cepat the great seal to an act, purporting to be penact of the King, when such persons as were ministe resorted to alone, when force became necesact b sary for the controul of an individual, were npor about his Majesty. If this was not underminve doing the royal authority, what was? It was e for telling the people, that the government tions could go on as well without the king as with him. No man who thought that the kingly office, as established by law, was ecessary to the integrity of the constitution, would allow the sceptre to be made a tool of in such hands with impunity. He was persuaded that those who had been guilty of the acts, which he had described, had committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the constitution, and he should therefore heartily support the mo ושב ㄣˋ tion. Lord Castlereagh rose to explain: the hon. bart. had made allusions to him as a person sufficiently oppressed with the weight of personal responsibility. He had only to ask of that hon. baronet to prefer against him any charge which he thought worthy the attention of the House. He would meet it fairly, and he hoped the hon. baronet would bring it forward in the same open, candid, and manly manner, as the hon. gentleman who brought forward the present motion was accustomed to prefer his charges. One thing he must take the liberty to add, and that was, that he trusted the hon. baronet would confine his attacks to those places where he could them, and not where he could have no opportunity of defending himself. Sir F. Burdett replied, that at all times, and in all places, he should state his genuine opinions of the noble lord's public conduct, according to the dictates of his own discretion. answer The question was here loudly called for, and strangers were withdrawing, when Mr. Whitbread rose to reply. He said that as the House was on the point of dividing, be presumed that there was no gentleman present who intended to offer himself. If there was, he now called upon him to rise, and he should most cheerfully give way; if there was not, he should proceed to reply to the little which had been said, premising at the same time that it Would not be fair towards him in any gentleman who intended speaking, not to speak now, but wait till he had concluded. He had waited a considerable time in deference to the feeling of two individuals more nearly connected with one of the noble lords (Sidmouth), and he had waited (VOL. XIX.) for some time in respect to the feelings of that hon. gentleman, who certainly was present, yet who had been marvellously silent. Mr. Bathurst did not think that any hon. member had a right thus to allude to private matters no way connected with the business before the House. If, however, the hon. gentleman wanted a reason from him why he did not speak, he frankly owned it as his reason, that did he speak for an hour, he could not add one word to the able speech delivered by the noble lord. Mr. Whitbread then said, that as the House were not likely to have the benefit of that hon. gentleman's powers, he should now proceed at once to reply very briefly to what had been advanced; and, in the first place, he contended, that not one of 'his assertions had been contradicted. He had stated nothing but facts, and nothing. of all he had asserted as facts, had been attempted to be contradicted. He had, indeed, waited for the attendance of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Bathurst), and it was most true that he had attended; that he. had, according to his own shewing, heard ར the best defence that could be offered in 1 rest it per behalf of his noble relative; and though that defence did not attempt to question the truth of any one of the facts he had urged, yet the right hon. gent. had thought it prudent and discreet to give a silent vote upon such a question. The case (said Mr." Whitbread) is before the House. upon a statement of facts, and that statement is not attempted to be controverted; the alledged facts are not disputed by that noble lord, to whose speech, in the opinion of the right hon. gent. nothing can be added in behalf of the persons implicated: To the noble lord, for his abundant sonal civility, and still more for the very liberal credit he seems disposed to give to my motives, I have to return my thanks; but if justice requires me to pay this tribute to the liberality and ingenuousness of the noble lord, it exacts from me a very marked distinction between the embarrassing kindness of the noble lord and the frank hostility of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke). I certainly cannot charge him with too much liberality in construing my.' motives; but I crave nothing considerate or favourable of the right hon. gentleman. He may continue to think of me as he pleases, while I shall endeavour to console myself under the consciousness of honest intentions. (G) With respect to the noble lord, I must again say, what I have said before so often, that really that noble lord is at times quite merciless in his kindness. He meets a political antagonist in a way so polished and so gentlemanly as to disarm his adversary of the ordinary means of defence. I confess the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) cannot justly be made the subject of a similar charge. He does not embarrass one with the mild civilities of his air and manner. He comes upon you, in his own direct way, which though perhaps not more conclusive than that of the noble lord, is certainly much more bouncing (a laugh!).-However, they had both agreed in one point, that as the hair of lord Eldon's head ought not to be touched without subjecting their own hair to similar infliction, it was wisest and best to vote in the first instance, that there should be no inquiry at all. The noble lord, indeed, had ridiculed the idea of ministerial influence regulating the conduct of parliament at that time. No doubt it was a most extravagant notion, but the noble lord could not pretend to the influence of his right hon. friend now in power. I cannot pretend to say, observed Mr. Whitbread, what that influence may be, but the right hon. gent. is fully competent to decide upon the growth and extent of it; for it did happen, that in other times the right hon. gent. thought fifty too small a majority to keep him in power, but now ten or a dozen majority against ministers are too few to turn him out.