SIR JOHN KEY'S CONTRACT FOR THE GOVERNMENT STATIONERY.

THE circumstances relative to Sir John Key's contract for stationery, and the appointment of his son to the place of Storekeeper in the Ste- tionery-office, have been fully developed in the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into them. The nominal contractor was Sir .John Key's brother, .‘tr. Jonathan Muekleston Key, who lives at Thornbury in Gloucestershire; anti had nothing more to do with the performance of the contract, than that of signing his name to it. lids gentleman wisely begged to be ex- cused from answering any question on the subject ; for thu very suffi- cient reason which appears in the following, and only piece of evidence with which he favoured the Committee. He was asked- " Are you the person who entered into a contract with the tit:itionery-ofliee in July 1632, to supply certain portions of stationery ?"—" .1.30fiwe I answer any questions, perhaps I may he allowed to say a weld or two. I understand that a person who has contracted with the Government, allowing a Member of Parliament to be a party to it, is liable to heavy penalties, which I was not aware of before. I trust no Member will put a question to me, a candid answer to which may bring me under any penalties to which I may be perso- nally liable under the statutes."

" You arc at liberty to state any circumstance you wish, to elucidate this contract, or the appointment of your nephew ; the Committee do not wish to press you further than you may wish to go ?"—" I am ready to answer any questions, but I may be ignorant of the law and the effect of the answers I may give."

[The witness was directed to withdraw. He was again called in, and in- formed by the Chairman, that the Committee, having considered the observa- tion he had made, did not propose to press him with any questions.]

Sir John Key, in the whole of his evidence, speaks of the contract as his brother's ; but Mr. Church, the Comptroller of the Stationery- office, Mr. Arbuthnot, Mr. Charles Wood's private secretary—every body, indeed, in the stationery trade and out of it, except Mr. Charles 'Wood and Earl Grey—were aware that Sir John himself was the real • -contractor. The Committee, in their Report, say-

" Sir John Key has taken the same part in all the derails of the contracts of 1&33 and 1832., as he did in that of 1b31; the paper has been supplied 11 om his stores, and delivered by his carts and servants; he generally brought the bills, drawn in his brother's name, for acceptance, and received and made all the coin- ' munieations from and to the Office which became necessary in performance of the duty imposed by the contract."

The office of Storekeeper became vacant by the resignation of Mr. Lawrence, on the 1st July ; and on that day Mr. Charles Wood di- rrectecl' his private secretary, Mr. Arbuthnot, to write to Mr. Church, the Comptroller of the -Stationery-office, for information respecting the .duties of the Storekeeper, and what qualifications were necessary in the persons filling it. Mr. Church, upon receipt of this letter, went to the I Treasury, where he saw Mr. Arbuthnot. The following account of I -Ins communication to that gentleman is taken from the Report of the Committee.

" Mr. Church observed to Mr. Arbuthnot, that the persons who had been theretofore appointed Storekeepers were generally worn-out stationers, too old to • -learn or unlearn, and, from the nature of their earlier occupation, persons who must have formed connexions with, or perhaps incurred obligations to, private

stationer: ; .so that, however pure their conduct might be in office, they were always liable to imputations of partiality: he therefore expressed his opinion, that it would be a leas evil if they could find a young man (and Mr. Arbuthnot states that the age of twenty-four was mentioned) not a stationer, who had an -acquaintance- with generale:airless, who wasof active habits, and who, if he gave tip his whole time to it, might very soon become an efficient servant. Mr. Arbuthnot told Mr. Church that he would communicate what he said to Mr. Wood, and that that would be quite sufficient.

On the same day, Sir John Key applied to Earl Grey to give his sole the -vacant office ; which his Lordship appears to have promised with

little difficulty, for on the 4th July Sir John received a letter from Mr. Wood, stating that • Earl Grey would appoint his son, and desiringirtO know his age and name. But the circumstances attending this minus part of the transaction will be best seen by an extract from the evidence of Sir John himself.

