Commons Sitting of 25 February 1811

THE KINS'S ILLNESS IN 1804.
Mr. Whitbreadrose, in consequence of the notice which he had given a few days ago, to submit to the consideration of the House a matter which, he no doubt, would be regarded as highly interesting to the feelings, and of the greatest importance to the interests of that House, and of the country. This position, when he should state what he had to offer to the House, would not, he trusted, adroit of doubt or contradiction. When future historians, after the party heats and political animosities of recent times, have been consigned to that silent oblivion to which the animosities and feuds of former periods have been already consigned; when these historians, removed from the period, and uninfluenced by the circumstances under which the events they will have to record have taken place, shall come with an impartial judgment, and unprejudiced feeling, to narrate the transactions of recent times, they will, notwithstanding the impressions which the influence of party animosity might have made to the contrary, in taking a review of the transactions of the present reign, conclude, that under no circumstances, and in no times, have the people of any country been more loyal or more affectionately attached to the person of their Sovereign than the people of this country have been, during a long series of years to his present Majesty. If they should only look back to the period of the last 25 years, they would find that the love and attachment of his subjects were not given alone to the King during the interesting period of youth or the prosperous and successful portion of his reign, but that they increased in times of personal affliction and infirmity; and, instead of suffering diminution, had been considerably strengthened, as his faculties and health had unhappily declined. If, then, the people of this country had delighted in the prosperities of his Majesty's government—if they had ever felt the deepest interest in the health of their Sovereign—if, in the days of his strength, they rejoiced at his happiness, and in the hours of his affliction and infirmity, they sympathised in his sorrows and mourned over his sufferings, they had a just right to know, that no foul trick had been, at any time during the existence of such respectful devotion to their monarch's interest

57
and person, practised by his Majesty's ministers, either towards the King, or towards the people. If he could be able to shew, that according to a statement made by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) on a former night, the King had not had fair play, that neither the King nor the people had fair play shewn them by the administration, of which that right hon. gent. formed a part, he trusted that he should do enough to excite the indignation of that House, and to induce them peremptorily to call for an efficient and full inquiry into the whole of the case. This he would confidently undertake to shew, if that House, by agreeing to his preliminary motion, should put him in a condition to substantiate the charge.
It must be in the recollection of the House, that when the calamity had first falden upon his Majesty in 1788, though there were abundant rumours afloat upon the subject, yet such was the tender affection and ardent zeal of his faithful people, that they could not persuade themselves of the fact, that his Majesty was seriously suffering under the malady given out by rumour, until the truth of the representation was but too fully confirmed by the report of the physicians. When it was afterwards established, by proof, that the King's mind was unsound, that his mental faculties were deranged, and that he was incapable of personally exercising his royal functions, the two Houses resorted to such measures as they thought proper for supplying the defect of the royal authority. But, on its being announced to parliament by the noble lord, who at that period filled the high office now held by Lord Eldon, that he had it in command from his Majesty to acquaint parliament that he had sufficiently recovered to authorise a confident expectation, that after a short interval he should be enabled personally to resume his royal functions; such was the delicacy, such the affection and veneration of the two Houses of Parliament towards the sovereign, that though they had made very considerable progress with the measures they were to adopt, they immediately suspended all proceedings upon them, and waited in fond and anxious expectation for the full restoration of his Majesty. Whatever might have been the differences of opinion; whatever the party heat and political animosity which characterised these differences as to the mode of supplying the temporary deficiency, all feelings of personal consideration or party
58
hostility instantly subsided into one common sense of gratification, at the prospect that auspiciously burst upon the nation; and every eye glistened with joy and gladness at the approaching restoration of the King to his reason and his throne.
When about twelve years afterwards, in the year 1801, the indisposition of his Majesty was again announced to the public by a notification from his physicians, that notification was so cautiously guarded, that, if the nation had not been aware of the malady with his Majesty had been previously afflicted, it would have been impossible for any man to know, from any thing that appeared upon the face of the statement of the physicians, that the King, though undoubtedly indisposed, was not still competent to the exercise of all his royal functions. Yet, from what had recently come to the knowledge of the public, by the examination of the physicians before the Lords' Committee, it was fully established, that, at that very period, he King was of unsound mind. On the 22nd of February, 1801, the first notice of his Majesty's illness was published, though it was now well known that his Majesty's mental health was then impaired; that he was incapable of his royal functions; that, to use the expressions of one of his physicians, his judgment was in eclipse; yet by reference to their Journals, they would find, that two days after, namely, on the 24th of February, 1801, a commission was issued, signed with the King's sign manual. It was not to be forgotten, too, that in the beginning of that year, 1801, a remarkable political event had taken place. After a long struggle, and a considerable period of adherence to power, Mr. Pitt at length thought proper to resign the seals of office which had been committed to him so long as seventeen years before. A noble lord (Sidmouth), not now a member of that House, was then selected as successor to Mr. Pitt; and after a certain period, took his seat in that House (the precise day he could not' call to mind) on his re-election, after entering upon office. It was not material to fix the precise day, but of this he was certain, that on the 10th of March the bulletins ceased to be issued. He would leave it to the House to determine, whether the bulletins had been discontinued for any other purpose than to impress the public with an opinion that the King was fully recovered; whereas, it was now, clear, that he was not then recovered; nay, more, that he had afterwards a considerable. Delaspe:

