A Middlesex University resource provided by Andrew Roberts |
3.4.2. TA2 METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONERS' MEETING AND VISITS 1829-1831 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The left column shows whether the commissioner signed the report. The other columns show the number of days that he spent visiting in each quarter and the average per quarter. | ||||||||||
July 1829 | August 1829 to July 1830 | From August 1830 | Average | |||||||
OCT | JAN | APR | JUL | OCT | JAN | APR | ||||
PHYSICIANS | ||||||||||
Bright | yes | 5 | 2 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 7.875 |
Hume | yes | 8 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 7.25 |
Southey | yes | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 7.125 |
Turner | yes | 4 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6.5 |
Drever | no | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Replacement August 1830: E.J. Seymour | 10 | 6 | 3 | 6.3 | ||||||
Total | 26 | 27 | 36 | 36 | 22 | 38 | 21 | 25 | ||
MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES AND THE TWO REVERENDS | ||||||||||
Bouverie | no | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.125 |
Byng | yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.25 |
Pallmer | no | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Clitherow | no | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1.5 |
Robert Seymour | no | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
Hampson | yes | 3 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4.125 |
Rev Shepherd | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Rev Campbell | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1.35 | ||||||
Total | 5 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 11 | 7 | 12 | 7 | ||
OTHERS (ALL MPs) | ||||||||||
Ashley | yes | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.75 |
Baring | yes | 1 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1.75 |
Calthorpe | no | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3.125 |
Gordon | no | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.625 |
Lennard | no | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
Rose | yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0.75 |
Ross | yes | 0 | 13 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.375 |
Somerset | yes | 8 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3.125 |
Ward | no | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.375 |
Wynn | yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Dowdeswell | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Fremantle | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 | ||||||
Perceval | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3.0 | ||||||
R.Vernon Smith | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 | ||||||
Total | 14 | 16 | 20 | 25 | 5 | 14 | 11 | 9 | ||
Total Honorary | 19 | 19 | 29 | 29 | 16 | 21 | 23 | 16 |
3.4.4 Special roles: Government, Home Office and chairman
Some of the MPs seem to have had a special relationship with the (Tory)
government and with
Home Secretary
Robert Peel in particular. Others
(3.4.5)
performed a
specifically House of Commons role.
Home Secretary Peel
Robert Peel (born 1788 died 2.7.1850) was the son of Robert Peel (1750-
1830) who brought in early factory legislation. The Peels were Tory
industrialists. Robert Peel junior was an MP from 1809. Under
Lord Liverpool, he
was Secretary for Ireland 1812-1818 and then Home Secretary from January
1822 to April 1827. One of Peel's particular interests was the policing of
London. Halevy says he secured the appointment of the Select Committee on
the Police of the Metropolis in 1822, and chaired the Select Committee in
1828 that led to the establishment of the Metropolitan Police (or
"Peelers") on 29.9.1829. (Halevy, E. 1949, vol.2, p.287).
The establishment of
the Metropolitan Police succeeded the establishment of the Metropolitan
Commission for policing madhouses.
Peel and Wellington had refused to serve under Canning and
Goderich and so Lansdowne was the Home Secretary when Gordon moved
for his Select Committee in 1827. Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor throughout this period. Peel
returned to the Home Office when Wellington became Prime
Minister (in the House of Lords) in January 1828. Serving until the fall of
the Tories in November 1830.
Peel's interest in and support for
Gordon's bills has already
been mentioned. (George Dawson, Peel;s Under Secretary at the Home Office
had served on the 1827 Select
Committee that Gordon chaired, and was to serve on the
1832 Select
Committee)
Peel's Tamworthy Manifesto in 1834 is
taken as basis of Conservative (rather than Tory) policies. It's argument
that Conservatives should adopt reforms where they would improve the health
of the country gained him the nickname "Dr Pill". This jingle that Punch published in
August 1841
mocks him for
his political skill of not prescribing a solution to controversial problems
in advance:
Peel was Prime Minister
and Chancellor of the Exchequer from December 1834 to (about 7th) April
1835. He was Prime Minister from September 1841 to July 1846. The reforms
of lunacy legislation initiated by
Thomas Wakley
and carried through by
Lord Ashley
took place under Peel's administration and with its support.
Peel's ministerial office
For most of the early 19th century the Prime Minister was a Lord and
another Minister government leader in the Commons. In the aftermath of the
war with France the Commons role was performed by the Foreign Secretary
(Castlereagh and then Canning), but in January 1828 Peel combined
leadership of the House of Commons with the job of Home Secretary. As Home
Secretary he was the Commons leader of the Tory Government. We should not
make fine distinctions between his party role and his government roles, it
was one man and one role.
Peel's commissioners
Two 1828 commissioners,
Somerset
and
Ross, were Tory party
organisers. (So was
Freemantle,
appointed in 1830) Both were active visitors who at times kept the
commission going when others were not available. See, for example, the
July and October Quarters in 1829
(table two). This
activity did not come
from a special interest in lunacy. Somerset had been on the
1827 Select Committee,
but
this is the only parliamentary record I traced for either on a lunacy issue
before 1828.
