Commons Sitting of 9 January 1812

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS APPOINTED TO EXAMINE THE KING'S PHYSICIANS.
Mr. Secretary Ryderrose, for the purpose of moving the appointment of a Committee to examine the King's Physicians, touching the state of his Majesty's health. It had been considered questionable, whether or not in the present stage of the proceeding, it was necessary to appoint any Committee for that purpose; but as doubts had arisen in some quarters on that subject, it had been deemed advisable before the House proceeded to any ulterior measure, that they should enter into an inquiry by a Committee of their own; the more especially as such an inquiry could be productive of very little delay. He therefore moved," That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Physicians who have attended his Majesty, touching the state of his Majesty's health since the examination of his Majesty's Physicians before a Committee of this House in the last session of parliament, and to report such examination to the House."—The motion was agreed to, and a Committee accordingly appointed of 21 members, as follows: Mr. Secretary Ryder, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Sheridan, the Attorney General, Mr. W. Adam, Mr. A. H. Eyre, Mr. C. Long, Mr. Tierney, lord Jocelyn, sir J. Newport, sir J. Nicholl, Mr. Whitbread, lord Castlereagh, lord Milton, Mr. Canning, lord G. Cavendish, Mr. H. Addington, Mr. S. Bourne.
On the 13th, the said Committee made their Report, as follows:

REPORT.
THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to examine the Physicians who have attended His Majesty, touching the State of His Majesty's Health, since the Examination of His Majesty's Physicians before a Committee of this House in the last Session of Parliament, and to report such Examination to the House;—
Have, pursuant to the Order of the House, examined the Physicians accordingly: which Examination is as follows:
Veneris 10°die Januarii, 1812.
The Right Honourable CHARLES LONG, in the Chair.
Dr. MATTHEW BAILLIE, called in; and examined.
2. Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming to his Parliament in person, or of attending to any kind of public business?—A. The state of his Majesty's health is such as to render him incapable of coming to Parliament, or of attending to public business.
What is the state of his Majesty's bodily health?—His Majesty's bodily health, when I left him on Monday last, and generally of late, has been but little disordered.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—The errors of his Majesty's mind seem to be as strongly impressed upon it, as during any part of his illness; but his Majesty has within the last few weeks been able to relate anecdotes more distinctly than for two or three months before that period.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's bodily and mental health since you was last examined before a Committee of this House, are you now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable, or improbable?—I think that his Majesty's recovery is highly improbable.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—I cannot state that his Majesty's recovery is altogether without hope, but I think it still extremely improbable.
On what do you ground your opinion, that his Majesty's recovery is highly improbable?—I think his Majesty's recovery is highly improbable, because his illness has continued for many months; and his mental health is in a considerably worse state than it was eight or ten months ago, because his Majesty is considerably advanced in life, and because his Majesty's present indisposition has assumed a more determined form than in any of his former illnesses.
Has his Majesty's present degree of mental infirmity taken place gradually, or suddenly?—The present degree of his Majesty's mental infirmity may be said to have taken place rather suddenly: he was in a much better state of mental health towards the end of June; early in July, his mind was impressed with all the errors which have continued since.
Have you ever known an instance of any person exactly circumstanced as his Majesty now is, in point of mental health, recovering?—My experience in com-plaints of this general class is very limited: I have not known any case resembling very exactly, in all its features, that of his Majesty. The only person that I have known, about his Majesty's lime of life, whose mental health was deranged, did not recover.
At the time of the sudden change from better to worse in his Majesty's mental health, in the month of July, was his bodily health much impaired, and was his life in danger?—I cannot recollect the minute circumstances attending the derangement of his bodily health at that exact period; but the general impression which remains on my mind is, that his bodily health was not worse at that time, than it has been through the general course of his indisposition.
Were the paroxysms of mental disorder at that time such and so violent, or are they so now, as during their continuance to bring his Majesty's life into danger from their effect?—In some of the most violent paroxysms of his Majesty's complaint, he may perhaps be said to have been in some hazard, but it never appeared to me to be considerable: with regard to the present state of his disorder, I believe that his life is in no hazard whatever.
Can you state how long ago it is since you formed an opinion that his Majesty's recovery was improbable?—I began to be less confident about his Majesty's recovery, at the time of the Report of July; in the beginning of October I thought his Majesty's recovery very improbable; and now my opinion with respect to the improbability of his Majesty's recovery, is rather strengthened than weakened.
In your opinion, are his Majesty's faculties of perception and memory, impaired in any material degree?—His Majesty's perception and apprehension seem to me to be as acute at present as during any period of his indisposition; his memory seems to be impaired, but in a very inconsiderable degree. [Withdrew.
Dr. WILLIAM HEBERDEN, called in; and examined.
2. is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to any public business?—A. It is such as to render him incapable of coming
86
in person to his Parliament, or of attending to any public business.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—It is very little re moved from his Majesty's natural state of health.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—His Majesty's state of mind is very much disordered.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's mental and bodily health since your last examination before a. Committee of the House of Commons, are you now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—Improbable.
In what degree do you consider it as improbable?—It is highly improbable, but not in an extreme degree.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless—No.
Is it your opinion that the prospect of his Majesty's recovery is all but hopeless?—No. His Majesty, from the middle of July last till about the second week of December, appeared to me to be more uniformly disordered in his mind than he has been since that period; had the same degree of disorder still continued, I might perhaps consider his Majesty's condition as almost hopeless, but the subsequent improvement, slight as it has been, makes me think altogether more favourably of the termination.
In what has that slight improvement consisted?—It consists in a greater power of conversation, and in having laid aside some erroneous notions with which his Majesty had been before possessed.
Is it to be understood that his Majesty's mind is not as much impressed with the errors which had possession of it before, as he was in the middle of the month of July last?—The errors to which I allude, had grown up in his Majesty's mind between the middle of July and the end of August; from the second week in December, his Majesty's mind has appeared to me to be clearer, and freer from error, than it had been in the latter part of August.
Do the errors which existed in his Majesty's mind before the middle of July last, still continue to exist in the same degree that they did formerly?—The errors and general character of his Majesty's disorder, since the middle of July, have appeared to me altogether different from what they were in any previous part of his Majesty's illness; and though some ideas may still remain, which posseseed
his Majesty's mind early in his disorder, the greater part of them have grown up since the middle of July.
You are understood to say, that those errors that have possessed the mind of the King, between the middle of July and the second week in December, were quite distinct from those that had possessed it previously to the middle of July?—Yes.
And you are understood to say, that those errors were removed, or very much diminished at least?—Some of them have been removed.
State whether the errors which possessed his Majesty's mind before the middle of July, still continue to possess it?—I believe I must go into some history of his Majesty's complaint, from as long ago as February last, to the end of April: his Majesty had appeared to be getting materially better in the months of April, May, and June, there was very little of disorder exhibited; early in July, there seemed to be a fresh accession of disorder, so distinct in its character, from his Majesty's previous state, that I look upon it as indeed a new complaint.
Did the old complaint continue to subsist along with the new complaint; or when the new complaint manifested itself in the mind, did the old complaint seem to be extinguished? When the new complaint arose early in July, though his Majesty was not well from his former disorder, yet I am not conscious that there were any particular errors, that at that time rested upon his mind.
Do any of the errors that possessed his Majesty's mind before the middle of last July, now possess it?—His Majesty's mind is still possessed with the same sort of false reasoning; but I am not aware, that for some time previous to the commencement of the present disorder in July, there were any false facts upon his Majesty's mind.
Then the error of his Majesty's mind, as you are understood to state, previous to July, was merely that of false reasoning; are you to be understood that that was the sole error of his Majesty's mind, previous to that?—I think for two or three months previous to July, that had been the state of his Majesty's mind.
Does that propensity of the mind still continue?—Yes
Did that false reasoning extend itself to many subjects, or did it confine itself to a few?—It was principally confined to a
88
few; but there were many subjects upon which his Majesty's judgment could not be trusted.
Does his Majesty's mind continue to be engaged upon those particular subjects, on which you say it was principally engaged at that period?—Yes.
When his Majesty's mind runs upon those subjects, on which you say it was principally engaged, is it subject now to the same false reasoning it was then?—Yes.
You have said, that you consider his Majesty's recovery as highly improbable; have you ever known any person circumstanced in mental health, as the King is now circumstanced, and of the same age as his Majesty, recover from an illness such as his Majesty's?—I never knew any person under the same circumstances of disorder and age as his Majesty.
How long have you been of opinion that his Majesty's recovery was highly improbable?—Perhaps from the latter end of August. [Withdrew.
Dr. THOMAS MUNRO, called in; and examined.
2. Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—A. I think his Majesty's state is such as to render him incapable of coming to his Parliament, or of doing any public business.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—The present state of his Majesty's bodily health is tolerably good.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—His Majesty's mental health is insane.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's mental and bodily health, during his present indisposition, as far as it has come under your observation, are yon now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—I think his Majesty's recovery is improbable.
In what degree do you consider Ms Majesty's recovery to be improbable?—I think it to be very improbable.
Are you of opinion that it is hopeless?—Certainly not.
On what do you found your opinion that his Majesty's mental situation is hot hopeless?—His Majesty has no symptoms of fatuity; if his Majesty had those symptoms, I should certainly consider it as a hopeless case.
Do you consider that in all mental disorders not accompanied by fatuity, there is always some hope?—I certainly think there is a chance of recovery.
In the course of your practice, have you frequently had hopes founded upon such reasoning realized?—Certainly.
Have you ever known a patient circumstanced as his Majesty is, as to mental disorder and period of life, recover?—I have known patients older than his Majesty recover.
With the same degree of mental disorder?—Not with the same degree of mental disorder; I have seen very few cases of persons so old as his Majesty.
Do you conceive that the peculiar situation of his Majesty, circumstanced as he is, with regard to his regal dignity, has any effect upon his distemper?—I think there is a vast deal of irritation about his Majesty, which is seldom seen in patients in general.
Do you conceive that any degree or portion of his Majesty's disorder, is ascribable to his being a King?—I think certainly that the anxiety and cares of government may possibly have contributed to the disorder.
At this moment do you think that the sense of his own situation as being the Sovereign of the country, has any effect one way or other upon the state of his mental health?—I should think not.
Does his Majesty shew any anxiety on the subject of public affairs?—I have had very few opportunities of seeing his Majesty; during my presence with him, I have not observed any thing of the kind.
Do you conceive that his Majesty's station has, or has had, or is likely to have any, and what effect upon his mental disorder?—I conceive that his Majesty has not suffered from his high situation, as far as I have had an opportunity of observing, during my attendance.
Do you think that the reflection, upon his own regal state, when his mind is in a state of progress towards recovery, might have any effect either in retarding or accelerating that recovery?—I think it might have some effect in retarding that recovery.
How long ago is it since you first saw his Majesty?—The first time I saw his Majesty was the 9th of October.
Have you seen the King regularly from the 9th of October?—I have been at Windsor ten different times; the first seven weeks I was there once a week; went on
90
the Friday, and came back on the Saturday; the three last visits once a fortnight.
Have you witnessed any improvement in the King's mental state latterly?—I am not aware of any improvement. [Withdrew.
Dr. SAMUEL FOART SIMMONS, called in; and examined.
2. Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—A. it certainly is.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—Upon the whole, very good.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—A state of great derangement.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's mental and bodily health during his present indisposition, as far as it has come under your observation, are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable, or improbable?—Improbable.
In what degree do you conceive it to be improbable?—It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to say.
Are you of opinion that it is hopeless?—I am not.
How long have you attended the King?—From the 9th day of October.
Upon what do you ground your opinion, that the King's recovery is improbable?—On the different attacks, and the repeated attacks, his Majesty has had; his age; and what I have observed occasionally of the symptoms of the disease under which he now labours.
Did you ever see any person as old as his Majesty, and labouring under the same degree of mental derangement, recover?—Several.
Did you ever see any person as old as his Majesty, and who had so long laboured under the same degree of mental infirmity, recover?—I have seen persons as old as his Majesty recover, after, I think, a longer duration of the disease than the present attack.
After as many repeated attacks as his Majesty has had?—With respect to the number of attacks, I have had occasion, in hospital practice, to see persons who have gone through a long life, occasionally subject to attacks of this kind; I have known persons attacked ten, twelve, or more times, and recover from each of those attacks.
And die of age at last?—Yes.
Not in a state of insanity?—I cannot