59
and yet, notwithstanding all this, the functions of the executive were uninterruptedly exercised, and various important acts of state performed, for either of which no constitutional sanction could possibly have been procured from the King, in the state of mental incapacity in which unfortunately his Majesty then was. Yet such was the delicacy of the two Houses of Parliament upon the subject, and of the public, that no notice had been taken of the matter, except by one hon. gent. no longer a member of that House, who had given notice of a motion respecting the state of his Majesty's health. This notice having been seen in the notice book-by a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Sheridan), that right hon. friend conceiving such a motion to be improper and unseasonable, on the day in which it was to have been brought forward, moved that the House should adjourn; which motion was seconded by Mr. Pitt, who happened to come into the House whilst his right hon. friend was proposing it, and who at the same time stated, that he would take care that proper notice should be supplied to the House of the state of his Majesty's health, if that should be found necessary.
In the year 1804, only three years after, his Majesty was again afflicted with the same malady. He was taken ill on the 14th of February, and on the following day it was announced to the public. The object of his motion was to bring the circumstances attending that indisposition of the King under the consideration of the House. The motion with which he meant to conclude would be, for a Committee to examine the Lords' Journals for the Evidence of the Physicians respecting his Majesty's state of health in 1S04, and to report the same to the House. This he meant only as preliminary to another inquiry, in the course of which, if the House should grant his motion, he would pledge himself to prove what he should distinctly charge and assert before he sat down. It would appear by the evidence which he wished to have produced, that of one of the physicians (Dr. Heberden) who had attended his Majesty in 1804, and was also in attendance upon him in his present malady, that the period of his Majesty's illness, in the former instance, continued from the 14th of February to the 23d of April in that year. His Majesty, it appeared, on the latter day attended a council in person, which the physicians considered as evidence of his being then fully
60
restored. The bulletins however had ceased on the 22d of March, and yet it was not till the 23d of April that the physician, to whose evidence he had alluded, looked upon the King's recovery complete, of which he considered his attendance in council a sufficient demonstration. That physician also had continued in attendance upon his Majesty until the 23rd of April. It was to that period of the year 1804, therefore, that the inquiry, which he proposed to institute, would be particularly directed.
With respect to what had taken place in 1801, it was not his intention, nor indeed did he think it necessary, to propose any investigation, as well because many of the persons who were implicated in the transactions of that period were now no more, as because none of those others who were concerned in them, were now in office or ill a situation to excite suspicion, or to give alarm to the public, lest they should on any future occasion be guilty of the same conduct. But as he found, that one of the persons, who, under the late act for establishing a Regency, was to be of the Queen's Council, had been Lord High Chancellor in 1801 and also in 1804; when he knew that a noble lord, now a member of the other House (lord Sidmouth) was at the head of the administration in both instances; when he perceived a right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Yorke) who was a Secretary of State in 1804, and a noble lord under the gallery (lord Castlereagh), who was also in his Majesty's Cabinet at that period, he was persuaded that the House would feel how necessary it was, either with a view to precaution or for the purpose of example, to enable him to prove his assertions; or, on the other hand, if his assertions were not founded, to give the noble and honourable persons he had mentioned an opportunity to disprove them. With regard, however, to the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Yorke), or the noble lord (Castlereagh) under the gallery, he did not mean to impute any blame to them; because he could not possibly know whether they were guilty. But whether guilty or not, that would come out in the inquiry which he proposed to institute. To John lord Eldon, however, now as then Lord Chancellor, and to lord viscount Sidmouth, who was at that period at the head of his Majesty's government, he thought, in his conscience, that the whole blame was justly imputable. This he was not only prepared to

61
assert, but to prove. Lord Eldon was Lord High Chancellor in 1801, when a great and important political change was effected: he was also Lord High Chancellor in 1804, when another important political change had also taken place—a change certainly not brought about in the same manner as that in 1801, when Mr. Pitt, looking to the successor that was to replace him, contemplated the prospect of retaining all the political influence, if not the official power, from which he was professing to retire.
The change in 1804 was of a very different description indeed. On that occasion the two great parties, which had been so long in opposition to each other in that House, had for some time acted in unison under the guidance of the two greatest political leaders that had ever distinguished themselves, upon any arena, in opposition to the government of that day. They took their stand upon one of the great measures of that administration, and mustered upon a division within fifty of the majority which supported the ministerial measure. Upon that symptom of his declining influence in that House, Mr. Addington thought it prudent to resign his office in a manner certainly not conformable to the fashion of more recent times, when ministers, after finding themselves repeatedly in minorities, still ventured to cling to office, and dared to retain their places. But the projected union did not take place. Mr. Pitt consented to come into office without the support of those with whom he was solicitous to co-operate. Lord Eldon, too, consented to accept office in that administration; and thus, after many years of political hostility and contention, when the hopes of the nation were anxiously anticipating an union of the two great parties, under the auspices of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, for the salvation of their common country, these fond expectations were frustrated by the acceptance of office, on a system of exclusion, by the administration of 1804. During this anxious and critical period, lord Eldon was the only person who had access to his Majesty. Whether that noble lord exerted himself in the interviews he had with his sovereign, to promote the union so greatly desired by all classes, and by-no person, he believed, more than by Mr. Pitt himself, or not, it was impossible for him to know. That was a circumstance which must rest in the noble lord's own bosom, as mall probability there had been
62
no witnesses present at any of these interviews. But he must admit, however, that that noble lord had not shewn himself so decided in his opinion upon the subject, as the right hon. gent. who was at that time Attorney-General. That right hon. gent. had thought proper to declare, that "such an union would have been a disgrace to both Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox: that they could not, in case it had taken place, meet at a council without being ashamed of themselves;" and yet that right hon. gent. had thought proper to continue in administration with Mr. Pitt, who had been in heart guilty of wishing such an union to take place. Yet it was unquestionable that Mr. Pitt wished for that union in his heart, which his Attorney-General could not possibly reconcile to his notions. It was equally well known, too, that aright hon. gent. opposite, (Mr. Canning) was equally zealous for that union, with the great leader of the party, Mr. Pitt. It was true the right hon. gent. might say that he would not, as Attorney-General, have known more of what was in the contemplation of the great leaders of that day, than the humble individual I then addressing the House: but it was scarcely possible that the Attorney-General should not have known facts, which came to his (Mr. Whitbread's) knowledge, within a few days after they had taken place.
In calling the attention of the house to I the circumstances of this period, he must beg of gentlemen to bear in mind that lord Eldon bad been particularly questioned in the Mouse of Lords in 1804, as to the state of his Majesty's health. Mr. Addington (now lord Sidmouth) had also been questioned in that House by an hon. member (sir Robert Lawley) on the same subject. When first asked about the state of the King's health by that hon. member, it would be remembered, that Mr. Addington said that he thought his best course would be, not to give any answer; but when pressed for an answer by Mr. Fox, he said, "that there was no necessary suspension of any necessary act of the executive functions;" and when still further pressed by Mr. Pitt, "that there was no necessary suspension of any of the royal functions;" and added, that he stated this, not upon his own authority, but upon the opinions and authority of the physicians; meaning thereby, no doubt, that he had personally no access to the King. On the 6th of March, the