-What had been said about pattern legislators, and so on, may be very pointed and good, when we come to find the application. The gentleman meant, perhaps, to say something against somebody, but as I am utterly ignorant of what it may refer to, perhaps I should not err very widely in attributing it altogether to that bouncing manner to which I have before alluded, that sort of air that will attempt to make weak things strong, by speaking them in a strong way. The mistake may not be peculiar to the right hon. gent. but I recollect when grinding stones. Still, however, was the tone of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) unsubdued, and he bounced about with as much energy and as much effect as he has done to night. And it was of this government that the noble lord had said that Mr. Pitt had not at that period dis tinguished it with peculiar marks of hi confidence. Confidence! really the noble. lord has such an inverted mode of dis guising things by words, that one would suppose the greatest possible favour which could be conferred on the noble lord woul be actually kicking him out of office [ laugh.] The noble lord had argued tha if the government had not acted as it the did, they would have been the most misera ble creatures; but so were they charged by Mr. Pitt to be. He did not mince h meaning. He thought them very misera ble men; men miserably deficient in th conduct of the affairs of this country, an men who consequently ought to be re moved from the conduct of them. This wa Mr. Pitt's opinion, and he acted upon it,f he left no effort untried till he succeede in driving them from the helm.-But muc has been said upon the presumed comp tency of the King at the time alluded to the present charge against the lord cha cellor, to transact business as well as an individual; on the contrary, he would ut dertake to say, that any act of any indiv dual under such circumstances would hav been set aside. He had been accused by the right ho gent. of not doing his duty, in sufferin this charge to have lain seven years do mant without bringing it forward. But would beg the House to recollect, that whe lord Eldon told the other House, in 180 that the King was well, Dr. Simmons w at that moment in attendance on the roy person. The House, however, did n know it, nor had he the least idea of The right hon. gent. had adverted to h conduct on various committees. He h been on several committees with that rig hon. gent. and generally found an opp cross-examine the physicians before th It was asked, why he did n committee; his answer was, why did n the noble lord and the right hon. ge suffer him to do so. Why, when he a tempted it, was he out voted? He wishe he was one of the ministers in 1804: his nent in him. Let hi tone to-night reminded me of what he was then under certain circumstances of provocation—and, indeed, those circumstances were rather irritating. There was Mr. Ad dington at the head of the government: and really the poor man was much to be pitied: night after night he had to answer Mr. Fox, and to be answered by Mr. Pitt! examining the physicians before the Need I say more? what could the poor House or before a committee, and man do thus placed between two such would pledge himself to make out sati to do it, and tried to do it. now only have an opportunity of cros The S id if factorily the whole of his charge. The fore; his his answer was, that he did not know noble lord seemed to lay great stress the King was under such control as it now' on the evidence of Dr. Heberden be- appeared he was at that time. To this fore that House. He did not attach the noble lord replied, would you have so much to it, for it was in some places all public business stopped? Would you rather contradictory, and no doctor could have the Mutiny Act unpassed, and every de pronounce exactly upon every case. But thing run into confusion? According to any private gentleman had been under this doctrine, whenever the King was in a such circumstances as his Majesty was in stage of mental derangement, though par1804, and that private gentleman had liament be sitting, ministers may refuse made his will, with doctors Simmons and to make any provision for a similar misWillis attending him at the time, that will fortune, and perform all the acts of the would assuredly be set aside; aye, and even executive government themselves; be by the same lord chancellor, baron Eldon, cause, say they, the king has responsible if it were brought before him. Dr. He advisers, and afterwards these advisers berden then, it appeared, told the ministers come to the House, and use all their inthey must be cautious how they touched fluence to persuade it to vote against their on delicate points. The noble lord had responsibility. "The great question for indeed said, that the country was at that the House then to decide," added Mr. time in danger of invasion, and, therefore, Whitbread, " is, whether the King was not it was necessary that his Majesty's minis- in the year 1804, at the period to which I ters should not suffer the affairs of the state allude, in such a state of mental infirmity, to remain at a stand. It appeared the that if a private individual he could not King was well enough to talk of his pri- have legally done any act affecting his vate affairs, of the duke of York's Estate property or personal rights. It is conBill, and of other matters of trivial mo- tended on the other side, I know, that the ment; but, touch on the affairs of his King's competence to do any act of state kingdom, and he was immediately thrown was perfect on all those occasions, when into a state of violent mental derangement. he was called upon for the personal exerThe noble lord had talked of his Majesty's cise of his royal functions. But this I disorder not being the same in 1801 and deny; and I am willing to come to the 1504; but to whom had his Majesty been test upon that single point. How is this committed in both these cases?