91
immediately recollect instances, bat I believe I may venture to say, that I have known some die of other disease, and not in a state of insanity.
Their last attack having come upon them at the age his Majesty has now attained?—That is hazarding a great deal; it would require time and reference to records to answer that question; but I certainly have seen patients as old and much older than his Majesty, recover from attacks of this kind.
You say that you consider his Majesty's recovery as improbable?—I do.
You say you have known persons as old as his Majesty, and labouring under an equal degree of mental derangement, recover?—Yes.
Then why do you think his Majesty's recovery improbable?—Because the number of recoveries of persons of that age is very small in comparison with the number of recoveries of those that are younger, the instances of recovery become less in the advanced periods of life. In St. Luke's hospital, we find that to be so much the case, that for the last three years, it has been resolved to admit no person above the age of seventy; before that, we were not restricted in point of age; and in the course of about thirty years there have occurred (for I looked over the Reports) about seventy-eight instances of persons of seventy years and upwards who had been admitted, and of that number only about sixteen had been discharged from the books of the hospital as cured: whereas, taking the whole number of patients during that period, the number amounting to above six thousand, about one half or very nearly half have recovered, but only one patient in five of that advanced age have recovered.
Is not the state of his Majesty's constitution and general health remarkably strong, considering the period of his life?—His Majesty's constitution is so good, that I should rate him as a man of sixty, in point of health, now at this moment.
Have you perceived latterly any symptoms of improvement in his Majesty's mental health?—I have thought, for the last month, his Majesty detailed anecdote, and seemed inclined to listen to what was said to him by those about him, rather more than he did at the beginning of my attendance.
Do you consider that as any material symptom of improvement?—I have thought it rather a favourable sign.
Do the symptoms of his Majesty's present disorder differ in any respect, and in what, from those which you had an opportunity of observing when you attended his Majesty in his illness in 1804?—The state of his Majesty's ideas is very different from what it was in 1804; the fact is, that the symptoms of mental disease must be in a great degree the ideas of the patient; it is not like a bodily disease, you can judge of the state of a man's mind only from the ideas he gives forth, and they are in many respects very different from what they were when I attended his Majesty before.
Do the differences which you observed in his Majesty's present and past state lead you to form conclusions more or less unfavourable to his ultimate recovery?—More unfavourable.
Have you ever discovered any symptoms of fatuity in his Majesty's case?—I have not.
Do you, on account of the absence of that symptom, think less unfavourably of his Majesty's recovery?—More favourably.
Have you been in the habit of classing the different descriptions of mental disorder?—That is a matter of so much difficulty, that I have not attempted it any more than the common distinction of mania and melancholia; low spirits, and high spirits, or more or less of irritability.
Do you conceive the loss of sight in his Majesty would have any effect in retarding or accelerating his recovery, or rendering it more or less probable?—The number of cases of blind persons that I have met with, who have been insane, has been extremely small; they do not amount to more than seven or eight; they have been all of them unfavourable cases; and it is difficult to say what effect blindness may have, with respect to the treatment of an insane person; in some points it may be favourable, but in general one would suppose it was rather unfavourable. You cannot guide and manage the patient so well as if he could see.
Do you mean by unfavourable cases, cases in which the patients did not recover?—Yes.
Do you conceive that the reflection upon his regal state, when his Majesty's mind is in a state of progress towards recovery, might have any effect whatever in retarding or accelerating that recovery?—His Majesty has appeared to retain a consciousness of his regal state, and that seems to have given a peculiar feature to

93
his disorder, and makes it in some degree different from that of an ordinary case; but I should find it very difficult to say how far that would retard or promote his recovery; it makes the case rather more difficult to conduct.
Have the goodness to state, whether you consider his Majesty's perceptions as clear and distinct?—His Majesty's perceptions, with respect to any objects that are presented to him, are correct; but he has a number of ideas floating in his mind that are extremely erroneous: but he judges of the objects immediately around him, his food and those things, with great precision; speaks of the goodness of a dish, whether he likes it or not, and knows every thing presented to him; so far his perception is correct.
Does his Majesty's memory appear to be at all affected?;—His memory is firm and good.
Do you draw any inference from that circumstance, with respect to the probabilit yor improbability of recovery?—That is certainly a favourable circumstance. [Withdrew.
Lunœ, 13°die Januarii, 1812
The Right Honourable CHARLES LONG, in the Chair.
Dr. Sir HENRY HALFORD, Bart. called in; and examined.
2. Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament; or of attending to any kind of public business?—A. It is such as to render him incapable of coming to his Parliament or attending to any kind of public business.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—Not good, by any means.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—Extremely disordered.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's bodily and mental health, since your last examination before a Committee of the House of Commons, are you now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—Improbable.
In what degree do you consider it as improbable?—Very improbable.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—No.
On what do you found the opinion, that his Majesty's recovery is not hopeless, though very improbable?—It is Very improbable, from the character of his present
94
symptoms; from the duration of the disorder, and from his Majesty's advanced period of fife; but above all, from the influence of his Majesty's peculiar situation and circumstances, upon his irritable constitution: but his Majesty's faculties of perception and memory are not impaired. When did you first form an opinion that the recovery of his Majesty was very improbable?—In the beginning of July last I thought it improbable; and the continuance of his symptoms since that time has made it very improbable, in my opinion.
Do you expect that his Majesty will recover?—I do not expect that he will recover.
Is his Majesty in a state to converse upon public affairs?—Certainly not.
Has there been any period since your last examination, when his Majesty's life has appeared in immediate danger?—No.
Is there any such danger existing now?—I think there was not when I left Windsor on Saturday; but I have reason to think that within the last four and twenty hours the King has not been so well.
Had any fresh accession of disorder taken place before you left Windsor on Saturday, or had you reason to apprehend that it was coming on?—His Majesty was under circumstances to make one rather suspect that it was coming on, than that it had established itself.
Could you ascribe the aggravation of the symptoms that was coming on, to any particular cause?—No.
Is his Majesty's bodily health more impaired now than it was six months ago?—I do not think it is.
Is his Majesty in a worse state of bodily health than he was when you were last examined?—No.
Have you observed any signs of amendment in his Majesty since the beginning of December?—There have been several occasions on which the violence of his Majesty's disorder appeared to be so far abated, and his mind seemed so far cleared up as to admit of his detailing anecdotes of past times accurately, but not to exercise a sound judgment on present circumstances.
Since the beginning of December, has his Majesty shewn generally more disposition to conversation?—His Majesty has frequently shewn himself rather more capable of conversation.
Has his Majesty, in any of those conversation to which you have referred ad-