63
Lord Chancellor slated in the House of Lords, that he had been with his Majesty on the 5th, and also on the 4th, and after having explained to him the nature of a bill then pending, for alienating certain Crown Lands to the duke of York, that his Majesty had commanded him to signify his assent to that bill. On the 9th of March, a commission signed by the King was issued; and when lord Eldon was asked on that day, whether he had personal knowledge of the state of the King's health, using a figure, not unfrequent with that noble lord, and which is so characteristic of his eloquence, "that he would have his right hand severed from his body sooner than desert his sovereign," he declared, that he would never think of doing an act so unconstitutional, if the King was incompetent—that he was aware of what he was doing, and would take the whole of the heavy responsibility upon himself. Now, this was what his motion was intended to ascertain, that he should therefore confidently call upon the House to put him in a situation to bring that responsibility to issue. He was ready to take upon himself to say, that his Majesty was at that time unsound in mind, and to a period long posterior—that he was incompetent to his functions—that his reason was clouded, and his judgment eclipsed. Yet whilst the King was still unhappily in that state, lord Sidmouth, on the 26th of March, brought down a message to that House from the King—from the King, deranged as he was in his mental competence, and incapable of exercising any sound discretion. This fact he should broadly assert; and he therefore called upon the friends of that noble lord to place him and themselves in a situation to answer to this charge. To say, then, that they were prepared to share the responsibility, would be worse than idle—it would not be sincere. He called upon the House of Commons, then, to put him in the situation to prove his charges. It was necessary for the character of the individuals concerned that they should be disproved, if not founded, and it was material to the public that they should be proved if true: because, if the case was as he had stated it, the public had been imposed upon, and might again be grievously imposed upon, if that should not be prevented by the result of the inquiry he proposed.
Upon a question of such importance to the vital interests of the constitution of
64
the country, parliament must have expected and should have required much more satisfactory proof of his Majesty's recovery than the bare assertions of physicians. When a king of England had been placed in a situation not to be capable of performing his royal functions—when reduced to a state of health in which, a private individual would not be allowed the disposal of his property—when he had been under restraint—when he had been taken out in a morning to be shewn to his subjects under colour of being recovered, and had been carried home in the evening to be placed again under restraint—when his incapacity had been solemnly voted by the two Houses of parliament—was it right or proper, he would ask, that a king of England, after having been in such a situation, should have the important fact of his recovery established on no better authority than the statement of physicians In the Committee he had put a question to Dr. Heberden, whether the King was so far recovered as to be competent to attend to all his public and private business. To this Dr. Heberden answered, yes. Another physician answered, also, yes; and Dr. Willis, in a roost positive manner, answered, most assuredly. But he would contend, on the contrary, that his Majesty was not at the time so far recovered as, in the case of an individual in private life, would warrant the superceding a commission of lunacy. The Lord Chancellor, he had heard, would not, as he had publicly declared in court, take the opinions of physicians on an application to supercede a commission of lunacy; he would hear the opinions of the physicians, and upon a consideration of them would form his own judgment. That noble lord knew well the difficulty of proving the perfect recovery of persons in such a complaint: he well knew that many individuals so affected appeared in every other respect in perfect mental health, until a certain chord was touched, upon which their delusion turned, when the whole fabric, raised by their morbid cunning to conceal their defect, instantly was overthrown. Indeed, that noble lord, in the course of his practice as a barrister, if he was correctly informed, had personal experience of the difficulty of ascertaining the complete recovery of a patient from such a malady, and of the fallacy of the appearances which sometimes seem to indicate a perfect re-establishment. It had been stated by that noble lord himself.

65
that in the course of his practice it had happened to him to have to make an application to the Court of Chancery to supersede a commission of lunacy upon such grounds, taken both as to time and quality, as left no doubt upon the mind of that learned lord of the restored security of the person on whose behalf he made the application. The commission was superseded, and it was not long after, when the individual came to thank him for his success, that he was convinced by his manner, that the motion, in which he had succeeded, was the greatest injury that could have happened to the unfortunate man. He was justified, therefore, in assuming that the noble lord would not supersede a commission of lunacy without the fullest proof of the perfect restoration of the patient. Would the House, then, or ought they to be satisfied with a statement of the physicians, that his Majesty was competent on any particular day, or on any hour of any day, to the personal exercise of his functions? Would such a statement, in the case of an individual, be admitted by lord Eldon in the Court of Chancery, as sufficient to set aside a commission of lunacy? He had taken much pains to ascertain by what rules the practice of the Court of Chancery was regulated in such cases. In the case of the Attorney General versus Panther and others, which was an issue out of Chancery to the Court of King's Bench, to try the validity of a will, made under the following circumstances: the testatrix, Frances Barton, had been previously disordered in her mind, but at the time of making her will, was proved by the attesting witnesses to be of sound disposing mind: no imputation was cast upon the character of the witnesses: the jury found in favour of the will; but the decision not being satisfactory to lord Kenyon, an application was again made to lord Thurlow. In that argument it was laid down by that noble and learned lord, that if derangement be alledged, it must be proved; but that if any lucid intervals have existed, the bulk of proof was to shew the soundness and sanity at the time of the lucid interval; and that such evidence must be as strong and as demonstrative as was the proof of the previous derangement—that it must go to the habit and general demeanour of the person, and not depend upon the existence of any temporary self-possession.
From this doctrine laid down by that
66
noble and learned lord, it was obvious that before the lucid interval could be recognised, the disease must be entirely gone and dissipated—that there must remain no latent spark, which might revive the phrensy or recal the delusion—that the interval should not have been produced by medical expedients for certain occasions, and particular business. At the time when Dr. Heberden represented his Majesty as having been so well as at any time of any day to be capable of business, another of the physicians admitted that he was liable to hurries, but that business generally had the effect of restoring him to calmness and composure. Why, this very effort of business was what he considered as one of the medical expedients. He could have wished to cross-examine these physicians on their evidence. (A laugh from the treasury bench). He could have wished to ask Dr. Heberden, whether, when he said that the King was perfectly well after the 23d of April, he did not know that Dr. Simmons was attending his Majesty; that that physician continued for some time after in attendance on the King, and had employed even other attendants near his Majesty's person. If he had asked these questions, and Dr. Heberden had answered, as he knew he must have done, in the affirmative, would the right hon. gentleman scoff at such a cross-examination? He would ask the lord chancellor himself, too, whether at the time when he, in the name of the King, exercised certain acts of the executive authority, he was not aware of the controul exercised over his Majesty? Whether he had not himself exercised a controul over his Majesty? Whether he had not possessed himself of the keys of his Majesty's private escrutoire, which he refused to give up? These were facts of which he had himself no doubt, but which ought to be inquired into. The King, he contended, was under controul when the change took place in 1804; and when Mr. Pitt went into his Majesty, Dr. Simmons went out. Was it not then material for lord Eldon, for lord Sidmouth, and all the others concerned, to place him in the situation to prove all the charges he had made, or to take the opportunity of ac quitting themselves of all imputation by disproving them?
But there were, in the manner in which the restraint was imposed upon his Majesty, circumstances of aggravation which rendered it peculiarly necessary for that