-to Dr. to be decided? by the papers I call for. Willis in the former year, and to Dr. Sim-You say that he was as competent as any mons and his attendants in the latter. The noble lord, however, had said, that every person in a cold or a fever must be under a certain degree of control: he admitted they must, but it was not such a control as that of Drs. Willis and Simmons, and of their attendants. The fact was, the King had not been treated with the Lenderness he ought to have experienced. He had been frequently brought forward in council, for the purpose of assenting to particular measures, which greatly affected and agitated his mind. He had several times sat in council in the morning, and been in a state of strict coercion in the erening. He had been taken from his family, and placed in other hands. When, in the early part of the Regency Bill, he (Mr. W.) had asked, who had the custody of the King, the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer replied, that when that affair was fairly before the House, he Would answer the question. That, however, he had not yet done. He had been asked, as he before said, why he had not brought this forward be private individual, whose restoration had been legally recognized. I challenge you to the proof of that; I affirm, without fear of contradiction, that had the King at that period been tried as a private subject, the lord high chancellor, whom I now accuse, would have pronounced him incompetent for business. [Here the chancellor of the exchequer signified his dissent].-The right hon. gent. may toss his head; but this is all that he can do -If he could have done more, we should have heard him-as speak he must, for whom has he to speak with him. It has been figuratively said, and truly I believe, that the blind, the halt and the lame, have been enlisted by the right hon. gent. in his service; but it appears, that his choice took in the dumb also. His right hon. colleagues were dumb, from the old reason that they could say nothing upon any subject, and the right hon. (the chancellor of the exchequer) can be dumb, only because it is a subject upon which nothing can be said: for surely, if any thing could be said, that right hon. gent. could do it." Mr. Whitbread concluded | with putting it to the House, that if the King should shortly recove; and again unfortunately relapse, where were the provisions for the integrity of the executive power, if the conduct of the ministers in 1804 was to be sanctioned ? But if that conduct was thought unworthy of that sanction; if it was not to be excused; he called upon the House to say how they could, consistently with their duty to their country, negative his proposition. The House then divided-Ayes 81, Noes 198. Majority against the motion 117. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, February 26. MOTION RESPECting Corporal CURTIS.] Mr. Wardle rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the case of corporal Curtis, of the Oxfordshire militia. Before he entered into the merits of the case of this poor man, he wished to state, that he had never seen him, nor had any communication whatever with him. The officers composing the general courtmartial were wholly unknown to him, with the exception of the president, whom he knew merely by name. At the same time, he must do justice to the character of the colonel of the Oxfordshire militia (colonel Gore Langton.) No man stood higher, both in a public and private point of view. He was therefore bound to state, when he mentioned the name of the hon. member as implicated in the complaint, that he must have been grossly deceived with respect to the conduct of corporal Curtis. This poor man was ill in the Isle of Wight, and wishing to see him upon the subject of his complaint, he (Mr. Wardle) had gone down to Portsmouth, but the wind blew so hard that he could not cross over to the Island. Being obliged to return to town the next day, he left a friend there whom he desired to wait. upon general Taylor, and inform him, that he came at the desire of Mr. Wardle to speak to Robert Curtis. lie saw the general, who peremptorily refused to let him have access to Curtis, unless he had brought with him the authority of the Commander in Chief; and the general added, that if even he (Mr. Wardle), had requested to see him, he should have given him a refusal. in this state of things he had applied to the Commander in Chief, and se veral letters passed on the occasion; the result was, that he found there was no chance of seeing Curtis, unless he chose to give up the facts he had obtained respect. ing the proceedings. Having reasons for wishing to conceal those facts, which rea sons he would now state to the House, he abstained from disclosing them to the As a member o Commander in Chief. parliament he conceived that he had right to visit Curtis without assigning hi motives. However, be that as it might the reasons which induced him to declin stating the facts to the Commander in Chief, were, that two of the witnesse had been forced out of the country. Th refusal of general Taylor placed Curtis i a worse situation than a condemned felon for the latter had the liberty of seeing hi friends. The hon. gent. then proceeded to stat the case of Curtis. He was the son of re spectable parents, but was induced, in th year 1808, to enter into the Oxfordshir militia for a large bounty. In 1810, h was a corporal in the regiment, and clerk to the paymaster. On the 23d June, in the last year, he made complaint to his colonel of abuses in the regimen. He complained, 1st, that an order for giving the men three pair of shoes in tw