95
verted to the circumstances of his own situation?—Yes. By watching the turn of his Majesty's thought, and the remarkable energy of his expressions, it is obvious that his mind has been deeply stricken by the supercession of his authority. I think it is important to state this, because it has a greater weight in determining the opinion which I have formed as to the great improbability of his Majesty's recovery, than the particular symptoms of his com plaint. [Withdrew.
Dr. JOHN WILLIS, called in; and examined.
2. Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his Parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—A. His Majesty is incapable of doing either.
What is the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—His Majesty's bodily health I have thought somewhat improved since I saw his Majesty first, which was the 9th of October; bat not within, the last week.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—There is a very great degree of derangement, and particularly bordering on insanity, having very much the symptoms of insanity; at the same time rather unusually and occasionally with delirious characters.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's mental and bodily health during his present indisposition, as far as it has come under your observation, are you of opinion, that his Majesty's recovery is probable or improbable?—Very improbable.
Are you of opinion, that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—No, certainly not hopeless.
On what do you found your opinion, that his Majesty's recovery is not hopeless?—I think it has not arrived at that fixed point, at which cases generally are hopeless; it has not so decidedly that fixed character of insanity to render it hopeless.
Do you expect that his Majesty will recover?—No; I do not expect that his Majesty will recover.
When did you leave Windsor?—This morning.
What was his Majesty's state at the time you left Windsor?—A very indifferent state.
Is it worse than it was last week?—Yes; I think, it is certainly worse than it was last week.
Has there been any aggravation of symptoms within the last three days?—I think there has; they have bordered more on the symptoms of delirium, perhaps not to a greater degree than I have seen since the 9th of October, but, as compared with ten days or a fortnight before, there was then a better appearance. From the 9th of October to the 23d of November, I saw his Majesty only three days.
How often do you visit his Majesty now?—I have been resident at Windsor ever since the 18th of November, with the interval of the last week; I returned on Saturday.
There appears, in a Report presented to the House of Commons from her Majesty's Council, to have been the correction of an opinion given by one of the physicians in his first examination; were you the physician who so corrected your opinion?—I was.
Were there any grounds upon which you could form a different opinion from that which you gave in your first examination, before the second took place?—I do not know, with regard to my own feelings, that I formed a different opinion; but I found that I had not used a word with its proper import, being perhaps in the habit of using the word despair' in a more light manner than I ought to have been: I did not mean that I did despair totally; but one is perhaps apt, when speaking to the friends of a person who ask whether they shall remain longer or not, or whether you despair, to say, I conceive a person may recover, but I cannot be without despair, or I cannot help despairing; but on hearing read the words I had used, "I cannot help despairing," with an emphasis laid upon them, I was struck with them as conveying a meaning much stronger than I intended. I had not been in the habit of attending the Queen's Council.
Did you mean more by saying you despaired of the recovery, than that you did not expect a recovery?—No, I did not.
You attended the King on former illness?—Yes.
Is his mental state worse now than occurred at any time during those previous illnesses when you saw his Majesty?—Very considerably worse than I had seen his Majesty before.
You stated, that you were called in on the 9th of October; has your attendance upon his Majesty been pretty constant sine that time?—From the 9th of Oc-

97
tober I saw the King only to the 12th of October, and was called in again on the 18th of November; since which I have attended his Majesty regularly.
Since your attendance became pretty constant, have you ever witnessed any thing approaching to a lucid interval in his Majesty's case?—I have seen several times in which the King could hold conversation extremely well for a short time, but his Majesty was always liable to the disorder pressing, upon the mind again at any moment. The King has held certainly good conversations.
Do those conversations appear to you to be of a favourable tendency?—Certainly one cannot help having a hope from hearing those conversations, but it requires to get to a further advanced point to be able to say that it is really an amendment; it is often what takes place when derangement is gradually ceasing.
Then the derangement of the King's mind is not such as to leave you without hope at any moment?—It had yesterday much of a feverish tendency; it was more difficult to interrupt the King from the influence of disorder on his mind; but there is generally a capacity in the King to answer any sort of questions.
Since your attendance upon his Majesty, has there, in your judgment, been any appearance of progressive improvement?—I can hardly so well call it progressive improvement, as occasional; there were many days on which there was a great degree of quiet that has taken place at different times since the 23d of November.
Is your opinion upon the improbability of his Majesty's recovery as strong now as it was on the 9th of October?—It is.
Do you consider his Majesty's disorder, in general, nearest allied to delirium or insanity?—For the most part, during the greatest part of the time I have seen his Majesty in his present indisposition, it has been nearest allied to insanity. [Withdrew.
Dr. ROBERT DARLING WILLIS, called in; and examined.
Is the state of his Majesty's health such as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to, any Wind of public business?—His Majesty's state is not such as to enable him to come to his parliament, or to attend to any kind of public business.
What it the present state of his Majesty's bodily health?—The, present state
98
of his Majesty's bodily health is by no means good, though it may be considered, generally speaking better than under the circumstances of want of air and exercise might have been expected. This morning, his Majesty is in an extremely agitated and nervous state, which has been increasing for some time past.
What is the present state of his Majesty's mental health?—The state of his Majesty's health is worse at present than it has been at any time since his attack.
Adverting to the state of his Majesty's mental health since your last examination before a Committee of the House of Commons, are you now of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is probable, or improbable?—Extremely improbable.
Are you of opinion that his Majesty's recovery is hopeless?—I do not think it impossible; but I really hardly know how to apply the word hopeless in a medical sense, it is only applicable to a state somewhere between extreme improbability and" impossibility, but that is a state which is so extremely difficult to ascertain, and in the greater number of instances will be as transient, that I hardly know how to apply the words. I do not think it impossible, but it is in my opinion all but impossible.
When did you first form your opinion, that his Majesty's recovery was extremely improbable?—I began to have a very indifferent opinion of his Majesty's state, soon after the beginning of the paroxysm in July; and as the symptoms have never given way in any respect, my hopes have continually decreased.
Is there any thing peculiar in the aggravated symptoms which have shewn themselves within the last three days?—Nothing peculiar; nothing that we have hot seen in several aggravated states before.
Are the symptoms themselves more aggravated than they have been at any previous time?—No; I have seen his Majesty in the same state several times
Are the symptoms which have appeared within the last three days, such as to endanger his Majesty's life?—In any other individual I think they would; but I have so repeatedly seen the King in the same state, and have seen them give way afterwards, that I can hardly say that I consider his Majesty's life as in danger from those symptoms.
Referring to the answer given to the third question, respecting the state of his Majesty's mental health, did you mean to convey to the Committee that his mental

99
health is now worse than it was after the paroxysm came on in July?—I think it is.
Do you mean to confine your answer to that question, merely to appearances within the last three days?—No; nothing has taken place within the last few days to increase the mental symptoms. The mental symptoms have regularly increased since July; they have never diminished.
Has there been no abatement of symptoms, at times, since the beginning of December?—No abatement of the essential symptoms. [Withdrew.

THE PRINCE REGENT'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Lord G. Thynnereported to the House, that his royal highness the Prince Regent, having been attended with their Address of yesterday, was pleased to receive the same very graciously, and to give the following Answer:
"Gentlemen,
"I thank you for this dutiful and loyal Address. Your assurances of the continuance of your support in the great contest in which we are engaged, are highly gratifying to me, and I have the greatest satisfaction in receiving the new proof of your affection and loyalty to the King, my father, which is afforded by your readiness to provide amply and suitably for his comfort and dignity under the pressure of the severe calamity with which it has pleased the Almighty to afflict him."