67
House to inquire into the case. He was assured, that the controul over the sovereign had been exercised in a manner, which, if known to the public, would excite their sorrow and indignation, and convince them that the King had not been fairly treated. If they loved the King—if they were attached to their sovereign—if they respected the royal office and authority—they were bound by every feeling of humanity, and every principle of duty, to inquire into this matter. If the individuals concerned should not disprove these statements, which, without the fear of contradiction, he submitted to the consideration of the House, he was afraid the kingly office would be brought into disrepute. Even lord Eldon himself, in the case of Ridgway and Darling, in 1S02, carried, as he then acknowledged, the power of the court farther than it was carried in the time of lord Hardwicke. In that case the noble lord declared, that the care of the court extended not alone to insane persons, but also to weak and infirm persons, to save them from any loss or injury to their property; and observed, that no person could see the lady without perceiving the necessity of throwing care around her. Upon this he would ask the noble lord, what was the state of the King? Could any person see him without perceiving the necessity of throwing care around him? In the case of the lady to whom he had alluded, lord Eldon asserted, that every one would see the propriety of providing care for her. He did not feel it necessary to come to parliament in her case; he provided for the care of her property; but he suffered the King to give away the property of the crown, at a time when he must have been aware that his Majesty was not in a state that would warrant the chancellor in superseding a commission of lunacy in the case of a subject. For himself, he had no doubt that his Majesty had at the time been able to hold rational conversations; he was convinced that he could then, at intervals, converse as rationally as he himself could at present; yet in his conscience he believed, that the mind of the King was at present much more sound than it was in 1804 or in 1801. He must say, too, that the King had not had fair play, when hurried out, and driven to the east and to the west, as they might all recollect, to be exhibited to his subjects; and afterwards taken home in the evening, to be placed under the restraint from which in the morning
68
he was withdrawn for the purpose of this public exhibition; yet all this had been done, and lord Eldon was a principal party to the transaction. Was it not well known that persons might appear of sound mind, until the corner be explored which contains the ground of their delusion? In the case of Collins, lord Eldon held, that before he could supersede the commission, the recovery should be fully established by the physicians, as to the whole competence of the party, and under all circumstances. In that case, the noble lord quoted a case, in which he proceeded with lord Thurlow, when that person was chancellor, to get a commission superseded for a party whom after many interviews and various conferences he thought perfectly well, till he came to thank him for his success, when he gave such evident proofs of insanity as made him regret his success. If the noble lord was deceived in that case till the circumstance of success produced marks of the delusion, had he, he would ask, ascertained whether there were any topics upon which particularly his Majesty's complaint hinged? Had he, in order to convince himself of the recovery, sought out those topics, and submitted them to his Majesty's mind? Or had he studiously abstained from them, and yet ventured to pronounce his Majesty well, while he knew he was yet under the controul of Dr. Simmons and his attendants? Lord Eldon was the only-one of the ministers who saw his Majesty during his illness in 1804. Mr. Adding-ton resigned whilst his Majesty was in that state. He could prove all this, and required only the opportunity of doing it. If he should, in establishing the charges he urged against lord Eldon, succeed, it would be necessary to take some proceeding in consequence, in order to prevent that noble lord from remaining in her Majesty's council. When his inquiry should be concluded, it would be for the House to decide what further measures would be necessary to be taken. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Committee be appointed to inspect the Journals of the House of Lords, with relation to any Proceedings in the present Session, touching his Majesty's Illness, so far as relates to the State of his Majesty's Health in the year 1804, and to make report thereof to the House."
Lord Castlereagh,as he was the only person then in the House, who had been in his Majesty's cabinet at the period alluded

69
to by the hon. gent. felt bound in duty to his Sovereign, to the House, and to himself, to take the earliest opportunity of stating his sentiments upon this question. He should not be deterred, delicate and important as the question was, by any delicacy from performing that which he conceived a duty, however painful it might be to him. He must admit, that the hon. gent. had not by any means attempted to colour his statement invidiously; he would go further, and say, that if the persons in power at the time to which the hon. gent. had referred, could so far forget their allegiance to their Sovereign and their duty to the country, as to abuse the confidence reposed in them, for the purpose of turning it to their advantage or to the injury of their country, they were guilty of a constitutional crime which could not be defended, and which must hold them up to the severest account. The hon. gent. had, he would not say illiberally, but perhaps naturally, directed his particular attention to the conduct of lord Eldon, who held the same high situation then as at present. But he (lord Castlereagh) could not, as a man of honour, forbear claiming his full share of the responsibility, and of the blame, if there was any; which, however, he denied. This was not a mere bravado; for he would tell the House, why he considered himself as equally responsible. It was because he was conscious that none of the ministers would have gone up and taken his Majesty's pleasure on any business, unless the whole of the cabinet, upon the opinions of the physicians, had been convinced that he was in such a state of health as to have rendered it criminal in them to refrain from doing that for which they were now accused.—The hon. gent. was greatly mistaken, if he thought he could prove the facts stated. He was enabled to disprove many of his assumed facts, and to convince the House that lord Eldon was not the only minister of the crown who had access to his Majesty from the 12th of February to the 23rd of April. The opinions of the whole of the ministers were taken, and he assured the House that not one of his colleagues would have had access to his Majesty, if, in the judgment of the whole taken collectively, it was not only thought justifiable, but necessary to do the acts charged. If they had not done those acts, they would be justly held criminal in a constitutional point of view. That he should be prepared to prove what he had
70
asserted, was beyond a doubt. With respect to the precise period at which competence for business was to be presumed, the definition of the hon. gent. was much too large; as it would cover not only the period of the least remains of disease, but even that of recovery. This, however, was not a foundation on which he would rest much; he had better grounds to stand upon. The hon. gent. was then (in 1801) as now, an ornament of the House—and these facts were then fully in his view. (Hear! hear! from Mr. Whitbread, and others). He hoped the hon. gent. would not alledge in his reply, that it was not perfectly understood then, that his Majesty's disorder was of the same description as that with which he had been afflicted in 1789, and which led to the parliamentary proceeding of that period. The fact that Dr. Simmons had been called in was notorious: and if the hon. gent. regarded these things in the same light as he did now, it was a gross neglect of duty in him not to have at that time called ministers to account. Why did the hon. gent. pass over the matter at the time? If this doctrine was to prevail; if they were to listen to such accusations preferred six or seven years after the date of the transactions, he would have a just right to charge the hon. gent. and the House with a design to entrap ministers.
Having made these preliminary observations, he would now come to the main basis of his defence. The nature of the evidence of the physicians taken before the Lords was notorious: the matter, therefore, was already substantially before the House, and they had to judge whether such a prima facie charge was made out against the administration of 1801., as to call for a parliamentary inquiry. With regard to Dr. Heberden's evidence, if it was to be taken merely as given before the Lords, it might be considered as affording some colour, though not a real foundation, for this charge. Dr. Heber-den had stated before the Committee of Lords, that he had been called in on the 12th of February, 1804, and that his Majesty presided at council on the 23d of April; the interval he considered as the extent of the disease. When pressed with the question whether the malady extended over the whole period, he answered, No; that a few days before the 23d of April, his Majesty was competent to transact public business. The hon. gent. might think that, except for these few days before

