people in the country, those of the patentees excepted. Would you still assert that these patents were as sacred as the deeds of freehold estates? Would you still say, that the nation would be bound by such patents, and that to object to the continuance of such abominable extortion, would be to discover a spirit hostile to the constitution of England? Sir, this nation has so long tamely submitted to insult from those who wallow in luxury upon the fruit of its labour, that I shall not say, that, any thing will rouze it to a proper expression of its indignation; but, if any thing can so rouze it; if it be not doomed to the vilest slavery that ever disgraced mankind, language and sentiments such as you, upon this occasion, have made use of, must have that desirable effect. you inform me) Mr. Garnier to go on in his old way; hence you infer, and appear to suppose that I shall agree, that the army could not be supplied upon better terms. Why, Sir, the same argument would apply to the ten shillings a day to Mr. Garnier, as an officer upon the staff of the army; it would apply to the question of surgical instruments, in which the Commisioners have proved, that the then ministry (the Pitts and the Roses and the Longs) were grossly negligent of their duty; it would apply to all possible cases; it would apply to the question of inquiry into the conduct of the Convention-making generals; it is, in short, saying to the people: " the ministers think "the thing right, and, therefore, right it "must be.' But, Sir, I can suggest motives, other than that of the public good, which might lead to this decision of the ministry in favour of Mr. Garnier. No small part of the ministry are themselves patent placemen; and those who are not so themselves have children, or other relations, who are. To have trenched upon Mr. Garnier's patent; to have bound him down to fair profits, might have led to an inquiry into the origin of theirs, and into the amount of the fees, or other emoluments, attached to them. Mr. Garnier can plead no previous services, rendered either by himself or his father, as the foundation of his grant; nor can any of the ministry, for any of the patents, which they and their relations hold. This, Sir, appears to me to be a much better reason for the indulgence they have shown towards their brother patentee, than the one which you have given, and which you really appear to have expected to prove satisfactory to my readers. I think I have now, Sir, made good my statement, and have even shown, that that statement was far within bounds, instead of being, as you describe it, a gross exaggera tion. A similar fate attends the indiscreet friends of the DUKE OF YORK, whom I shall prove to be in the receipt of a greater income, arising from the taxes, than was stated by me at the Winchester meeting. These indiscreet friends have affected to impute i norance to me; but, I shall prove upon them, ignorance or falsehood as gross as ever yet made its way into print. Of much greater importance to us is this subject of a waste of the means of the nation, than are all the politics and wars of the continent of Europe, or of the whole foreign world; for, what is it to us, who gains or who loses, who is set up or who pulled down in Spain or elsewhere, if we are to be slaves; and, it must be evident to |