ECCLESIASTICAL COURT——PETITION OF MARY ANN DIX.
Lord Folkestonesaid, he rose for the purpose of laying before the House the Petition of a very humble individual; but, he was sure, it would not, on that account, meet with less attention, particularly when it was known that this person had been treated with great oppression. The Petitioner was a young woman of the name of Dix, residing in Bristol, and who, for two years, had been imprisoned in the gaol of that city, having been excommunicated by the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court. The circumstances were briefly these. Two women, of whom the petitioner was one, fell out, and abused each other in the street. In consequence of some expressions made use of by the Petitioner, her opponent instituted a suit against her in the Ecclesiastical Court, and at the end of a year and a half, she was sentenced to perform penance. Having failed in this, she was ultimately excommunicated. A process afterwards issued out of the King's-bench, under
100
which she was arrested; and, for two years, she had continued a prisoner in the gaol of Bristol. Being a pauper, she had no means of subsisting herself there, but was relieved by her father, who was himself a pauper, and received occasional assistance from charitable persons. As the costs of the suit amounted to 30 l. and she was destitute of money, no hope of her liberation from prison could be entertained, unless by the intervention of the House. In different Insolvent acts, clauses had been introduced for the relief of persons in her situation; but in that which had passed last session, no such clause had been inserted. In the Perpetual act of the 33d of his majesty, another mode of relief was pointed out; but of this she could not avail herself, as the expence which must necessarily be incurred, amounted to 5l. and she was not possessed of such a sum. Even if she were prepared to take the benefit of that provision, she could not claim it, except at the assizes, and, as they were held but once a year, she would be obliged to suffer an imprisonment of nearly 12 months longer. These were the circumstances under which the Petitioner requested the interference of the House. He intended, at present, only to move, that the petition do lie on the table; for, on reading it, those who were at all conversant with the regular proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court, with which he had endeavoured to make himself acquainted, would see that divers irregularities had taken place, in the case of this woman. Therefore, those persons who were connected with the proceedings, might desire to have some opportunity of explanation, before the subject was agitated by the House. He, at the same time, gave notice, that on this day se'nnight, he would submit a motion on this and several other similar cases, which had come to his knowledge.—The Petition was then brought up and read as fallows:
"To the Hon the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.
"The humble Petition of Mary Ann Dix, of the parish of Saint Mary Redeliff, in the city of Bristol, spinster, a prisoner in his Majesty's gaol of Newgate, in the same city—
"Sheweth—That in or about May, 1808, your petitioner was cited by the name of Mary Dicks, to appear personally in the episcopal consistory court of Bris-

101
tol, to answer to Elizabeth Daniel Ruffy, wife of Daniel Benjamin Ruffy, of the same parish, officer of excise, in a cause or suit of defamation or slander.—And your petitioner, in obedience to the citation, appeared personally in court on the day and time therein appointed, but no proctor was employed on her behalf to defend the said suit; your petitioner being then only between 18 and 19 years of age, without any money of her own, and her father being only a poor labourer at the wages of fourteen shillings a week, and having a wife and five other children dependant upon him for a maintenance.
"That your petitioner continued to attend personally at the court, on every court day, for several months successively, and then went in a place of service at Bath, for about three months; and during her absence her mother attended the court for her, but was told by the plaintiff's proctor publicly in the court, that her attendance was of no use, and that she must send her daughter.
"That upon your petitioner's return from Bath, she again attended the said court, and continued to attend it in her own person, until the end of the suit.
"That in the course of the proceedings in the said cause, your petitioner was, by a sentence in writing, enjoined penance, and condemned in costs, which were afterwards taxed at the sum of 12 l. 7s. 11 d. And in a subsequent stage of the proceedings, your petitioner was publicly denounced, and declared excommunicate, in the parish church of St. Mary Redeliff, for not performing her penance, and not paying the said costs; although your petitioner was never admonished to extract a schedule of the said penance out of the registry of the said court, and perform the same according to the tenor and purport thereof; and was totally ignorant of the time, place, and manner, in which it was to be performed; and although your petitioner was then a minor, and wholly incapable, from her own and her father's poverty, to pay the said costs.
"That your petitioner has further learnt, that there has been an increase of the costs subsequent to the period when they were taxed, and that the plaintiff's proctor now requires payment of the sum of 30 l. as the total amount of the costs; which sum your petitioner is wholly incapable-of paying, and which she has not the slightest hope or prospect of ever being able to make good.
102
"That, on the 22d day of November, 1809, your petitioner was attached, on the writ de excommunicato capiendo, directed to the sheriffs of, the city of Bristol, and taken to the gaol of Newgate, in the same city, where she has been ever since imprisoned under, and by virtue of the said writ.
"That during the whole of her confinement, your petitioner has been without any means of providing for her own support, and that she would have been long since starved, but for the assistance of her father, and the bounty of benevolent persons.
"That your petitioner has been informed, that on divers occasions the legislature has looked upon persons in her situation in the light of debtors, but that her poverty will effectually preclude her from availing herself of the relief provided by the Lords' act; and that when she attempted to avail herself of the benefits of the late insolvent act, she was informed that it did not apply to her case.
"That, therefore, your petitioner begs leave humbly to represent to your honourable House, that she has been for now more than two years confined unjustly, for not performing her aforesaid penance, and not paying costs, which she was le" gaily, as a minor, and practically, as a pauper, incapable of paying. That she has no means of providing herself with sustenance, and no hope of deliverance, unless through the interposition of your honourable House.
"And your petitioner therefore humbly prays, that you would graciously take her case into your serious consideration, and give her such relief as to you in your wisdom shall seem meet:

"And your petitioner shall ever pray.

The Mark of

"Witness,

X

"Thomas Sanders.

MARY ANN DIX."

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

DEBTORS IN THE ISLE OF MAN.
Mr. Hornerpresented a Petition from a number of persons imprisoned for debt in the Isle of Man, (of which place they were not natives), praying the intervention of the legislature in their behalf. The hon. and learned gent. stated, that the Petitioners were the same persons whose grievances had been laid before the House in the course of the last session. When the Bill for the relief of insolvent Debtors

103
in England and Wales, was in its progress through that House, a clause extending its provisions to strangers in the Isle of Man, had been inserted. The other House had, however, rejected it, on the ground that they were not sufficiently informed of the state of the law in that part of the empire, to authorise them to legislate for it. This, he conceived, was a very hard ease, and contrary to the first principles of justice. Persons, who were natives of the island, and were imprisoned for debt, had a right to demand their liberty, on giving up all their effects; but strangers, who contracted debts there, did not partake of this privilege; they must either liquidate them, or lie in prison. The object of the petitioners was, either to have the local law of the island extended to them, or to be protected by the provisions of the acts passed for the relief of the debtors of the United Kingdom. He submitted to the House, that this was a case on which some particular provision should be made. It was his intention, therefore, to introduce a bill on the subject; but he would previously furnish the House with such information, as would serve for its ground-work.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED ON THE PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF IRELAND.
Sir John Newportsaid, in rising to make his promised motion for the reappointment of the Select Committee on the Public Income and Expenditure of Ireland, he should not have thought it necessary to trouble the House with many words, as the measure had been recommended from the throne, but he felt it proper to account for his making a motion, which, on the first view, might seem to come more properly from ministers. In doing this, he must call their attention to certain circumstances which had taken place in the last session. It would be recollected, that he had endeavoured to bring the subject of Irish Finance under the consideration of the House, a long time since; and the propriety of a Finance Committee originated with him. In the last session of parliament, notice of a defalcation in the revenue of Ireland was taken by the House. Several sessions preceding, he ineffectually endeavoured to call their attention to this object, which was certainly one of very considerable moment. However, the evil went on increasing
104
till it became so alarming as to be noticed in the Speech from the throne, at the commencement of the last session. But, although that was the fact, no proposition was made on the subject, till, on the 19th of March, he called the attention of the House to those points, and proposed a set of Resolutions.* It appeared to be the opinion of many members, that the House could not enter into the consideration of the subject-matter of those resolutions, until documentary information was laid before them. In consequence, he withdrew those Resolutions, and immediately after moved for the appointment of a Committee to enquire into the state of the Finances of Ireland, and to report thereon to the House. This motion was negatived by a considerable majority, which included the Chancellors of the Exchequer for England and Ireland, and, he believed, all the other members of administration who were present. But, it was worthy of remark, that within six days after his motion had been negatived, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland: proposed the formation of a Committee exactly similar to that for which he had moved, and which had been so recently rejected. The measure having been agreed to, the Committee proceeded in its researches; and, at the close of the session, great credit was taken in the Speech for the benefit resulting from a measure, which bad originated with him, but which, on his proposition, had been negatived. At the commencement of the present session, the re-appointment of the Committee was called for from the throne; and, he would ask, had he not a right to come forward and lay claim to the honour of having originally proposed this measure, which had been afterwards stolen from him? He had only to add, with respect to the Report of that Committee, that he hoped any error, or apparent error, which was discernible on the face of it, would not be repeated. He had noticed one, which, if it had occurred in an Irish parliament, would certainly have been set down as a proof of their propensity to blundering. In that report he observed, under date of the 14th of June, a statement was made, founded on evidence, which evidence, by referring to the index, appeared not to have been given till the 1st of July following. The circumstance was of importance; for it was in that particular part,
*See Vol. 19, p.424