71
the 23d of April, his Majesty was not competent; and the implication would, perhaps, have been justifiable enough, it there had been no explanation. He wished, however, to have this evidence of Dr. Hebcrden compared with that which he gave before the House of Commons. He did not desire to cast any reflection on Dr. Heberden; he had known him long, had been educated with him at the same University, and he believed him to be a fair and honourable man. A man of his high character would no doubt give the same evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons, as he would on oath before the Lords. His evidence before both was therefore to be taken into account, and the testimony in the one case must be admitted as explanatory of that in the other. The idea of a cross examination of the physicians came with a bad grace now from the hon. gent. The House would recollect, that the hon. gent. had been a member of the Committee of that House before which the physicians had been examined, and might have cross-examined Dr. Heberden before that Committee, if he had so chosen. But what was Dr. Heberden's evidence there? Being asked, whether he recollected the time when the bulletins ceased in 1804? he answered, no; but in reply to a question, whether they were discontinued in order to shew that his Majesty was competent to perform the duties of his situation? he said, that they were. Now, the bulletins ceased on the 22d of March, five weeks before the 23d of April. The hon. gent. he hoped, would do him the justice to say that it was not his practice to evade an accusation, nor to argue a point unfairly. The evidence, then, of Dr. Heberden, taken together, was, that his Majesty was fully competent, to the discharge of the royal functions on the 22d of March.—This disposed of the charge so far as it applied to the period between the 22d of March, and the 23d of April. But the hon gent had called upon him to account for the state of his Majesty's health in the intervening period between the 12th of February and the 22d of March, and this he was fully perpared to do. He hoped he should rescue the government of that day from any design of abusing their situations, so as to take advantage of the circumstances Which then arose.; and that he should show, that had they acted otherwise than as they had done, they; would furnish a case at which he ought to hide
72
his head, and blush for the pusillanimity which had so unjustifiably and unnecessarily thrown the kingdom into difficulties. The House could not forget the difficulties of that day; the parliament was then sitting; they witnessed the conduct of ministers, and the acts which were then executing. Their non-interference alone was a guide to the councils of the administration. Though they had not the direct authority of parliament for what they had done, yet there was enough in the view of the parliament and the country to enable them to judge of the conduct of the administration, and the ministers might easily collect what was the opinion of parliament; He did not intend, however, to come down now to parliament with that protection; for he would confess that he expected something more than a cold acquittal.
On the 12th of February, the first bulletin issued. On the 27th the subject of his Majesty's illness was noticed by an hon. baronet in parliament, and then only, with a view to a particular point. It was enough for him to stale, that on the 22d and 27th of February, the cabinet examined the physicians, and the physicians had declared that his Majesty was competent to perform the royal functions; and here he referred to the difference between the year I804 and the present period, with regard to his Majesty's indisposition. When parliament lately met, it could proceed to no business till it had taken steps, ex necessitate rei, to ascertain the want of the royal authority, and to supply the deficiency. But in 1804, parliament was sitting, and in that difficult period was the House prepared to say that the ministers, merely on account of an indisposition in his Majesty of a few days or weeks, ought to come down to the house and suspend the whole course and exercise of the legislative functions? They had this to consider, and when it was recollected that the country was then menaced with invasion, and that the most important measures to meet and defeat it, were in progress, he trusted the House would approve of their determination. On the 22d of February, as he had said, the physicians were examined, and had stated that a very material improvement had taken, place in his Majesty's health; and again, on the 27th, they declared that a further improvement had taken place. Being asked, whether they thought his Majesty competent to any act of government, if necessary, they answered, that, though it would be better

73
to postpone any act, if the public service would allow it, yet his Majesty was competent; This was the judgment of the physicians, who were to be understood, in respect of competency, as speaking in the same way as they would of any private individual, imagining that his Majesty was as competent to discharge the royal functions, as a private individual to transact his common affairs, or make a deed which an honest man would subscribe as a witness, and which would be valid in law, upon an inquiry into all the circumstances.
But to disarm the question of some of the jealousy attached to it, his lordship, while he admitted the importance of the royal functions, remarked that the public interest was always secured by the circumstance, that the minister was at all events responsible for every act of the government. His lordship mentioned that he had made a memorandum of the answers of the physicians at the time of their examination on the 27th of February, and therefore he had been enabled to speak to it more accurately. The cause of the desire of the postponement by the physicians, was the danger of a protracted discussion to a recovering mind. Notwithstanding the competency of his Majesty on the 22d and 27th of February, no act of government had been done by him till the 5th of March. The hon. gent. carried his notion of incompetency so far, that he would have an instant suspension declared, though the derangement was merely incidental, and likely to be but of very short continuance. But on the 27th of February, when the subject was mentioned in the House, it appeared that parliament had a different view of the duty of government. Mr. Fox thought that the ministers ought to make a communication to the House, and Mr. Windham agreed with him, but did not think it imperative on the House to take any steps in consequence; But what was the feeling of the House? Lord Sidmouth stated, that he did not think it his duty to make any communication; and when further pressed he said, he did not conceive there was any necessary suspension of the regal functions. The foundation of this statement was the assurance of the physicians, that his Majesty was competent. Mr. Pitt, whose confidence in the existing government of that day, would not be suspected to be particularly marked, did on that occasion
74
most successfully contend against the opinions of the gentlemen opposite. He deprecated any unnecessary communication to parliament, because he considered; that the practical result of such communication would be the unavoidable suspension of all public business then in progress in parliament He declared that the question ought to rest with the servants of the crown, and as they had the evidence of the physicians on the competence of his Majesty, that they were bound to make the communication when they thought it necessary. Mr. Grey afterwards came down and urged the subject. And lord Sidmouth then stated, that his report of his Majesty's competency was founded, not on his own observation, but on the opinions of the physicians. Mr. Grey, upon this, said no more, than that if this state of things continued much longer, he should bring the subject before the House in a more regular form. Would this have been enough if it had been thought that the silence of ministers was so criminal as the hon. gent., with no better evidence, now pronounced it to be?
With respect to what took place in 1801, too, he must contend that parliament must have been aware of the nature of the King's malady; for lord Sidmouth, whom it was in contemplation to appoint to the situations of chancellor of the exchequer and first lord of the treasury, vacated his scat on the 12th of February upon the Children Hundreds, and returned to that House again, and was thanked as a private individual. It must have been, then, perfectly obvious that his Majesty was indisposed, and there could have been no doubt as to the nature of his malady. On the 27th of the month of February, in that year, while-the bulletins were in existence, Mr. Nicholis gave notice of a motion on the subject, which was received, however, with so much indignation, that it was got rid of without consulting the proposer. Such was the feeling of parliament on this subject, to which ministers naturally attended, in considering what was the line of their duty under such difficult circumstances.
He had already stated, that no act of government had been done at the time of the indisposition in 1804, till the 5th of March, when a bill passed relating to Crown Lands. The Chancellor wailed upon his Majesty on the 4th and 5th. It would be recollected that he was the