" When did you first make an application for your son for the office of Stets. keeper ?"—" I will state every circumstance connected with it: hearing or the vacancy of Storekeeper in the Stationery-office, I immediately applied to Lent Grey for that appointment on behalf of my son." " Can you state the date??"—" I do not know, but it was the begintring& July." " Did you make that application personally, or in writing ?"—" By letter: stated that, having heard that a vacancy had occurred in the office of Store• keeper in the Stationery-office, i should be obliged if his Lordship would do ens the favour of conferring it upon my sum, who was competent to perform the duties of the office ; to which I received an answer' iu a few days, from Ma, Charles Wood, stating Lord Grey's compliance with my wish, uud congrats-• luting me upon the appointment for my son." " Have yen that letter ?"—" I have not : I immediately went to Mr. Wdodrs, and thanked hint for it, and told him that niy son was a very steady young man; indeed that had been said in Lord Grey's letter; and I requested to •Ictdrte whether the age was of any consequence, whether the age was eighteen,4fe twenty, or twenty-one, or twenty-two? He said that he was not certain that it w" provided the person was competent and active, and equal to the (Intim/ of Ste( &keeper." 0 When did that conversation take place between you and Mr. Charier, Weed :"--" After the receipt of his letter ; I should imagine about the first week in July." " Is that letter in existence from Mr. Charles Wood ?"—" No, it is not ;. it was e private letter, headed private.' That. letter was dated the 4th of July ; but w hat day I called upon him I do not know, but I know that 1 kept the letter !v., or three days in my pocket before I called upon him." Meru ./i./ you desttoy its"—" I believe the day befhre yesterday." " There was a letter front Mr. Church, in which he refers to a certain rumonn; in a paragraph in the Age newspaper?"—" I apprehend so; but I will state all the circumstalices I know. I went to Mr. Wood and asked him whethee the age was a matter of consequence; and in consequence of that he made a* application to Mr. Church. I called upon hint two or three days after, andle read an extract from a letter of Mr. Church to him, wherein Mr. Church state& that it was quite indispensable that the person should be twenty-one years:of age ; that he had various onerous duties to perform of great responsibilityjet examining the paper, and so forth ; and that It was indispensable that he shotild be of age. That beings me to the only unpleasant part of the affair to nun. I amps that I did so deceive Mr. Wood as to the age, that I gave hint to understand that he teas qt. age, and I certainly left Mr. Wood under the 2/7i.* ptessian that my son was twent y -one years Vatic." " Yon conreged the impression to him in direct words, that your son Watt twenty one."—" Yes, I did."

" Will you state what passed letween you and Mr. Wood after that point

was ?"—" lotting further ; I gave the name of my son, and left;

and he said, you shall hear of the appointment.' "

" I line soon :direr that coRversatiou (lid you hear of the appointment ?"—" I called upon Jr.3 Wood on the Itith, and received it front lam. And I should state, that though f ti.ke the whole ent ire !dame upon myself of :Hr. Wood sup- posing my son a 112 of age, yet I did under the impression that he was on a misapprelleia ion ; !etc:lose I have grit the panties Will) had been Storekeepers there, is.t. Iedv recently, but for twenty years past, and 1 have no hesitation is s illg, rh::t I can prove hint to he Tilt' 111'!,t competent drat I.as been there donne the (ine• ; and fe,-ling that, I f; ss that mg pet I epl le,,ps. and my (ma:1(1y to yet hint settled comfbrtably, did lead ate to leave Mr. 1Vood wider or false impression."

