[24] Mr. Creevy, on bringing forward a motion for the reform of the Board of Control, March 16, 1822, took occasion to observe: "It happened that he had himself been Secretary, once upon a time, to this Board; during the thirteen months he was there, there was no board at all that he ever saw. His right honourable friend (Mr. Tierney) sat in one room, himself in another, and the gentlemen commissioners in a third. * * * He must also state, that during all the time he was there, there was not business enough for the situation." An admission which elicited the following sarcasm from Mr. Canning. "It seemed," said the latter, "a little extraordinary, that the idle secretary should be the person who called for such an inquiry. This was reform with a vengeance. This was no unfaithful picture of those principles on which reform was usually clamoured for. If they traced the principles of those who raised that clamour to their source, it would be found that habites rem confitentem, and that, nine times out of ten, the evil existed only when the clamour was raised. It was beyond his hopes that any Hon. Gent. should be so blinded by his fancies as to come forward with such a notice under such circumstances, crying aloud, 'Me, me, adsum qui (non) feci!' I am the man who did nothing; and I now call upon you to inquire why those men associated with me, and who were diligent, failed to follow my example."—Barham.
[25] On a motion being made, Jan. 31, 1821, in the House, respecting the Queen's annuity, Mr. Brougham rose and presented a message on the part of Her Majesty: "She feels it due to the House and to herself respectfully to declare, that she perseveres in the resolution of declining any arrangement while her name continues to be excluded from the Liturgy." A subscription equivalent to the proposed allowance was talked of; but her Majesty was eventually induced to reconsider her determination, and accept the £50,000 per annum.—Barham.
[26] It may not be known to many of our readers, that Mr. Scarlett, upon some little error in grammar, in the King's Bench, was referred to the authority of Lowth. "Lowth!" said the erudite lawyer, "what d'ye mean by Lowth?—it's no bull, and I never was in Ireland."—It is hardly necessary to remind our readers in general, though Mr. Scarlett was not aware of the circumstance, that Bishop Lowth, who wrote the English Grammar, was not a county in Ireland, which happens to be of the same name.—Author's Note.
"Do you know me?"
"Excellent well; you are a fishmonger."
Hamlet.
[28] The badness of the times, according to that Venerable Bede of modern days, Mr. Cartwright, is owing to the Septennial Parliament Bill (1 Geo. I. cap. 38); but according to the better opinion of Mr. J. C. Boghouse, to the battle of Waterloo. (vide Panegyr. Nap. Bon. passim.)
[29] Vide Caius de Canibus Britannicis c. de Majoribus.
[30] Vide Restituta by the learned Sir Egerton Brydges, Knight of St. Joachim, A.S.S.