75
highest officer under the crown, peculiarly competent to judge in a case of this kind, and sworn to give honest and faithful counsel. The physicians were examined at that time, and told that it was intended to explain to his Majesty, and to discuss with him the subjects of several bills then ready to receive the royal assent. They said his Majesty was perfectly capable of doing this. The deliberate judgment of the Chancellor after two conversations, the one on the 4th of March, the other on the 5th, was, that the King was perfectly competent. On the 9th of March the royal assent was given by commission to several bills. One of these was the Mutiny Bill. Now, if his Majesty was thus competent, as upon the evidence of the physicians, as well as the judgment of the Chancellor, they had every reason to believe, what would have been the situation of ministers if they had suffered the Mutiny Act to expire? They might, indeed, have come to parliament for a remedy; but the question was, whether, when such was the opinion of the physicians, they would not, by taking the executive authority out of the hands of the Sovereign, have done an act tantamount to a dethronement of the King. No unnecessary or unbecoming precaution characterised the administration: but still though on the 22d and 27th of February the King was declared competent—though the same opinion was given on the 4th and 5th of March, yet they did not proceed to act on it without first examining all the physicians before the cabinet) and getting it medically confirmed. Then the commission and the sign manual were taken. It was not true, as had been asserted by the hon. gent., that the lord chancellor was the only person, up to the 23d of April, who had access to his Majesty. As the situation which he (lord Castlereagh) then held was rather of a parliamentary character, he himself did not see the King; but lord Sid mouth had seen him on the 19th of March. Lord Sidmouth, then chancellor of the exchequer, had attended his Majesty on the 19th of March, with official papers to be signed by the King, and thought his Majesty fully competent to transact business, as the physicians had stated. The next act was the commission for passing bills on the 23d of March; at which day, Dr. Heberden, taking his evidence altogether, had declared that his Majesty was most fully competent. On the 26th of March, a message had been
76
brought to the House respecting the Irish Militia, the physicians having declared, that he was perfectly capable of holding communication with his parliament. Thus, after all those individual acts, his Majesty came down at the close of the session, and made a speech from the throne. These acts and this evidence would, he thought, go to shew that the privy council had not acted from a spirit of any illicit purpose, but from a clear and confirmed consciousness of public duty. The principle of incapacitation to the extent contended for by the hon. gent. was perfectly monstrous on the face of it. The hon. gent. seemed to think that when once his Majesty's malady Was established, though he might be declared capable of several acts, still he was not sane. In his opinion, this was going too far. His Majesty's illness never had assumed that appearance of insanity; it only amounted to a mental derangement. It was very true, that he might not have been in full health, nov was any other person in recovery from a severe illness ever in full health; but then he was not thereby totally incapacitated. From a degree of fever, he might be subject to what the physicians denominated hurries; but this could by no means be said to amount to a mental derangement. This was the evidence of Dr. Willis, who was particularly conversant in this species of disorder, and Dr. Reynolds also spoke to the same effect.
The noble lord said, he had now laid the entire case before them, and he would submit to the House and the country, whether the government had not acted rightly, or, whether they had acted rashly without the consent and judgment of those medical men who might be best qualified to form an opinion on the subject Before he sat down, he must deprecate singling out any particular minister as the object of accusation. They were all equally responsible, and an hair of lord Kidon's head should not be touched without himself suffering in an equal degree. It would be presumptuous in him to say what line the House ought to take, or to what decision they should come; but he had laid before them the materials on which to judge, and having so done, he should give, he hoped, a fair and dispassionate vote.
Mr. Yorke,notwithstanding the very able and convincing speech of the noble lord, felt it a duty to himself, implicated as he was by the charge of the hon. gent.

77
up to the time of the change of lord Sid-mouth's administration, to say a few words on the subject. In the first place, he entirely agreed with the noble lord, that the noble lord and himself, and all the confidential servants of the crown of that day, were equally responsible for the act charged by the hon. gent. as criminal; for although it might be true that lord Eldon, or lord Sidmouth, by virtue of their office, might go to his Majesty when the other members of the cabinet were excluded, yet the act alluded to was not done without a full communication with all the confidential servants of the crown, and without their unanimous concurrence as to its strict propriety. The noble lord's account of the facts was perfectly accurate. His own recollection had been aided by a reference to memoranda similar to those referred to by the noble lord, and he had no hesitation in saying, not only that the course adopted in 1804 was justifiable, but that, if it had been abstained from, the government would have proved them-. selves not only deeply criminal, but wholly unfit to retain their situations. He had listened with the utmost attention to the hon. gent. who had made a distinct charge against lord Eldon by name, and an indirect charge against all the other members of the cabinet in 1804, to hear what kind of a prima facie case he would make out; and he confessed he was astonished to find, that at a distance of seven years from the transaction, the hon. gent. had not been able to adduce a single new fact. He defied any one to say that there was a single circumstance stated by the hon. gent. which was not generally known in 1804 If, therefore, the hon. gent. was doing his duty in bringing forward this subject, he was at a loss to account why he should produce a charge at so great a distance of time in preference to the period in which it took place, and when it was recent in the memory of every man. He thought that this being a charge to which a certain degree of criminality attached, after so long a period had been suffered to pass away, some facts should be produced, which would shew, or tend to shew, that certain circumstances of an underhand or suspicious nature had taken place, and through the interest and influence of his Majesty's ministers had been acted upon. Why did not the hon. gent. bring forward this charge on the evidence of Dr. Heberden, before the Committee of the House of Commons? The reason seemed
78
to be, because that physician's evidence on the cross examination produced many answers which were illustrative of his whole opinion, and explained the different periods between the 12th of February and the 25d of April, when his Majesty was so far better, as to be capable of transacting business to a certain degree. The hon. gent. had not, therefore, acted fairly or candidly, either by the House or by ministers, in giving the preference to Dr. Heberden's examination before the House of Lords. The evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons, was what the hon. gent. should have referred to. And what was that evidence? When Dr. Heberden was asked, "What was the length of the period which he assigned for his Majesty's recovery?" he replied, "that he could not fix any precise limit, but that in his Majesty's last illness, he had been called in on the 12th of February; that his Majesty's first presence in council was on the 23d of April following; and that he expected his Majesty's present case would follow nearly the same course." Why did not the hon. gent. refer to this evidence? Because Dr. Heberden went on to explain, and to say, that although he limited the indisposition of his Majesty within the two periods which he had mentioned, he by no means meant to infer that his Majesty was during the whole of that time incompetent to business. When asked, if he recollected the date of the last bulletin that he signed? he replied in the negative; but that at the time he signed it, his Majesty was perfectly fit for business. What was done had been done after the examination of the physicians, and with the general concurrence of the cabinet. He insisted that the competence of his Majesty was at that time the same as the competence of any individual whatever could be; and the question was, whether, in such a state, an individual would not have been allowed to be perfectly competent to transact his own affairs. He made a comparison of dates of the several bulletins, which shewed that his Majesty was gradually recovering, and it was on a regular consultation, by the joint advice of all the physicians, that his Majesty was declared capable of transacting business; and, therefore, he knew that he was only acting conscientiously, when he, as one of his Majesty's ministers, gave his advice in favour of the measures which were then pursued. He was not in the habit of so often seeing his Majesty at