105
attempted to be shewn that the defalcation had been occasioned by temporary causes. The deduction appeared to have been made on the 14th of June, and the evidence on which it was founded was adduced on the 1st of July! He could not avoid' expressing his surprise, that the Report should have been made up at a period, when many of the members of the Committee had left town. He hoped "his would not again occur, because it was not right that such a composition should be sent forth to the public, purporting to be the Report of the Committee. Having stated thus much, he would now move,
"That the several Accounts and Papers presented to the House in the last session of parliament relating to the Public Income and Expenditure of Ireland, be referred to a Select Committee; and that they be directed to enquire and report to the House, what has been, during the last 21 years, ended the 5th of January 1812, the increase and redemption of the public funded debt of Ireland, and what was the state and amount thereof on the said day; what has been the progress of the permanent revenue of Ireland during the same period, and what may be the expected future annual produce of the taxes now existing in that country; what has been the total expenditure of Ireland in each year of the same period, distinguishing the amount expended on account of the joint expenditure of Great Britain and Ireland, or which may appear to be still due on that account; and what was the amount of the unfunded debt and demands outstanding and unprovided for in Ireland on the 5th of January 1812: And likewise to take into their consideration the accounts relating to the trade and navigation of Ireland during the same period, and report the same to the House, together with their observations upon the whole of the matters referred to them:"
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it would be necessary that some of the documents connected with the motion should be brought down to the latest possible date, and not, as they at present stood, to January 1811. He could assure the right hon baronet, that he never had the smallest intention of depriving him of the fame and glory of originating this measure. He should be very sorry to think that the fame of the right hon. baronet stood on so slight a foundation, as to be affected by such a circumstance. He certainly remembered the occurrence; but, as it did
106
not make a very strong impression on his mind, perhaps the recollection of the right hon. baronet was more accurate. There had been a distinct and specific motion on the Finance of Ireland, and it appeared to him and others, as he stated at the time, that it would be better to have an inquiry on the subject, before a discussion was entered into. If he did not forget, he in his speech on the occasion, gave a notice on that very point. But, the moment the Resolutions were disposed of, the right hon. baronet, attacking his fame and glory, took the matter out of his hands, and immediately made a motion of that very description to which he had alluded in his speech. It was then negatived, and, being renewed on a future day, was acceded to. But it had not been taken up in consequence of any thing which fell from the right hon. baronet; for notice of such an intention had been given before he made his motion. If the right hon. baronet felt it right to step out of the way to make the present motion, he was by no means dissatisfied with him; the appointment of the Committee was all he desired. He did not feel inclined, in the smallest degree, to oppose the right hon. baronet if he proposed the Committee, as it originally stood, with the exception of any members who might be out of town. With respect to the statement, that part of the Report appeared to be founded on evidence of a later date than the Report itself, he was extremely sorry the Chairman of, the Committee was not present, who, of course, was more competent to explain the matter than he was. But, certainly, it did appear, that some discretion had been given to the Chairman, in drawing up the Report; and, documents had been furnished at a period when some clerical error might have been committed. He had nothing further to state, than that he was very willing the right hon. baronet should share in all the fame and all the glory of the measure.
Sir John Newportsaid, there certainly had been an understanding that those papers which came in, when the Report was in a state of forwardness, should be then examined. It was not of that he complained; but of the introduction of a, new principle, an endeavour to account for the defalcation in the revenue of Ireland, from accidental and temporary causes. As to the members of the Committee, he would propose no alteration from last session; with the exception of

107
two names, and those he wished to be excluded, as they had not attended the Committee once during the last session, and were at present out of town. As he wished the Committee to be active and efficient, he would propose the hon. member for Cork (Mr. C. Hutchinson) in the room of Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald; and lord A. Hamilton, in the room of Mr. Leslie Foster. Both the individuals he had named were deeply interested in the researches of the Committee. Indeed, he conceived, the hon. member for Cork ought to have been on the Committee originally.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the substitution of the hon. member for Cork, in the place of another gentleman from the same part of the United Kingdom, could not be objected to; but he could see no good reason for placing the noble lord, who represented a northern part of the kingdom, in the room of Mr. L. Foster.
Sir J. Newportsaid, his wish was to have gentlemen, from every part of the kingdom on the Committee. He then proposed his Committee, which was the same as that of last session, with the exception of the hon. member for Cork, and lord A. Hamilton.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to the nomination of his lordship. He considered that the right hon. baronet had no right to arrogate to himself the exclusive privilege of nominating the members of the Committee. He had already introduced one new name, and, certainly, it was not just, that the second should also be of his proposing. He had no objection to let the Committee stand as it originally did; and, when he considered that that Committee had given the most general satisfaction, he thought it was hardly reasonable that any alteration should be made. If, however, it was thought expedient that a gentleman connected with North Britain should be on the Committee, he would propose Mr. Houston, member for Glasgow, as a very fit person.
Sir J. Newportdenied that the nomination of the Committee was with him. It was exactly constituted as proposed by the right hon. gentleman last year, with the exception of two names; therefore it was he who bad the nomination. It was his wish that members should be taken from all sides of the House; and it could not be disputed that the gentlemen on the opposite side were fully represented, He
108
surely could not be fairly considered as arrogating any exclusive privilege to himself, when he asked that the whole Committee should remain untouched, with the exception of two persons. He would go farther, and say, that, when it was a defalcation in the revenue which was to be considered, perhaps it would be better to pursue the mode acted upon by the Finance Committee of England, of which ministers were not allowed to be members.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not mean to accuse the right hon. baronet of attempting to make the exclusive nomination of the Committee. If he had used the word exclusive, it was merely in reference to the two new members.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he would, under all the circumstances, consent that the Committee should consist of the same members as last year, with the exception of the hon. member for Cork, in the room of Mr. M. Fitzgerald. This could not, he thought, be opposed, as it was merely an exchange of members from the same side of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no objection to this. He could not, however, help observing, that the right hon. baronet's desire to introduce members from different parts of the kingdom, appeared to have escaped his memory very suddenly.
The Committee was then agreed to.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS' BILL.
Mr. Lockhart, in pursuance of notice, made his motion respecting Charitable Donations He observed that it was a subject of great importance—that money bestowed for charitable purposes was in some degree public money, and required public vigilance. He then stated, that, thirty years ago, the amount of contributions was, in personal property, as much as 50,000 l. per annum, and, in real property, 250,000 l. which must now, by accumulation, amount to nearly half a million. It was of great consequence that such a sum should be properly accounted for and administered. He therefore proposed, that all real property and all personal property be" longing to charitable institutions should be registered; that the names of the trustees should be inserted in a registry, to be lodged in the office of the clerk of the peace; and that a duplicate of this should be kept in the court of Chancery. He had before recommended in cases of misconduct an action by the common informer against the trustees; but as this had been

109
objected to, he would abandon it, and propose in its room, that it should be in the power of two or more persons interested, to petition the lord chancellor, or the master of the Rolls, or the barons of the Exchequer, to hear and determine on any abuses thus presented to their notice, and at their discretion to make orders respecting them, with or without costs. He thought that no well-intentioned person could object to a plan of proceeding in which all due allowance would be made for error and inadvertency, and which would tend to secure foundations so extensively useful to the country. He insisted that some measure of this sort was highly necessary, as from the mal-administration of trustees, arising either from negligence or dishonesty, many of these foundations, had been abused, many were in danger of entire decay, and many were totally lost to the country. The hon. and learned gent. concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill, for the Registry of Charitable Donations, and providing a more summary remedy for the Correction of Abuses therein."—Leave was accordingly given to bring in the Bill.

CONSOLIDATED FUND.
Mr. Fremantle Mr. Fremantle moved that there be laid before the House a return of the income and charge upon the Consolidated Fund for the years ending the 5th of January, 1810, 1811, and 1812, together with an Account of the War taxes during the same period.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the hon. gent. had done him the honour to communicate to him the motion which he had just submitted to the House, together with two others of a similar nature, which he understood it was his intention also to propose. With respect to two of these three motions, he had no hesitation in objecting to them, because they would produce only what would be found in the annual accounts, which by law must be laid before parliament. When those accounts should come before the House, the hon. gent. might extract such parts as he required, and on them found any motion that he thought proper. As to the third motion, he had told the hon. gent. that if he would wait twenty-four hours, he would inquire whether the papers to be produced by it were in the same predicament as those to which he had just alluded, and if not that he would consent to their immediate production.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that he understood his hon. friend to wish not for the details of the accounts, but for the result. It was well known that the detailed accounts were never presented until a very late period of the session, and he contended that such a mode of opposition as that resorted to by the right hon. gent. would put a stop to all motions for papers relative to Finance.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdenied that these accounts were presented at a period so late as that, described by the right hon. gent. He had no objection whatever to the production of the information, but he saw no reason for departing from the ordinary course.
Mr. Hornerthought the opposition of the right hon. gent. quite novel in its kind. During his short experience of parliament, he bad every session seen motions agreed to, for papers in distinct anticipation of the annual accounts. The papers moved for by his hon. friend were indispensible, in order to remove the anxiety which the mutilated statements in the public prints respecting the Revenue, had occasioned in the public mind. It was well known that a large volume of public accounts was usually presented about March; that it was then sent to the printer's, and that it was towards the end of the session before the House obtained that financial information so desirable at an earlier period. It was singular that while the right hon. gent. was opposing the present motion, his noble colleagues had, as he understood, acceded to a similar one in the other House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrepeated that he had no objection to the production of the information; but that if the ordinary course was sufficient for that purpose, it appeared to him to be idle to depart from it. If the hon. gent. would withdraw his motion, and give notice of it for to-morrow, by that time he should be enabled to ascertain how far the above observation was applicable to it.
Mr. Fremantleconsented to withdraw his motion for the present, and to give notice of it for tomorrow, but not for the reasons alledged by the right hon. gent. He distrusted the financial statement which the right hon. gent. had yesterday made; and he was anxious before that most important subject, the state of the finances, should come to be discussed, that the House should be in possession of all possible information with respect to it.