years had not been executed; and 2dly he complained of the improper detentio of pay from the men, under the pretenc of stoppages on account of some article of clothing (or regimental breeches) whic had never been delivered. These stop pages had been for five months, and the clothing was not given. The stoppage.. for these five months had no other autho rity but the verbal order of the lieut. colonel. He believed it was a thing al most unprecedented, that a whole regi ment should be under stoppages for arti cles which government were to furnish At the end of eight months the only ex cuse for not giving the clothing was, tha the men did not want them. The 106t clause of the Mutiny Act expressly should unlawfully detain or withhold an! "That if any paymaster, agent or clerk pay due to the regiment for more that one month; or if any officer, having re ceived the pay, should retain it in his owl hands, such officer, on being found guilty thereof by a court-martial, should, be sides what other punishment the court. martial should inflict, pay a penalty o 100l. to the informer, who, if a soldier, wa also to be entitled to his discharge.' Thi stated 2 the the clause was quite explicit, and did not even so late as July. As to the impro. leave the colonel or the general of the dis-priety of the manner in which Curtis made E trict any discretion upon the subject. He his complaint, the colonel was walking on had received an account of what had hap- the drill-ground, when he came up and fpened from a gentleman who was intro- mentioned it to him. In the case of Goduced to the general court-martial, for vernor Wall, the lord chief justice was purpose of taking the depositions, and of opinion, that the man who died of the who was ready to verify the same at the punishment he received in Africa, had bar of that House, or any where else. It done no more than he had an undoubted appeared from those depositions, that right to do, in complaining to his officers when corporal Curtis first made his com- of a detention of pay; and it then applaint, the colonel was excessively angry peared to the lord chief justice, that if a and threatened to try him for mutiny; to colonel was to check such complaints, it which Curtis replied, that as he came up would have the appearance of his being a alone to make his complaint, he could not partaker in the plunder. Curtis had made be tried for mutiny. On the 23d of June, his complaint regularly to his colonel and he attended the colonel and lieutenant- his general. His colonel was applied to colonel, and the book of orders being pro- by him to try these charges by a general duced, he was called upon to shew the court-martial instead of a regimental order with respect to the shoes or the court-martial, but he refused. In a regibreeches. As he knew nothing of their mental court-martial, it was well known books or the manner of keeping them, he that the officers were more connected was unable to do this. On the 26th, he with each other than they were in regular was confined for improper conduct in regiments, and this might produce a sort having been seen in brown clothes, at a of bias. (No! no! from the ministerial mile distance from head-quarters. For bench). That they were more .conthis offence, he was by the sentence of a nected was evident, and there was no accourt-martial reduced to the ranks. It counting for feelings on such a subject. A appeared, however, that he was the clerk general court-martial, on the other hand, to the paymaster, and in that capacity had was composed of men who were chiefly been accustomed to wear coloured clothes. strangers to each other, and therefore it As to his being a mile from the head- was a court which appeared more suitable quarters, he was returning from the postfor trying charges against an officer. The office, where he had just put in a letter to prisoner was refused the usual intercourse lord C. Somerset, the lieutenant-general with his witnesses and with his counsel, commanding the district. In this letter, previous to the trial; and even a great be stated that he had a complaint to make coat which he before had was taken from against the quarter-master for improper detention of pay, and that he had stated it to his colonel, who refused to give him satisfaction. He stated further, that he wished to take the advantage of the 106th clause of the Mutiny Act. It appeared to him (Mr. Wardle) that this statement was not improper, as the colonel had not given Cartis the opportunity of proving his complaints before a court-martial, as he was entitled to do. This letter was sent by lord C. Somerset to the colonel of the regiment. The colonel, in answer to it, said that he was not aware that any charges could be made out against the quartermaster; and that as to the breeches, the men were aware that they were ready to be delivered, but that they did not then want them. He also stated, that Curtis came p to him in a very improper manner to ake his complaint. The fact, however, turned out to be, that the breeches were ready for delivery at that time, nor him, and he was obliged to lie on the bare boards. Two other privates, Bellis and Reeve, also gave a statement of other abuses, but the colonel said he would take care of them too. They were brought before a court-martial, and threw themselves on the mercy of the court. They were sentenced to 500 lashes, which was remitted on their volunteering for foreign service. It appeared that at the time of the trial of Curtis, the quartermaster, serjeant Fox, publicly threatened and endeavoured to intimidate the witnesses of corporal Curtis; and on the steps of the court publicly swore, that Curtis was a d-d rascal, and so was every one who took his part. Another serjeant publicly held out the expectation of twenty guineas and their discharge to any soldier that would prove that Curtis had spoken disrespectfully of his colonel. The charges were, first, for endeavouring to excite discontent and mutiny in the regiment: of |