79
that time as some of the other ministers, but he perfectly well remembered having one interview with his Majesty which lasted for a considerable time: and he undertook to say that his Majesty appeared perfectly competent to the transaction of public business; that the state of his mind seemed perfectly correct; and he would go further, and declare, that at that period his Majesty appeared to him to be as fully competent to transact business, and to judge what was necessary for the service of the public, as many of those individuals whom the House saw and heard every day of their lives setting themselves-up as patterns of statesmen and legislators, and imagining that they possessed an exclusive patent for all the talents, all the virtues, and all the honours of the state.
Sir F. Burdendid not know whether the right hon. gent. meant to include him among his would-be patterns of statesmen and legislators; but whatever censure his sentiments might occur on the part of that right hon. gent. neither that, nor any other consideration should ever induce him to withhold them. He had listened with attention to the very long and elaborate speech of the noble lord, from the whole of which he collected that all the noble lord wished was, to be put in a situation, in which he and his colleagues might have an opportunity of shewing their innocence. It would, therefore, be natural for him and for the House to suppose, that the noble lord and his colleagues would be glad to adopt the motion of the hon. gent. which would afford them so fair an occasion of doing so. Instead of this, however, the noble lord and the right hon. gent. had retorted upon the hon. gent. who brought forward the motion, and made a charge against him for having suffered the accusation to have lain so long dormant. This was a curious way of answering an argument: it was in fact no answer. The hon. gent. was not bound to bring it forward sooner, nor might it have been proper to have done so. It was well known how, at particular periods of time, men in certain situations were so surrounded and clothed with power, that to bring forward a question of this nature would be altogether nugatory. No space of time, however, should shelter men, who had official situations, and bad committed political crimes, from being called to account for their delinquencies. But the fact was, that the circumstances which gave rise to this charge had not been long known; and although
80
it might be a long time since the transactions under consideration took place, yet it now appeared clearly, that ministers did, when the king was ill, transact business with him of that high and important nature, which they ought not to have done.—Whatever might have been the former general notoriety of the transactions, it was a new fact, that in 1804 ministers had usurped the royal authority, and had dared to exercise the royal functions in his Majesty's name, at the time that there were persons in the palace, under whose controul his Majesty was placed. He certainly would not say, that a slight bodily disorder, or any disorder but such a malady of the mind as incapacitated the monarch from performing the functions of his high office, should make it imperative to suspend the exercise of those functions; but when the royal mind was alienated and rendered unable to apply to the objects before it, it became high treason for ministers to allow the king to go on in the apparent exercise of the royal power, and to procure his Majesty's signature to instruments expressive of his will, when it was notorious that the King had neither power nor a will of his own. In the statute book it was declared, that the keeping of the King from intercourse with his subjects; that the keeping of him under guard and restraint, compelling him to act as those about him directed, was a crime of the highest nature. There could be no doubt that the lord high chancellor stood foremost in the general culpability of the government. The noble lord had, however, generously stepped forward to say, that he was equally responsible. It was a convenient doctrine to maintain, that no one of a cabinet was responsible alone, but that all were responsible together; for it was evidently not easy to punish a whole cabinet. Every great officer was responsible for the due execution of the duties belonging to his office; and of all those great officers the lord chancellor was the most responsible, because in him was vested the greatest power and discretion. Let the noble lord be satisfied with the responsibility which he would be found to have incurred when some of his own former acts should come to be inquired into. He would find that quite sufficient, without incurring a responsibility which did not particularly and especially bear upon him. What had fallen from the noble lord was wholly irrelevant. The simple fact was a fact which could not be contradicted, that the lord chancellor had

81
put the greatseal to an act, purporting to be an act of the King, when such persons as were resorted to alone, when force became necessary for the controul of an individual, were about his Majesty. If this was not undermining the royal authority, what was? It was telling the people, that the government could go on as well without the king as with him. No man who thought that the kingly office, as established by law, was necessary to the integrity of the constitution, would allow the sceptre to be made a tool of in such hands with impunity. He was persuaded that those who had been guilty of the acts, which he had described, had committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the constitution, and he should therefore heartily support the motion.
Lord Castltreaghrose to explain: the hon. bart. had made allusions to him as a person sufficiently oppressed with the weight of personal responsibility. He had only to ask of that hon. baronet to prefer against him any charge which he thought worthy the attention of the House. He would meet it fairly, and he hoped the hon. baronet would bring it forward in the same open, candid, and manly manner, as the hon. gentleman who brought forward the present motion was accustomed to prefer his charges. One thing he must take the liberty to add, and that was, that he trusted the hon. baronet would confine his attacks to those places where he could answer them, and not where he could have no opportunity of defending himself.
Sir F. Burdettreplied, that at all times, and in all places, he should state his genuine opinions of the noble lord's public conduct, according to the dictates of his own discretion.
The question was here loudly called for, and strangers were withdrawing, when
Mr. Whitbreadrose to reply. He said that as the House was on the point of dividing, he presumed that there was no gentleman present who intended to offer himself. If there was, he now called upon him to rise, and he should most cheerfully give way; if there was not, he should proceed to reply to the little which had been said, premising at the same time that it would not be fair towards him in any gentleman who intended speaking, not to speak now, but wait till he had concluded. He had waited a considerable time in deference to the feeling of two individuals more nearly connected with one of the noble lords (Sidmouth), and he had waited
82
for some time in respect to the feelings of that hon. gentleman, who certainly was present, yet who had been marvellously silent.
Mr. Bathurstdid not think that any hon. member had a right thus to allude to private matters no way connected with the business before the House. If, however, the hon. gentleman wanted a reason from him why he did not speak, he frankly owned it as his reason, that did he speak for an hour, he could not add one word to the able speech delivered by the noble lord.
Mr. Whitbreadthen said, that as the House were not likely to have the benefit of that hon. gentleman's powers, he" should now proceed at once to reply very briefly to what had been advanced; and, in the first place, he contended, that not one of his assertions had been contradicted. He had stated nothing but facts, and nothing of all he had asserted as facts had been attempted to be contradicted. He had, indeed, waited for the attendance of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Bathurst), and it Was most true that he had attended; that he had, according to his own shewing; heard the best defence that could be offered in behalf of his noble relative; and though that defence did not attempt to question the truth of any one of the facts he had urged, yet the right hon. gent. had thought it prudent and discreet to give a silent vote upon such a question. The case (said Mr. Whitbread) is before the House. I rest it upon a statement of facts, and that statement is not attempted to be controverted; the alledged facts are not disputed by that noble lord, to whose speech, in the opinion of the right hon. gent. nothing can be added in behalf of the persons implicated. To the noble lord, for his abundant personal civility, and still more for the very liberal credit he seems disposed to give to my motives, I have to return my thanks; but if justice requires me to pay this tribute to the liberality and ingenuousness of the noble lord, it exacts from me a very marked distinction between the embarrassing kindness of the noble lord and the frank hostility of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke). I certainly cannot charge him with too much liberality in construing my motives; but I crave nothing considerate or favourable of the right hon. gentleman. He may continue to think of me as he pleases, while I shall endeavour to console myself under the consciousness of honest intentions.