Sir jam Key then went on to say, that lie made a particular request to Mr. Church, to examine the paper which would be sent in by hie brother ; as it would be exceedingly unpleasant that his son should have to perform that duty; and to this request Mr. Church acceded. This is Sir John Key's account of the matter • but Mr. Church gives a rather different version of it. He affirms that Sir John called upon him and said- " You will be surprised to hear that the Treasury have appointed a friend of mine to the Storekeepership.' I asked who he was? He said, He is 1. relation of mine ; ' adding, ' I first applied Ar the place for his brother, wits was nineteen, but your letter put an end to that.' We sent for the Aye [mean.. ing at the Tieasurv], and saw toe paragraph ; but he said, ' As this young man had a Ina.ther, whom I did not at first wish to be appointed, and who was twenty-two, and without employment, I 'got it fur him.' I then said, Bat. Sir John, is this young man a relation of yours;' and he said, Yes.' Tasked if he was a brother. He said, ' I said, ' Is he of the same name?' and be said, Yes.' I replied, That is unfortunate ; bec muse if be is your relatidn, aml of the same name, he must stand in the same relationship to your brother, and of course in that ease will have to examine stores sent in by him ; I masa take same precaution to prevent such an examination.' Sir John Key then said, - I suggested that to the Treasury, and they said you would be able to de it.' Si; Jeiln Key further said, I stated to the Treasury, that as soon as ever my lumber had completed his contract, I meant to leave the stationery ',umlaut and go into an East India house, and the young man of nineteen is now work- ing in that house.' My observation in answer to that was, that I thought it was an odd time for any person to go into an East India house; that those at4te were in would be glad to get out.' "

" Did the conversation end there ? "--" It (lid."

" Were you informed dating this conversation that this young man was asnit of Sir John Key ?"—" Certainly not. I had not a notion of it."

" This was about the lath or 13th of Jody?"—" I believe it was.",

" Did he state with whom he had a conversation at the Treasury ? "—" The conversation he had with me referred to his conversations with Mr. Charles Wood ; I never heard him allude to any other person."

The letter of Mr. Church above alluded to was written in reply' to one received from Mr. Arbuthnot, in which he inquired whether there would he any objection to the appointment of a young man of nineteen to the office of Storekeeper. This was Mr. Church's reply.

" My dear Sir—The Storekeeper of this office has to give sureties, sign bonds, and execute many other securities, for which nonage would disquafify him. Perhaps you may not be aware how much this office is watched. The same description of persons deal with us as deal with the proprietors of news. papers. I will only refer to a paragraph in the Age of last Sunday, whick stated that Sit John Key, a contractor (which, by the by, he is not), has ap- plied to the Treasury for an appointment for a friend of his. I merely state thee, to show how necessary it is to he cautious; and that to a situation likethii4 it to ui ',Ant a ni in who out only is fit, but who will appear to t

to others."

The paragraph in the Age alluded to in this letter was as follows- " Under the corrupt system,' a member of Parliament could not be a public contractor, or supply th Government with goods as a tradesman ; but it seems the Reformed Parliament has corrected this mistake ; for the City Ministerial Member, Sir John Key, it is reported, is the principal contractor for supplying the Government with paper. This is not all; there has, within these few days, occurred a vacancy in the Stationery-office, occasioned by the resignation of the Storekeeper ; and Sir John Key has used his influence at the Treasury in favour of a friend, who is to be (or perhaps is by this time) appointed his successor. It will be the duty of this individual to examine the goods sent into the office by his patron. We hope Mr. Hume will look into this."

The number of the Age containing this paragraph was seen lying on . Mr. Wood's table, and, as appears from Sir John Key's evidence, be- came the subject of some remarks between himself and that gentle- man. Sir John had the assurance to say, that the fact of a statement appearing in the Age was pinta facie evidence of its falsehood, although ' be knew all the while that the paragraph in question contained nothing but what was strictly trite. Mr. Wood, however, was not induced, by Mr. Church's caution and the other suspicious circumstances of the case, to make any further inquiries into it vso the appointment of Master Key was regularly made out. Mr. Wood says, that as he knew Sir John Key was in Parliament, which he could not be if be were a con-

. tractor, he did not trouble himself about that part of the business ; and moreover that he was misled by that passage in Mr. Church's letter ex- : tracted above, in which he says that Sir John Key was not a contactor (" which, by the by, he is not"). But Mr. Church denies that he meant to convey the impression that Sir John had nothing to do with the contract, but merely that he was not the nominal contractor ; and Le actually told Mr. Arbuthnot that the appointment would make a "devil of a row." This part of the transaction is thus summarily de- tailed in the Report of the Committee.

"From the evidence of Mr. Arbuthnot, it appears that the impression on his mind, previously to the 9th July, was, that Sir John Key was concerned in the contract with the Stationery-office, and that his impression was confirmed by Mr. Church's letter of that date. Both Mr. Church and Mr. Arbuthnot were eopinion that Sir John Key was concerned in the contract, but that opinion WAS not communicated by them to Mr. Wood. "Mr. Arbuthnot says with reference to Mr. Key's appointment, "Mr. Church told me privately that he considered it objectionable." Being asked, " Did he say it would produce a devil of a row, or some such expression as that ?" he re- plies, "I dare say he may have said so ;" it was before the appointment was completed; but after the order for its being made out had been given. Mr. Ar- buthnot further states, that Mr. Church did not state his objections for the par- . pose of his mentioning them to Mr. Wood; and he conceived he wished bin' not $a do so, because, as the appointment had been made, it might have been con- sidered obtrusive on his (Mr. Church's) part ; and that Mr. Church's impres- sion was, that he had already done his duty to the Treasury, by stating, in his letter to Mr. Arbuthnot, that great caution was necessary in making such an appointment ; and indeed Mr. Aihnthnot supposed Mr. Wood was aware of all this before, for lie says, " I thought Mr. Wood was aware of all that; it ap- pears he wa.s not." " Mr. Arbuthnot adds, that he thought Mr. Wood had been in communication both with Mr. Church and Sir John Key previous to the appointment, and therefore that he had got all the information he considered necessary ; and Mr. Arbuthinot being also under the impression that there was a dijference with re- gard to the appointment between Mr. Church and the Treasury, that Oh shit account it was a delicate subject to mention to Air. Wood, after the appoint- . went had been completed."

Mr. Arbuthnot had good reason to believe that there was a difference between Mr. Church and the Treasury relative to this appointment ; for when Mr. Wood gave him instructions to make it out, he said to Lim, " We are going to do this in spite of Church." In fact, so far from Mr. Church having had any band in the appointment, it appears from his evidence, that he is scrupulously excluded from all interference in the nomination of even the humblest clerk in his office, although, as be said, " he always found that if any thing went wrong he was blamed." The appointments were made to go as far as possible in keeping up Parliamentary influence ; and thus of course it happened, that the history of the Stationery-office has been, to use Mr. Church's expressions, "an unfortunate one," and that the persons employed in it " did certainly job at no small rate." The general management of this department is now, however, ma- terially improved. The paper only costs about half the price which it formerly cost ; and we are told, in the Second Report of the Com- mittee, which refers to the present state of this department, "That the charge of a corrupt system in the management of the Stationery- office has entirely failed ; nor could they, with justice towards the Stationery- office and to the person who holds the principal situation in the administration of it, abstain from declaring, that, upon the whole, the evidence which has come before your Committee has left a favourable impression upon their minds with respect to the general good management of the department, and of its utility to the public."

The appointment of Master Key must then be taken as an excep- tion to the " general good management of the department," as most assuredly " public utility" was not consulted in it, however it might serve to show that Earl Grey was not ungrateful for Sir John Key's - civilities at the Mansionhouse and support in the House of Commons.

In the extracts which we have made from the Report and Evidence

, published by the Committee on this subject, our readers will perceive that Sir John Key has made numerous statements contradicted by other witnesses. There are several minor instances of the same disregard of

s truth, not essentially connected with the subject-matter of the Report. For instance, he told the Committee, that his parental anxiety to see his son comfortably settled, induced him to tell the falsehood to Mr. Wood ; but be told Mr. Church that his son had 8001. per annum, and that he wanted the appointment to keep him out of mischief. He also told Mr. Church that his son, who was nineteen years old, was in an East India house; but the young man himself told the Committee that he never was there at all. The instances might be multiplied, but we apprehend that these are sufficient.