Somerset first chairman?
The 1828 and 1832 Madhouse Acts made no provision
for a regular commission chairman
(see law),
but Stenton,
which is based on
Dod's
from 1832, records Somerset (who was a commissioner from 1828-1832)
as sometime chairman and
Jones, K. 1955
pp 171-172 says he was chairman in
1828. His chairmanship seems to be confirmed by the consistency with which
his name appears first in all surviving records.
Somerset name always appears first, even in the 1828 appointments
list. Which suggests he was appointed to chair the commission by Peel, and
not by the commissioners. Appointments lists are always in some status
order: MPs at the beginning, Middlesex JPs in the middle and doctors at
the end. "Rt Hons" (Privy Councillors and some sons of Peers) precede
"Hons" (other sons of Peers), who precede commoners. If aristocratic
precedence alone had determined the order of the notices we could infer
nothing about the roles on the commission. The 1828 to 1832 Appointments
lists, however, are headed by the name of Somerset (the younger son of an
Earl), followed by Gordon (a commoner) and then four Right Honourables and
two Honourables. I infer that Somerset and Gordon were given a leadership
role on the commission.
The signature order on the 1829 Report bears no relation to social rank.
The names of Peers' sons, other MPs, JPs and medical commissioners occur
at random. There is no discernable order: except that Somerset's name is
first. The simplest explanation is that, as Chairman, he signed first and
passed it to the others to sign as it reached them.
The other documents available to us are the Visiting records. These are a
Clerk's copy, but I will assume that the names under the minutes are in the
order that the commissioners signed the Visitors Book. There is a
pronounced tendency for honorary commissioners to sign before the medical
ones and for MPs to sign first. But there are several exceptions.
Somerset visited frequently and, without exception, he was the first to
sign. I counted 17 visits to houses (not days visiting) when this meant
that he signed in advance of other honorary commissioners, including nine
in advance of other MPs.
The only credible explanation of this data that I can think of is that
Somerset was appointed to chair the commission in August 1828. I think
that Peel appointed him to manage the commission in co-operation with
Gordon - Which explains the conjunction of their names at the head of the
first appointments list.
Gordon,
although a personal friend of the Tory
Lord Chancellor, was a radical, and about as far in 1828 from the centre of
government power as it was possible for an MP to be.
I would also suggest that the large number of visits made by
Somerset
and
Ross
were the result of their political responsibilities to Peel, and not
to any personal commitment. A conclusion which is consistent with their
biographical data (Click on names for biographies).
Gordon chair? - Ashley chair
When the Whigs came to power in November 1830 and Melbourne replaced Peel
at the Home Office, it would seem logical for Gordon to replace Somerset as
chairman. We can speculate that he was chairman from November 1830 to
1834. Somerset was not re-appointed after the passage of the 1832 Madhouse
Act when the responsibility for the commission passed to the Lord
Chancellor's Office. His name remains first on the notices up to then
however. Afterward Lord Ashley appears first - but the form of the notices
has altered with all the "Rt Hons" first, "Hons" next etc. Ashley was a
"Rt Hons" whose name began with A. By the 1840s Ashley was unquestionably
accepted as chairman and he dated his chairmanship from 1834. (See
biography). This
corresponds to a period when Gordon was indisposed through
illness
(See
biography)
and the phase in Ashley's life when he began to take his
duties very seriously.
(See
biography).
The record of MPs who were active with respect to lunacy legislation in
1829,
1830 and
1832 (see
below)
fits in with the supposition that
Somerset and Gordon exchanged roles in 1830 and that Ashley's acceptance of
responsibilities in the commission came later.
3.4.5 The commission and the House of Commons
The commissioners in their
1829 Report
called the 1828 Madhouse Act an "experiment" by
the legislature. There were few subjects they thought more necessary for
legislation and none attended with greater difficulty, as the law had both
to ensure patients' comfort and not unnecessarily annoy relatives by
useless publicity. They thought the 1828 Act deserved further and serious
consideration as to whether it held a just medium between the two.
The troublesome history of previous bills
(3.1.3), and problems
to come with the 1832 Madhouse Bill
(3.5)
show how contentious the 1828 Act was. Perhaps we can infer from the
commissioners' words that Peel, Somerset and others considered it an
experiment from the beginning and that a reason for appointing so many MP
commissioners was to observe its operation with a view to future amendment?
Six MP commissioners have records of activity with respect to the 1829 and
1832 amendments. The commission's accounts show £11.2s paid from
commission funds for counsel's advice on the 1829 Madhouse Amendment Bill
(Account 1829),
so I would regard the MPs as acting as commissioners rather
than interested individuals.
The six we know were active were Gordon, Somerset, Ross, G.H. Rose,
Freemantle and Wynn (See chronological bibliography). The six with no
record of legislative
activity were Ashley, Baring, Calthorpe, Dowedswell, Perceval and R.V.
Smith.
Somerset, Gordon and Ross brought in the
1829 Madhouse Amendment
Bill; Gordon
a Bill in 1830, and Gordon and Somerset (with
others) the
1832
Madhouse Bill.
The unusual procedure of referring the 1832 Bill to a
Select Committee
(3.5)
means we
have a list
that probably includes every MP
who took any substantial interest. The six I have listed as active were on
the committee, the six others were not.
I suggest Gordon, Wynn and Rose were appointed commissioners (and served on
the 1832 Committee) because of their special knowledge and experience of
the legislative problems. Gordon had his immediate 1827-1828 experience;
Wynn is the only MP commissioner whose known House of Commons experience of
lunacy legislation pre-dates 1827
(see biography), and
G.H. Rose
(see biography)
seems to have
inherited the role of his father in this respect as in others.
Somerset, Ross and the younger MPs (*) all have records of active routine
visiting
(table two),
but I do not think that Wynn, Gordon and Rose were appointed as manpower
for the regular visits. Wynn made no recorded visits and those of Gordon
and Rose were infrequent and appear to have been especially selected. Over
half were to large pauper houses, Gordon went on the final visit to the
only house that had its licence revoked, and other visits included Release
Inquiry Visits (see
law), visits to problem houses and a visit to two new
houses. Neither made any of the numerous routine visits on which, quarter
after quarter, problem free houses were minuted "in excellent condition"
(HO 41/51)
Presumably they went on the visits they did because of their relevance to
the legislative issues.
3.4.6 Changing commissioners
The first re-structuring
On 7.8.1830 Peel replaced two Middlesex JPs Lord Robert Seymour and
Pallmer and an MP, Lennard by six new honorary commissioners.
The six were:
two Anglican
ministers:
Rev Shepherd and
Rev Campbell
and
four MPs:
Dowdeswell,
Freemantle and
Perceval and
Vernon Smith
Dr Drever was
replaced by
Dr Edward James
Seymour
The four not re-appointed were those for whom we have no record of activity
in the preceding year
(3.4.2.TA2). They were
figuratively moribund and may also have been physically so.
Pallmer
died in 1830, Robert Seymour was bedridden when he sent written
evidence to the select committee in 1827. An octogenarian, he died in 1831.
Dr Drever may have
given up his medical practice in the 1830s.
The new appointments increased the commissioners from twenty-one to twenty-
four: the largest number at any time (3.4.1.TA2). In view of the difficulty finding
honorary visitors (3.4.2) it
was probably hoped to spread the visiting between a larger number of active
visitors. Perhaps it was thought clergymen would be available in the summer
and autumn when MPs were usually out of town.
(In the preceding year it may even have been difficult to provide enough
doctors as only four were active)
A balance:
The reverends
Shepherd and
Campbell were the
fist honorary commissioners who were neither MPs or Middlesex magistrates.
As far as I could discover, neither was a JP in any county.
In succeeding years others were appointed from outside the House of Commons
and the Middlesex Bench, and in the chart I have placed them with the Middlesex
JPs. As can be seen, there appears to have been an attempt to balance
parliamentary and non-parliamentary commissioners.
The general principals of change
Reluctant duties and occasional enthusiasm
My impression is that honorary commissioners were not removed unless they
were willing to leave, and generally not until they were positively unable
or unwilling to remain.
For example, the MPs for London and Middlesex, Ward and Byng, were re-appointed in 1830 even though they
seem to have taken no more than an occasional interest. Ward was only
removed (1831) when he ceased to be an MP.
I do not think leaving the House of Commons meant an MP needed to leave the
Metropolitan Commission. Gordon was the only one who left parliament but
remained on the commission (see chart), but the fact that he did so suggests
others could have if they had wished.
Vernon Smith
described
an honorary commissioner's role as "onerous" and thought it would be
difficult to find replacements if existing ones were not re-appointed. One
of the 1830 appointments, Vernon Smith was kept as a commissioner for
thirty years but appears to have taken little active part before 1844 or
after 1847.
After a lacklustre start Ashley became the most conscientious of the unpaid
commissioners. The change in his application may correspond to the
religious renewal he experienced about 1834. His application seems to have been
generated from duty more than enthusiasm. In contrast,
Robert Gordon appears to have enjoyed his role and
there were probably other unpaid commissioners for whom it was not such an
onerous task.
Sykes, for example,
who joined the commission in 1835 to pursue his interest in statistics.
At the other extreme to Gordon and Sykes, Barlow was nominally a commissioner for forty-five
years, during which he scarcely ever attended.
Unpaid commissionerships were sought by few. They were an unattractive
honour; and I think we can assume that those who did accept would normally
be retained as long as they maintained any active involvement, and,
sometimes, even if they did not. In general, we can follow Vernon Smith in
considering the honorary roles as ones that people were reluctant to take
on and in which they were kept as long as they could be.
Professionals also retained
Paid posts, on the other hand, were sought after.
Once appointed, however, the professionals were retained even when age and
infirmity considerably incapacitated them (See, in particular, Dr Hume). Here, the
principal seems to have been that the commissionership (and its income) was
a possession of its holder which he could relinquish voluntarily, but would
not be deprived of except under very special circumstances. In some case,
it has the appearance of a pension to support worthy causes and this may be
one reason why so many contributers to English literature, and their
relatives, were employed as commissioners or (in the case of
Edward DuBois), as
other staff.
~~
|