83
With respect to the noble lord, I must again say, what I have said before so often, that really that noble lord is at times quite merciless in his kindness. He meets apolitical antagonist in a way so polished and so gentlemanly as to disarm his adversary of the ordinary means of defence; I confess the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) can not justly be made the subject of a similar charge. He does not embarrass one with the mild civilities of his air and manner, He comes upon you, in his own direct way, which though perhaps not more conclusive than that of the noble lord, is certainly much more bouncing (a laugh!).—However, they had both agreed in one point, that as the hair of lord Eldon's head ought not to be touched without subjecting their own hair to similar infliction, it was wisest and best to vote in the first instance, that there should be no inquiry at all. The noble lord, indeed, had ridiculed the idea of ministerial influence regulating the conduct of parliament at that time. No doubt it was a most extravagant notion, but the noble lord could not pretend to the influence of his right hon. friend now in power.—I cannot pretend to say, observed Mr. Whitbread, what that influence may be, but the right hon. gent. is fully competent to decide upon the growth and extent of it; for it did happen, that in other times the right hon. gent. thought fifty too small a majority to keep him in power, but now ten or a dozen majority against ministers are too few to turn him out.—What had been said about pattern legislators, and so on, may be very pointed and good, when we come to find the application. The gentleman meant, perhaps, to say something against somebody, but as I am utterly ignorant of what it may refer to, perhaps I should not err very widely in attributing it altogether to that bouncing manner to which I have before alluded, that sort of air that will attempt to make weak things strong, by speaking them in a strong way. The mistake may not be peculiar to the right hon. gent. but I recollect when he was one of the ministers in 1804: his tone to-night reminded me of what he was then under certain circumstances of provocation—and, indeed, those circumstances were rather irritating. There was Mr. Addington at the head of the government: and really the poor man was much to be pitied: night after night he had to answer Mr. Fox, and to be answered by Mr. Pitt! Need I say more? what could the poor man do thus placed between two such
84
grinding stones. Still, however, was the tone of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) unsubdued, and he bounced about with as much energy and as much effect as he has done to night. And it was of this government that the noble lord had said that Mr. Pitt had not at that period distinguished it with peculiar marks of his confidence. Confidence! really the noble lord has such an inverted mode of disguising things by words, that one would suppose the greatest possible favour which could be conferred on the noble lord would he actually kicking him out of office [a laugh.] The noble lord had argued that if the government had not acted as it then did, they would have been the most miserable creatures; but so were they charged by Mr. Pitt to be. He did not mince his meaning. He thought them very miserable men; men miserably deficient in the conduct of the affairs of this country, and men who consequently ought to be removed from the conduct of them. This was Mr. Pitt's opinion, and he acted upon it, for he left no effort untried till he succeeded in driving them from the helm.—But much has been said upon the presumed competency of the King at the time alluded to in the present charge against the lord chancellor, to transact business as well as any individual; on the contrary, he would undertake to say, that any act of any individual under such circumstances would have been set aside.
He had been accused by the right hon. gent. of not doing his duty, in suffering this charge to have lain seven years dormant without bringing it forward. But he would beg the House to recollect, that when lord Eldon told the other House, in 1804, that the King was well, Dr. Simmons was at that moment in attendance on the royal person. The House, however, did not know it, nor had he the least idea of it. The right hon. gent. had adverted to his conduct on various committees. He had been on several committees with that right hon. gent. and generally found an opponent in him. It was asked, why he did not cross-examine the physicians before the committee; his answer was, why did not the noble lord and the right hon. gent. suffer him to do so. Why, when he attempted it, was he out voted? He wished to do it, and tried to do it. Let him now only have an opportunity of cross-examining the physicians before the House or before a committee, and he would pledge himself to make out satisfactorily

85
the whole of his charge. The noble lord seemed to lay great stress on the evidence of Dr. Heberden before that House. He did not attach so much to it, for it was in some places rather contradictory, and no doctor could pronounce exactly upon every case. But if any private gentleman had been under such circumstances as his Majesty was in 1804, and that private gentleman had made his will, with doctors Simmons and Willis attending him at the time, that will would assuredly beset aside; aye, and even by the same lord chancellor, baron Eldon, if it were brought before him. Dr. Heberden then, it appeared, told the ministers they must be cautious how they touched on delicate points. The noble lord had indeed said, that the country was at that time in danger of invasion, and, therefore, it was necessary that his Majesty's ministers should not suffer the affairs of the stale to remain at a stand. It appeared the King was well enough to talk of his private affairs, of the duke of York's Estate Bill, and of other matters of trivial moment; but, touch on the affairs of his kingdom, and he was immediately thrown into a state of violent mental derangement. The noble lord had talked of his Majesty's disorder not being the same in 1801 and 1804; but to whom had his Majesty been committed in both these cases?—to Dr. Willis in the former year, and to Dr. Simmons and his attendants in the latter. The noble lord, however, had said, that every person in a cold or a fever must be under a certain degree of control: he admitted they must, but it was not such a control as that of Drs. Willis and Simmons, and of their attendants. The fact was, the King had not been treated with the tenderness he ought to have experienced. He had been frequently brought forward in council, for the purpose of assenting to particular measures, which greatly affected and agitated his mind. He had several times sat in council in the morning, and been in a state of strict coercion in the evening. He had been taken from his family, and placed in other hands. When, in the early part of the Regency Bill, he (Mr. W.) had asked, who had the custody of the King, the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer replied, that when that affair was fairly before the House, he would answer the question. That, however, he had not yet done.
He had been asked, as he before said, why he had not brought this forward before;
86
his answer was, that he did not know the King was under such control as it now appeared he was at that time. To this the noble lord replied, would you have ail public business stopped? Would you have the Mutiny Act unpassed, and every thing run into confusion? According to this doctrine, whenever the King was in a stage of mental derangement, though parliament be silting, ministers may refuse to make any provision for a similar misfortune, and perform all the acts of the executive government themselves; because, say they, the king has responsible advisers, and afterwards these advisers come to the House, and use ail their influence to persuade it to vote against their responsibility. "The great question for the House then to decide," added Mr. Whitbread, "is, whether the King was not in the year 1804, at the period to which I allude, in such a state of mental infirmity, that if a private individual he could not have legally done any act affecting his property or personal rights. It is contended on the other side, I know, that the King's competence to do any act of state was perfect on all those occasions, when he was called upon for the personal exercise of his royal functions. But this I deny; and I am willing to come to the test upon that single point. How is this to be decided? by the papers I call for. You say that he was as competent as any-private individual, whose restoration had been legally recognized. I challenge you to the proof of that; I affirm, without fear of contradiction, that had the King at that period been tried as a private subject, the lord high chancellor, whom I now accuse, would have pronounced him incompetent for business. [Here the chancellor of the exchequer signified his dissent].—The right hon. gent. may toss his head; but this is all that he can do.—If he could have done more, we should have heard him—as speak he must, for whom has he to speak with him. It has been figuratively said, and truly I believe, that the blind, the halt and the lame, have been enlisted by the right hon. gent. in his service; but it appears, that his choice took in the dumb also. His right hon. colleagues were dumb, from the old reason that they could say nothing upon any subject, and the right hon. (the chancellor of the exchequer) can be dumb, only because it is a subject upon which nothing can be said: for surely, if any thing could be said, that right hon. gent.

87
could do it." Mr. Whitbread concluded with putting it to the House, that if the King should shortly recover and again unfortunately relapse, where were the provisions for the integrity of the executive power, if the conduct of the ministers in 1804 was to be sanctioned? But if that conduct was thought unworthy of that sanction; if it was not to be excused; he called upon the House to say how they could, consistently with their duty to their country, negative his proposition.
The House then divided—Ayes 81, Noes 198. Majority against the motion 117.