RESOLUTION RESPECTING ORDERS AND NOTICES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerproceeded to propose the revival of the Resolution of last session, by which alternate precedence was given throughout the week to Orders and Notices; and for that purpose, moved, "That in this present session of parliament, all Orders of the day, set down in the Order book for Mondays and Fridays, shall be disposed of before the House will proceed upon any motions of which notices shall be entered in the order book."
Mr. Whitbreadallowed that a regulation like the present might afford some convenience to ministers, but contended that it injured freedom of discussion, and impeded members of parliament in the discharge of their duty. The Resolution of last session had been suggested by the inconvenience to public business, which the long inquiries of the two preceding sessions had occasioned. Those inconveniences, however, would probably not recur in the present session, and even if they did, they were not, in his opinion, so weighty as the evils attendant upon the regulation proposed by the right hon. gent. If, however, any regulation of that nature was to be adopted, at least it ought to be one of impartial justice. This had not been the case in the last session, for on days when, by the regulation, notices were to take precedence of orders, ministers had assumed the right of calling for particular orders, on the plea of expediting the public business. For his part, he was against all regulation of the kind; but if any were adopted, he would wish it to go further than that proposed by the right hon. gent.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermaintained, that the regulation in question could in no degree have the effect of injuring freedom of parliamentary discussion. It would still be in the power of any member to bring forward, in cases of emergency, motions without notice, although, in the ordinary course of affairs, it must certainly be deemed advisable, by giving notice of a motion, to prevent that surprise which would frequently other wise compel the House to rescind on Tuesday the business which it had done on Monday. All this would be left in the same state after the adoption of the regulation as before it.
Mr. Abercrombyconcurred in the protest of his hon. friend, against the proposed regulation. He was far, however, from imputing this proposition of the right hon. gent. to any improper motives, He only
112
imputed to him the error of exposing the, House to a real and permanent evil, in order to get rid of a supposed and temporary inconvenience.
Sir J. Newport Sir J. Newport moved as an amendment to the resolution, "That on the days upon which precedence was to be given to Orders, they should be brought forward in enact rotation as they stood on the paper in the order-book."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to this amendment, as a great innovation on the practice of parliament. If it were adopted, the natural consequence of it would be, that all the great business of the nation might be impeded by the second readings of contested private Bills. It was well known that the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means were fixed only the day but one before their occurrence; and should the right hon. baronet's Amendment be adopted, it was evident that all other business, however comparatively insignificant, that might have been fixed at an earlier period for the same days on which those important Committees were to take place, would have precedence of them.
Mr. Ponsonbyallowed that there was some weight in the objection of the right hon. gent. He admitted that there might be some inconvenience arising from the proposition of his hon. friend; but it was an inconvenience which grew out of the novel practice of the right hon. gent. himself. For his part he had never witnessed any attempt to break in upon the old established usages of parliament, that was not attended with great inconvenience, and he therefore advised the House to pause before it agreed to the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Folkestonesupported the Amendment, and declared that he had never known an instance of a debate on a contested private Bill having been carried on beyond six o'clock in the evening.
The House then divided,

For the Amendment

15

Against it

58

Majority

—43

The original Resolution was immediately agreed to.

MOTION FOR A SUPPLY—COLONEL M'MAHON'S SINECURE.
On the motion, That a Supply be granted to his Majesty,
Mr. Creeveyrose and insisted upon the necessity imposed upon the House of examining into several subjects connected

113
with the public revenue, before they entered into the consideration of the Supply which should be granted to the crown. He complained that no step had been taken to put in practice the recommendations contained in the reports respecting the abolition of sinecures and places. It would be impossible for the House to remove the scandal which attached to it in consequence of the number of placemen on the benches, until they took the reports to which he alluded into due consideration. Not only had no attempt been made to deorease the number of placemen who were members of that House, but the evil had even been aggravated. Since the last session, three new offices, the Clerk of the Council, the Marshal of the Admiralty, and the Paymaster of the Widows' Pensions, had been given to members of Parliament. The situation of a Master in Chancery had also been conferred on another member, evidently for no reason, but for his political conduct. There was also an old member of that House, (sir John Sinclair), long known as an indefatigable agriculturist, who had suddenly been made a Collector of the Excise. Could it be believed, that the office of Marshal of the Admiralty was conferred on the individual who enjoyed it, for any thing but his vote in that House? Could it be believed, that the offices of Master in Chancery, and Collector of the Excise, were conferred on the individuals who enjoyed them, for any thing but their votes in that House? Was all this right, amidst the distresses in which the country was involved? The motion with which he meant to conclude would be a general one, that he might not be accused of taking any member by surprise; but he felt the imperious duty, surrounded as they were by the influence of the crown; an influence continually increasing, and exercised in defiance of all decency—to endeavour to call the attention of Parliament to this important subject. One of the places to which he had alluded, he should wish to speak of with a great delicacy. He meant the office bellowed on colonel M'Mahon. He had the good fortune to be well acquainted with that gentleman, and he sincerely believed that a more honest and faithful servant never lived in the court of any prince whatever. Any reward that might be given colonel M'Mahon by his royal master was an act not of grace, but of justice. But he insisted that those who had advised his royal highness the Prince
114
Regent to do what he had done, had been guilty of gross injustice to colonel M'Mahon, and gross injustice to the people of England. They had placed col. M'Mahon in a most invidious situation, and they had advised the Prince Regent to commit a great outrage on the House of Commons. Twenty-nine years ago it was stated in the 10th Report of the Commissioners for Public Accounts, that the office of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions was a perfect sinecure, that it was useless, and that it ought to be abolished. In one of the Reports of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry presented to the House four years ago; the Commissioners referred to the former report of the Commissioners of Public Accounts, confirmed the opinion therein given, and stated, that on the decease of the patentee, general Fox, they presumed that the office would be abolished. Since the last session general Fox had died, and in the face of the two reports which he had mentioned, the ministers of the crown had advised his royal highness the Prince Regent to confer the office on colonel M'Mahon. Where was the use of naming commissioners, of placing gentlemen in an invidious situation, and of involving them in a multiplicity of fatigues, if the crown continued to give places in spite of the opinions which those commissioners declared? In his opinion, Parliament ought to offer to the Prince Regent, with respect and humility, their sentiments on the advice which he had received. At present, he called upon the House to pledge themselves, and he would move it as an Amendment to the motion before them, that they would take into their earliest consideration, the various offices of emolument recently granted by the crown to several of their members.
The Speakerwas of opinion, that no Amendment could be made to the motion before the House. The proper course appeared to him to be, to move the postponement of the motion, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Creeveyacquiesced, and moved as an Amendment, that the House would tomorrow se'nnight resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, in order to give an opportunity in the interim, for the consideration which he had suggested.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that, though there were sufficient grounds for opposing the motion, from the nature of the proposition which is involved, it was not sufficient merely to oppose

115
it, without taking some notice of the statements which had been made. In the selection which had been made of persons to fill public offices, since the last session of parliament, the hon. gent. thought he discovered a something that justified him in concluding that there was a great abuse and a great impropriety in appointing to those offices persons who were members of that House. He had to oppose what the hon. gent. had advanced on two distinct grounds. In the first place, it was obvious that where a member had been appointed to a situation which rendered him incapable of sitting in parliament, he could not come under the description of those of which he complained, and as the accepting of any office under government rendered it necessary for the party to vacate his seat, and for his constituents to determine whether or not he should again fill it, the hon. gent. ought, at all events, to have waited till such persons were again returned, before he came forward as he had done on the present occasion. But did the hon. gent. really think that the circumstance of a gentleman being a member of that House disqualified him from serving the public in an official situation? Did he think that if a barrister, for instance, had an opportunity of displaying great powers, and extraordinary talents, combined with extensive judicial knowledge, that all these should not be sufficient to recommend him to a public situation, because he was a member of parliament? Were they to understand that it was improper to appoint a member of parliament to an office under government, for no other reason, than that he was a member of parliament? To this it was that the hon. gentleman's reasoning came; for on every one of the appointments he admitted that the individual selected was not in other respects improperly chosen. Nothing was alleged against any one of the persons alluded to; no want of honour or of capacity to fill the situation to which he had been appointed, had been charged against either; and therefore if to the appointments made there was any objection, it arose solely from the circumstance of those on whom they were conferred having been thought worthy to sit in that House by a body of constituents who had chosen them to be their representatives. This was the first time he had ever heard such an objection called forth by any appointment that might have taken place. One of the persons mentioned
116
in particular by the hon. gent. on this occasion, namely col. M'Mahon, he had not only been silent with respect to casting any thing like blame or discredit on his character, but he had done him the justice to bestow a very high eulogium on his uniform conduct. In doing this, the hon. gent. had done that distinguished individual justice, and no more than justice. As to the truth of all that the hon. gent. had advanced in his praise, he, as far as he had any knowledge of col. M'Mahon, was ready to bear his individual testimony. Notwithstanding all this had been fairly admitted, to propose such a person to the Prince Regent as a person peculiarly entitled to a public reward was characterised as disgraceful to the individual. This was the hon. gentleman's statement, and the appointment of col. M'Mahon was described as one as derogatory to the Prince Regent as it was insulting to parliament. As such it had been arraigned by the hon. gent., because the abolition of the office to which he was appointed, had been recommended by a Committee of that House. The hon. gent. farther supposed that the office had been given to col. M'Mahon by patent for life. Now really he thought that before the hon. gent. came forward with such statements as those which they had heard from him that night, he ought at least to have given himself the trouble of enquiring into the nature of the office to which the individual alluded to had been appointed. Had be done this he would have found, that the office of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions had never been granted for life, and was not held by such a tenure even by the late general Fox. If, then, it were held by colonel M'Mahon even as it had been held by general Fox, still it would not be held as the hon. gent. had supposed. So far was this from being the case, and so far was this appointment from being any thing that could throw discredit on the Prince Regent, or be felt as insulting to parliament, or even to a Committee of that House (which, however, was by no means the same thing) that even in its being given, a marked intention to observe their Resolution was to be traced. Far from being against its being renewed by parliament, and disposed of as to them should seem best, it had been distinctly communicated to col. M'Mahon, by his Royal Highness's command, that considering the circumstances, under which the office stood, he was to hold it as subject to

117
any view that parliament might take of it. (Hear, hear!) He was surprised at the effect which this part of his speech seemed to have. Things appeared differently to different understandings. There might be some very great absurdity in what he had just uttered, but he was not aware that any thing had fallen from him to justify the triumphant cheers of the hon. gentlemen opposite. When the appointment of col. M'Mahon took place, it had been distinctly intimated to him, that he was not to consider that he had any hold on the office in question, that could prevent any adjudication of it which parliament might think proper to make. (Hear, hear!) It seemed from the conduct of the hon. gentlemen, that what he bad just stated had only the effect of confirming the hon. gentlemen's objections to the appointment, and that they considered the office thus given, to furnish stronger grounds for complaint than if it had been granted to col. M'Mahon by patent for life. If such was the opinion of the hon. gentlemen, he was content to leave them in the full possession of it. With respect to that or any other sinecure, the House however would recollect the course of its own proceedings. It had been resolved that no sinecures ought to be abolished till some other provision was made for accommodating public servants. The case of col. M'Mahon was that of an individual whose services merited a public remuneration. The power of giving pensions, instead of bestowing sinecures, had not been granted to the sovereign, and under those circumstances, the office in question falling vacant, it had been given to as worthy and as honourable an individual as the country could select, or the world afford. This however had been said to be disgraceful to the individual so appointed, derogatory to the Prince, and insulting to parliament. These observations it had been attempted to support, on the most futile grounds that could be well conceived, and on these it had been proposed to postpone the supplies called for by the country. The right hon. gent. concluded with expressing his hope that the proposition would not be acceded to, and that the amendment of the hon. gent. would be thrown out.
Mr. Broughamfully subscribed to all that had been said in praise of colonel M'Mahon, but was not the more satisfied with the manner in which the official situation to which he had been appointed, had been
118
bestowed. Far from thinking that the high character of the individual justified the appointment and that consequently it ought not to be looked in to, he was of opinion that the more deserving the man, the more ought the appointment to be watched, as one fraught with danger and deserving reprehension. When a job was to be done, if a person generally obnoxious was selected to enjoy its profits, there was less reason to fear that men would forget their duty, and be cheated into silence, then when a man deservedly high in public estimation was so selected to enjoy a sinecure. The appointment, he contended, was insulting to parliament. It flew directly in the face of their resolutions. The abolition of the office of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions, had been recommended not merely by the commissioners of 1783, but that recommendation had been confirmed by the commissioners of military inquiry in 1808, in the strongest manner possible. The House itself in 1810, after no very mild debate, had given its sanction to the recommendation he had mentioned. In that year, after a great debate on the 31st of May and the 1st of June, and after one division, the House came to two resolutions which he would then read. The first he would call their attention to was of a very general nature, as it merely resolved, "That the utmost attention to economy is at all times the duty of parliament." The second resolved, "That it was the opinion of that Committee, that, in addition to the useful and effective measures already adopted for the abolition of sinecure offices, it was expedient to extend them to others, the duties of which were performed by deputy;" and a farther, amended resolution, after a long debate, resolved, "That for this purpose, in addition to the useful and effective measures already adopted for the abolition of sinecures and of offices, the duties of which were executed by deputy, it was expedient to enable his majesty to reward in a different way those who had filled the high effective civil offices." He had the greatest respect for the high office held by colonel M'Mahon in the Prince's household, but he contended that this did not bring him within the meaning of the last resolution. It was only understood to mean those who held high effective situations in the courts of justice, in the army and navy, and in the public, offices of state. With, this feeling it appeared to him a mere jest to talk of the situation

119
held by colonel M'Mahon as coming within the purview of the Resolution. The Resolution recommended the abolition of all offices which produced revenue without employment, and the regulation of those where the revenue and employment were disproportionate, with the exception of certain officers in attendance on the king, and having a respect for the situation of persons at present interested therein. The reports both of the Commissioners of 1783, and of 1808, recommended the abolition of the two offices of Paymaster and deputy Paymaster of Widows Pensions, as being unnecessary, the one having very little to do, the other nothing at all. The office of Paymaster had in particular been recommended to be done away on the demise of general Fox. Now, what had been done by ministers when that event took place? Why, at a time when the House was not sitting, and parliament had no opportunity of addressing the Prince Regent on the subject, they had advised it to be given to colonel M'Mahon? But then, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was distinctly communicated to him, that he was to hold it subject to any future act of parliament. What was there in this? why, colonel M'Mahon held his own private estate subject to any future act of parliament. That he must so hold his sinecure was known to him before, and his having been told so then, only proved that they were conscious they were flying in the teeth of those principles which had been recognized by the House and its Commissioners. It had been said that it was not granted to general Fox for life, any more than to colonel M'Mahon; but if they turned to the report of 1783, they would see that no reason had been given for not immediately abolishing it, but that it was then held by general Fox. If, then, they had acted consistently with that recommendation, on his death it would have been abolished. That the grant of it to colonel M'Mahon did not prevent its being subject to a future act of parliament, was certain, but it threw an obstacle in the way of its abolition, and on this ground he could not but object to the appointment; With respect to what had been said on the subject of making an hon. gentleman a Master of Chancery, he could have wished it spared, and he regretted that his hon. friend had not confined himself to the appointments to offices which were purely sinecures. He censured the grant of Cashier of the Excise to aright hon. baronet,
120
at a time when the Committee were debating on the expediency of its being abolished. He could not but condemn that conduct which threw an impediment in the way of relieving the public from the intolerable weight of sinecures; and, with the exception he had mentioned, fully concurred in the observations made by his hon. friend. When he considered what pains government had taken to fly in the face of the Resolutions of that House, he thought it extremely proper for them to pause before they granted the supplies.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that the last speaker had wished one of the late appointments had not been noticed, and he also could have wished that one bad been omitted—that of the Clerk of the Council. That office was not a new grant. It had been given to the hon. gentleman 25 years ago, and he had succeeded to it by the death of its late holder, instead of obtaining it by a new grant. Perhaps the hon. gentleman was not aware that a new writ had that day been moved for in the room of that gentleman, on account of his receiving that office. He was surprised to hear the last speaker say that the communication made to colonel M'Mahon on his appointment, only proved that government were conscious they were acting wrong, and then go on to state that the only reason for its not being abolished in the time of general Fox, was that he held it by a tenure, of which it was thought he could not with justice be divested. It was because ministers were aware that such was the impression on general Fox's mind, and foresaw that one similar might have been made on that of colonel M'Mahon, if notice were not given that such an objection would stand no longer. The hon. gent. opposite bad omitted to read part of the Resolution produced, which went to suggest the regulation of sinecures. It was necessary that it should be stated that that resolution had not been forgotten, and that colonel M'Mahon had only received the grant subject to such regulation as parliament might hereafter think proper to make.
Mr. Creeveyobserved, he had not, said that the situations of clerk of the council, and master in chancery, were-sinecures but he had complained that two new placemen, the one holding a situation of 1,000 l. per ann. the other of 3,000 l Were thus brought into parliament.
Mr. Brougham, in explanation, said he had read the whole of the resolution, but

121
contended that the office of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions, was one which it was not proposed to regulate, but to abolish.
Mr. Crokerremarked, that if the House were disposed to deal with that office at all, it was still open for them to do so, without injustice.
Mr. Stephenrose to address the House under evident feelings of agitation. He said he did not expect that he should have had to defend himself on an occasion like the present. He had, indeed, been appointed one of the Masters in Chancery, and he hoped his vigilant and conscientious discharge of the duties of that office would prove, at least, the sincerity of his wish to justify the preference that had been shewn. He could not, however, but consider it as somewhat unkind, that a motion like the present should have been made, and no previous notice of it given, that those who were to be attacked might be, at least, allowed time to prepare their justification. For himself, he was not present when the hon. gent. made the motion; and he had been able to collect its import only from the various explanations that had been entered into. He could not, however, sufficiently express his disapprobation of that system which was now becoming so prevalent, of inferring the impossibility that a member of parliament, holding a place under government, should be able to discharge his parliamentary duties conscientiously and with integrity. This was a morality not very much to be admired, and it was a gratuitous supposition very little honourable to the human character. For himself, without any offensive egotism or arrogance, he believed that he was as capable of feeling and acting independently at the present moment, as he was before he accepted the appointment alluded to. He would be bold to say, indeed, that no situation, no prospective, no actual reward, could influence him in his conduct as a member of parliament—nor did he mean to assume to himself a degree of virtue which he was unwilling to suppose in others. He had no doubt that when the hon. mover himself was Secretary to the Board of Controul, he discharged his parliamentary functions as uprightly and as honestly as he now did. He wished to think so, at least, and he was willing to hope it was so. But why did the hon. gent. inveigh with so much bitterness against those who held situations under government? Why did he consider it as a thing so beyond the probabilities
122
of life that the same man could be an independent member of that House and a possessor of a place under government? Was he prepared to act in conformity to his principles? Had he renounced all hope of political and official preferment? Did he wish to be understood as expressing this? He could not conceive, indeed, why a faithful servant of the crown might not be likewise a faithful representative of his constituents. He saw nothing incompatible in the two stations; but if every one who occupied them was to be exposed to malignant insinuations, if he was to be immediately the object of suspicious rancour, honourable men would soon cease to accept such appointments, lest they should be forthwith regarded as having necessarily bartered their integrity for their places.
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that the hon. and learned gent. who had just sat down, had displayed rather more warmth than the occasion seemed exactly to demand. He agreed, however, with his hon. friend (Mr. Brougham) that it would have been better if the hon. mover had adverted to the situation of the Master in Chancery earlier, or not at all. No appointment had taken place with more publicity at the time, or had been more before the public: and if any thing was to be objected to, the proper lime for bringing forward such objection would have been at a less recent period than the present. He was happy, however, to admit the, great fitness of the hon. and learned gent. for the station which he filled, and which he was far from regarding as a sinecure, He conceived, indeed, that the intention of the hon. mover was not to censure the appointment, individually, but generally the practice of rewarding political votes by such appointments. In adverting to the case of colonel M'Mahon he was not of opinion that the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Croker) had entirely removed all its objectionable qualities. The principal feature of blame in the transaction was, that of appointing him, during the recess of parliament, to a situation which every one must know to be a sinecure, and therefore an incumbrance upon the public purse, and fit only to be abolished. Ministers, he thought, might, with more decency, have waited till, parliament met, for there were no duties attached to the situation which called so imperiously for performance, that the omission of them would have, been injurious to the public

123
service. The intimation of his provisional nomination which had been made to col. M'Mahon, and upon which so much stress was laid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appeared to him extremely futile and nugatory. The same might be said to any man receiving any species of appointment. To what did it amount? What actual efficacy had it as far as regarded the resumption of the appointment? Could it now be taken from colonel M'Mahon without some other remuneration being given in its place? He did not wish to be considered as having any personal hostility towards colonel M'Mahon. He was a man of whom he never heard an evil report in his life, so blameless was his conduct, both public and private. He was a faithful servant of his royal master. But he thought ministers had acted with great impropriety in advising the Prince Regent to reward his services by such an appointment. If they had studied to bring the Prince Regent into contempt, he thought they could not have hit on a better expedient for accomplishing their design. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Buller, as Clerk of the Council, he had no other objection to it than as it was the means of bringing another placeman into parliament. He had even said, that the presence of the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty might be dispensed with, as the first lord and another lord were there to give the House any information it might want on naval subjects. The sum of all was, that ministers had not only ill-advised their Prince, but had treated with studied contempt the resolutions of that House.
Mr. Secretary Ryderrepeated what had been previously stated, that the grant of the situation of Clerk of the Council was not a grant of the present day. With respect to the appointment of colonel M'Mahon, he could not discover that the arguments of the first speaker had been at all advanced by those who followed on the opposite side. As to the question which the hon. gent. had asked, What inconvenience could be expected to arise from the situation of Paymaster of the Widows' Pensions being left vacant till the meeting of parliament? He certainly could not take upon himself to say that inconvenience was to be apprehended. He would however, answer that question, by asking the hon. gent. another: What inconvenience could be anticipated from its being given as it had been given, leaving it open to parliament' to abolish, to regulate,
124
or to mollify it, as might to them appear proper?
Mr. Whitbreadreplied, that the objection was, that the appointment recognised a principle which he regarded as highly dangerous and reprehensible, that of bestowing public money without adequate service for it.
Mr. Matthew Montagueprofessed himself to be one whose opinion it was that public services should be rewarded by places and sinecures; he did not wish to see government abolish all sinecure appointments until a sufficient sum was provided in order to remunerate those who would be thus dispossessed of what they now held.
The House then divided. For Mr. Creevey's Amendment, 11. For the original question 54.

List of the Minority.

Bennet, Hon. R. H. A.

Martin, H.

Brougham, H.

Osborne, Lord F.

Folkestone, Viscount

Tracey, H.

Hutchinson, C. H.

Whitbread, S.

Herbert, Hon. W.

Tellers.

Knight, Mr.

Creevey, T.

Lamb, Hon. W.

Westerne, C. C.

REPEAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE UNION WITH IRELAND.
Mr. Hutchinsonrose and said, that notwithstanding what he had heard that night, with respect to originating motions without notice, he would assert the right which every member of parliament possessed of doing so; and would, therefore, proceed to address a few observations to the chair, on a notice which he was about to give. It was now the 13th year since the enactment of the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland. It would be in the recollection of the members of that House, that at the time of the passing of that act, it was carried, in consequence—in direct consequence—of promises made on the part of the government of England, by persons in the highest stations, and with the sanction of the highest authority—
The Speaker.I conceive that the hon. member is not proceeding in a right course. I should like to know whether the hon. member is making a motion, or giving a notice.
Mr. Hutchinson.I do not wish, at this hour, to detain the House many minutes; but I insist on the right which every member possesses of originating a motion without the least notice, if he should so please.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.Then, if the hon. gent. will insist on his privilege, it is right that that privilege should be ascertained. No member can make a motion, without the permission of the House, after five o'clock, if the regular orders of the day have been disposed of.
The Speaker.The right hon. gent. is right. If the orders of the day are disposed of, no member has a right to make a motion without the permission of the House.
Mr. Hutchinson.It was not my intention to state my objections at large against the continuance of the legislative union: I merely claimed my right as a member of parliament; but I see that as soon as one word on the subject of Ireland or the Union is said, no indulgence from the right hon. gent. is to be expected. I ask no indulgence from him; but if I am to be precluded from addressing a few observations to the chair, let the House remember that the right hon. gent., the Prince Regent's first minister, has prevented an Irish member—
The Speakersaid, he had already stated what was the order of proceeding in that House.
Mr. Burton, after an experience of 30 years as a member of that House, entirely agreed with the Speaker as to the usage laid down by him.
Mr. Hutchinson, after a short interval, stated that he rose with the intention of giving notice of a motion on a subject of the very last importance, and he hoped to be indulged with permission to stale, shortly, his reasons for making the motion of which he was now to give notice.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragain spoke to order. It was an established rule of the House, that no member, in giving notice of a motion for a future day, should be permitted to anticipate the debate of that day, by assigning the reasons by which he was actuated in giving his notice. The propriety of this rule was apparent, because there being no opportunity afforded on the other side of answering the reasons adduced, an undue prejudication of any particular question might thereby be occasioned. He was aware of the force of this objection on the present occasion, and was desirous of guarding the House and the public against any premature impression which the ingenuity and eloquence of the hon. gent. was calculated and likely to produce.
The Speakerheld, that it had been the
126
uniform practice of the House to confine members giving notice of a motion, to the precise purport of the motion, and the day on which it was to be brought forward.
Mr. Hutchinsonthen gave notice that he should, on the first Tuesday in March, move for the Repeal of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland.