Sitting of 3 July 1815

Preamble
Lord Cochraneappeared at the bar, and on the Speaker's asking if there were any members to be sworn, his lordship advanced towards the table. The Speaker said, the hon. member must be introduced by two members, on which sir Henry Montgomery and Mr. Teed placed themselves on each side of him, and walked up to the table, when his lordship took the oaths, and afterwards his seat.

THE DUKE OF CUMBERLAND'S ESTABLISHMENT BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the second reading of the duke of Cumberland's Establishment Bill.
Mr. Westernsaid, it was not his intention to detain the House by adverting to those topics which had been brought forward in the previous stages of this Bill, and still less did he intend to advert to those considerations which were of a more personal nature; nor did he mean to avail himself of that opportunity to draw, what he must regard as invidious, a comparison between the Royal Duke who was immediately under the consideration of the House, and another illustrious Personage; but he rose principally to express his surprise that the right hon. gentleman should persist in pressing the measure to a conclusion—[Hear, hear!] The majority on the first night even was extremely small; but when he saw that since that time it had decreased from 17 to 12, and then from 12 to 8, he could not comprehend upon what principle the right hon. gentleman was determined to persevere. He hoped, however, the division of that night would convince him, that the House was composed of better tempered metal, than to permit him to carry forward any further a measure which had been so severely criticised, and so very generally disapproved, in the strongest terms that could well be expressed, seeing that it was a subject which every one considered as of a most delicate nature. No communication had been made to the

1075]
House by way of asking its approbation. Nothing had appeared that showed the alliance was either honourable or advantageous to the Royal family or to the country; and if the House had any discretion belonging to it, they ought to use that discretion by refusing to grant so much money out of the pockets of their constituents, for the purpose of giving additional splendour to a connexion which, according to all accounts, was far from being desirable. For these reasons he should move as an amendment to the motion, that instead of "now," "the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
Sir H. Montgomerysaid, that when the present Bill was first brought into the House, he voted for it because he thought the proposed sum was no more than what was necessary; but from what he had heard since, he almost fancied he had done something very wrong. In all the inquiries, however, which he had made upon the subject, he found nothing but loose assertions; no person knew or could state any crime of which his Royal Highness had been guilty. In the present case he really saw nothing which would warrant the House in putting such a stigma upon his Royal Highness as would be conveyed by refusing the grant. As to the assent of Her Majesty, with respect to the marriage, he thought it was of very little consequence to that House. As one of the King's sons, he thought the duke of of Cumberland ought to have a provision made for him, on his marriage; and he was of opinion that those in particular who had so lately voted one million and upwards for paying the debts of the Empress Catharine, would with an ill grace refuse to sanction the grant of so small a sum to support the rank and dignity of one of the sons of the Sovereign. He should therefore vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. W. Dundasobserved, in reply to what had fallen from an hon. gentleman, that if the proposition were to be withdrawn because of the small majorities which had been obtained, it would be declaring that the minority was to dictate in that House, and that the majority did not speak the sense of Parliament. It should be remembered, however, that very important questions had been determined by very slender majorities. As to the point, whether the alliance was one that would be advantageous to this country, he apprehended that was not a necessary con-
[1076
sideration for that House to enter into; they were not to weigh such alliances merely by the advantages which they produced. He believed, indeed, that when our illustrious Sovereign married, no peculiar political benefits were to be derived from that event. The duke of Cumberland had married with the consent of the Crown, and so far it was a legal marriage; and surely that House would not suffer that the wife of one of the Royal family should be in a state of destitution, supposing her to survive her husband. On that ground he should certainly support the motion.
Mr. Wilberforceconfessed that the view in which he considered the present question, had a reference to the public morals of the country. The question which had been put by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) remained unanswered, and they must therefore believe, that the connexion was one which a certain great Personage had refused to sanction with her approbation. He could not think that a slight or an unimportant circumstance—[Hear, hear!] He must say, also, that the various rumours which were afloat, respecting the person with whom that connexion was formed, constituted a strong corroboration of the report that that person would not be received by the Queen. He conceived that Parliament was called upon to exercise a sound discretion upon the subject before them, and if in expressing its opinion any pain was inflicted, the blame was attributable to those only who had brought the measure forward—[Hear, hear!] He certainly saw no necessity for the grant upon the grounds which some hon. gentlemen had stated; for he was quite persuaded, that if the lady should ever be in a state of widowhood, that House would always be disposed to grant such an allowance as would enable her to live suitably to her rank and dignity. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not be betrayed into a sanction and approbation of that marriage under the plea of providing against a contingency which might never happen. He must say, that out of regard to public morals, they ought to withhold that sanction if the connexion was such as the Queen had refused to approve, which refusal they were justified in inferring.
Mr. W. Bathurstsaid, if the question about the approbation of a certain individual of the Royal family with respect to the marriage had been answered, be did

1077]
not know what question might not be asked next. The question was reduced to a very narrow compass, namely, whether all the members of the Royal family should be allowed an adequate provision. The Legislature had thought it proper to allow each of them 18,000 l. a year while married. How, then, when the duke of Cumberland was married, could the House refuse to give him an increased allowance? He was actuated by no party feeling in the vote he should give, though it might be thought otherwise; but he could not think he should discharge his duty if he did not vote for the Bill.
Mr. Whitshed Keenerepeated his arguments against the grant, as being an unnecessary incumbrance on the public.
Mr. Protheroefeared that an hon. gentleman, who had deprecated all invidious comparisons between the branches of the Royal family, alluded to some observations which had, on a former discussion, been uttered by him. If so, he begged leave to state, that he had not indulged in any invidious comparisons. He had praised a Royal Duke, but with no intention of drawing a contrast. All he said was, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer found an overflow in the Exchequer, there were debts of gratitude which ought to be satisfied. With respect to the present question, he did not think it necessary that those who opposed the Bill should bring proofs against the character of the Royal Duke. It was competent for the House to exercise their discretion without such a formality. To consent to the Bill would be to sacrifice the moral character of the House, which was of such high estimation that no price could bean equivalent for its loss.
Mr. Prestonsaid a few words, which we could not understand, from the loud cries of "Question," which continued during the whole time that the hon. member was speaking.
Mr. Bathurstreplied, from which it appeared that the observations of the preceding speaker had some reference to the children of the duchess of Cumberland by her former husband, and the provision for them by the king of Prussia.
Mr. Ellisonsaid, that nothing should induce him to go out of the House without giving publicly a decided opposition to this measure, because he honoured the people, and he honoured also that House; and the surest way to make the people also honour that House would be to reject this
[1078
Bill, and every measure of a similar tendency. He was one of those members who generally supported ministers, and would continue to do so on every proper occasion; but if the House passed such a Bill as this, it would heap odium on its head, and he should even be ashamed to content himself with giving a silent vote against it. The House would suffer deservedly in the opinion of the country, should they grant this unnecessary addition to an allowance already sufficient. He was sure that it would do more harm than any thing of the like nature ever did.
Mr. Holme Sumnersaid, he had come up from the country on purpose to give his public disapprobation of this measure. He thought with the hon. gentleman who was lately the member for Yorkshire (Mr. Wilberforce), that the House had been placed in a very disagreeable predicament. It had been said by one hon. member, that the marriage had received the approbation of the Prince Regent; but no notification of that fact had been, given to the House; and in his opinion, ministers had much to answer for, in consequence of placing the House in such a situation. He thought the question which had been put by a right hon. gentleman respecting the Queen's disapprobation, and her having declared that she would not receive the lady at Court, was a very proper one, though it had been found fault with by a noble lord and others. Ministers ought to have come to that House for a vote of approbation; and in asking for this grant, when they thought they could not obtain the other, they had done wrong. He was convinced, with an hon. member opposite, that if the lady should happen to be left a widow, there could be no doubt of the House exercising its wonted generosity; but in its present form, he could by no means give his assent to the Bill, and should, therefore, support the Amendment.
Sir T. Aclandsaid, he would not oppose the proposed grant as excessive, because if it was at all proper, he thought it very moderate: nor would he oppose it on account of any insinuation against the character of his Royal Highness. But he would oppose it because of the connexion that his Royal Highness had made. That connexion was not only no advantage to the country; it was worse, it was contrary to the honour of the country. There were rumours afloat, that if true, rendered it

1079]
highly discreditable; if they were not true, they ought to be disproved. These rumours were confirmed by the circumstance, that the object of them would not be received in a quarter where natural affection would make every allowance, every palliation that could be supposed at all admissible. But would any one venture to deny these rumours? If not, then there surely were parliamentary grounds for hot granting any additional allowance in consequence of such an obnoxious connexion. It had been said, that as the marriage had taken place, there was now nothing to be done, but to grant the allowance. True, the marriage had been solemnized, and they were not seeking to dissolve it. But when the representatives of a free people were asked to tax themselves for the connexion, it ought at least to be shown that it was not a dishonourable one. The House was not consulted on the marriage, and therefore they could not have given their consent to it; but if they were now to make this grant, they would more than consent to it—they would approve of it—[Hear, hear!] He thought that even out of respect to the Royal family itself, they should not agree to the measure; for they should not load that family with the odium of seeming to have approved of such a connexion.
Mr. Forbesreprobated the argument against the Bill, derived from the rumours in circulation, and expressed his astonishment that the hon. baronet should maintain that those rumours ought to be believed until they were disproved. For himself, he had made it a rule through life, never to give credit to any report that he heard. There was only one person in the universe against whom he was ready to join in the general hue and cry. On the present occasion he should most conscientiously stand up in defence of the illustrious person who had been so grossly attacked, and vote for the Bill.
Sir Gerard Noelwas very sorry that such a line of proceeding as had been adopted on this occasion had been pursued. He had no motive whatsoever other than what he conceived his duty in giving his vote for the measure. Instead of 6000 l. a year, he could wish that the grant was 10,000 l. He thought, that mere policy would direct the grant, and that we should encourage the illustrious pair to remain in the country, rather than by an unbecoming rudeness make them leave it. By giving this 6000 l. a year, we might retain
[1080
the other 18,000 l. a year in the country; but by refusing the lesser sum, we should certainly lose the larger. He therefore gave his most cordial support to the Bill.
The House then divided, amidst loud cries of "Question," when the numbers were,

For the Amendment

126

Against it

125

Majority for the Amendment

—

1

The Bill was consequently lost.

List of the Majority.

Abercrombie, hon. J.

Giddy, D.

Acland, sir T.

Gascoyne, gen.

Archdale, M.

Hughes, W. L.

Atkins, John

Howorth, H.

Bankes, H.

Hurst, R.

Barham, J. B.

Hamilton, lord A.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Hanbury, W.

Barnard, viscount

Halsey, J.

Burrell, hon. P. D.

Keene, W.

Burrell, sir C.

Latouche, Robt.

Burrell, Walter

Lyttleton, hon. W.

Baring A.

Lemon, sir W.

Butterworth, Jos.

Lewis, Frankland

Baillie, James

Lloyd, sir Edw.

Barclay, Charles

Lefevre, Shaw

Byng, George

Langton, Gore

Calley, Thos.

Markham, admiral

Calvert, C.

Manning, Wm.

Calvert, N.

Molyneux, T. H.

Campbell, lord J.

Morland, Scrope Ber.

Campbell, hon. J.

Mostyn, sir Thos.

Campbell, D.

Maddocks, W. A.

Cavendish, lord G.

Martin, H.

Cavendish, hon. H.

Martin, J.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Courtenay, W.

Moore, P.

Cochrane, lord

Mills, Charles

Cocks, J.

Macdonald, J.

Davenport, D.

Maitland, E. F.

Duncannon, viscount

Napier, James

Dundas, hon. L.

Neville, hon. R.

Dowdswell, J. E.

Nugent, lord

Davis, H.

North, D.

Davis, R. H.

Ossulston, lord

Ellison, C.

Osborne, lord F.

Ellison, R.

Onslow, Arthur

Egerton, W.

Preston, Richard

Farquhar, J.

Parnell, sir H.

Frankland, R.

Proby, lord

Fawcett, H.

Protheroe, E.

Finlay, K.

Plumer, W.

Fazakerley, N.

Peirse, Henry

Ferguson, sir R.

Piggott, sir A.

Fitzroy, lord J.

Pelham, C.

Fitzgerald, hon. M.

Pocock, George

Freemantle, W.

Perring, sir S.

Foulks, sir M.

Rashleigh, W.

Fane, J.

Robinson, A.

Gordon, R.

Romilly, sir S.

Grenfell, P.

Russell, lord J.

Guise, sir W.

Russell, R. G.

Gypps, G.

Staniforth, John

1081]

Sumner, H.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Seudamore, R.

Tavistock, marquis

Shakespear, A.

Wilbraham, E. B.

Sebright, sir John

Wynn, sir W. W.

Shaw, B.

Wynn, C.

Shelley, sir T.

Wilberforce, W.

Smyth, John H.

Whitbread, Samuel

Smith, John

Wright, A.

Smithy R.

TELLERS.

Smith, Abel

Paul C. Methuen

Smith, George

C. C. Western.

Smith, Wm.

PAIRED OFF.

Simpson, George

Atherley, A.

Taylor, C. W.

Brand, hon. T.

Tremayne, J. H.

Ramsden, John C.

List of the Minority.

Alexander, Jas.

Holmes, N.

Addington, rt. hon. H.

Hammersley, H.

Bagwell, rt. hon. W.

Hart, gen.

Bathurst, rt. hon. B.

Herbert, C.

Bathurst, hon. W.

Hill, sir G.

Bective, lord

Holford, G. P.

Benson, R.

Hume, sir A.

Beresford, lord G.

Huskisson, rt. hon. W.

Beresford, sir J.

Jackson, S.

Best, W. D.

Idle, C.

Blake, Val.

Jekyll, Jos.

Bloomfield, gen.

Jocelyn, lord

Bradshaw, hon. C.

Kirkwall, lord

Brogden, James

Loftus, gen.

Brown, Ant.

Long, rt. hon. C.

Brydges, sir E

Lopez, sir M.

Buller, sir E.

Louvaine, lord

Binning, lord

Lowther, viscount

Bourne, Sturges

Lowther, hon. H.

Calvert, John

Lygon, hon. W.

Cotter, J. L.

Mahon, hon. S.

Canning, George

Manners, lord C.

Carew, R. Pole

Magennis, R.

Chichester, Arthur

Marsh, C.

Clements, Henry

Mellish, W.

Congreve, sir W.

Montgomery, sir H.

Courtenay, sir T.

Moore, lord H.

Cranbourn, lord

Moorsom, admiral

Croker, J. W.

Morgan, sir C.

Daly, James

Murray, sir J.

Dawkins, James

Noel, sir G. N.

Desborough, E.

Northey, William

Doveton, G.

Osborn, J.

Douglas, hon. F. S.

Pole, rt. hon. W. W.

Dundas, rt. hon. W.

Pakenham, hon. H.

Estcourt, T. S.

Palmerston, lord

Faulkener, sir F.

Peel, rt. hon. R.

Featherstone, sir T.

Phipps, general

Forbes, Charles

Palmer, —

Foulkes, E.

Raine, Jonathan

Frank, F.

Robinson, rt. hon. F.

Frazer, —

Rose, rt. hon. G.

Fitzgerald, rt. hon. W. V.

St. Paul, H.

Scott, sir W.

Gower, lord

Seymour, lord R.

Gower, lord G. L.

Shepherd, sir J.

Garrow, sir W.

Shiffner, G.

Goulburn, H.

Sullivan, rt. hon. J.

Grant, A. C.

Singleton, Mark

Grant, Charles

Smith, C.

[1082

Somerville, sir M.

Wallace, rt. hon. T.

Spencer, lord. F. A.

Ward, R.

Stewart, —

Warrender, sir G.

Stewart, Alex.

Wellesley, R.

Stopford, hon. E.

Wemyss, gen.

Stirling, sir W.

Wetherall, C.

Sutton, rt. hon. C. M.

Wilder, general

Teed, John

Wharton, R.

Thompson, sir T.

Webster, sir G.

Taylor, John

Wilson, C.

Thornton, general

Yorke, sir J.

Thornton Samuel

Thynne, lord J.

TELLERS.

Vansittart, rt. hon. N.

Arbuthnot, rt. hon.

Ure, M.

Lushington, W. S.

THE DUKE OF YORK.
Sir J. Majority bankssaid, that on giving notice upon Friday last, of a motion of Thanks to the Duke of York, he was influenced by no other consideration than that he did not think the vote proposed last year was sufficiently extensive a return for the services of that illustrious personage: and that it was not so, had been a Subject of regret to himself and every man with whom he had conversed on the subject. He declared that he acted with perfect impartiality in the motion be intended to bring forward, as he was not personally acquainted with the duke of York. At present he only wished to postpone his motion from this day till to-morrow.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
Mr. Brogdenbrought up the Report of the Stamp Duties Bill. On the motion that it be agreed to,
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that he had recently, obtained the knowledge of a fact with respect to that part of the Bill which related to the Bank composition. When he stated on a former evening, that in consequence of the oversight in 1804, and 1808, the public had lost 534,000 l. he had been answered, that prior to 1804 the principle which had been acted upon by Mr. Pitt was, not to exact from the Bank the full sum for compensation, which they would otherwise have paid as duty. Having since examined into this matter, so far was this from having been the fact, that he pledged himself to the House to show that in 1799, the sum of 20,000 l. fixed as the compensation to be paid by the Bank, exceeded the amount which the Bank would have had to pay at that time for Stamp-duty, with reference to the amount of their paper then in circulation. He repeated, therefore, that since that period the Bank of England had benefited improperly by their contracts with the

1083]
public; and that unless they could contradict his statements, it was doe to their own honour and to justice that they should make restitution to the country. If in an agreement between two individuals, any fact were withheld from the knowledge of one party, that would entitle him to a subsequent restitution of any benefit so unduly gained; and the same principle ought to operate in engagements of a public nature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that as no account had been made out of the amount of Bank-of-England notes in circulation in 1799, he was at a loss to understand how his hon. friend had formed his calculation. With respect to the composition which the Bank were to pay by the Bill now in progress, it amounted very nearly to the sum which they would otherwise have had to pay for stamps.
Mr. Grenfell, in reply, stated, that his calculation of the composition which the Bank of England would pay, if the average of the three last years were taken, was 90,000 l.; that of the governor of the Bank 91,000 l. The amount of Bank paper in circulation was 28 or 29 millions; of which 9 millions were in one-pound notes. Calculating the duty of 5d. a pound on that sum of 9 millions, the amount would be 187,500 l. Let that be divided by three (the number of years during which Bank notes were allowed to remain in circulation), and the result would be 62,500 l. for stamps on one-pound notes only. In order to render the statement still more fair, he would take the amount which he calculated the composition, if on the average of three years, would produce, at 100,000 l. It then appeared, that there would remain about 38,000 l. as the compensation for all Bank-of-England notes above one pound in value. In the year 1799, the compensation fixed for the whole of the Bank-notes above five pounds in value was 20,000 l. Since that period the Stamp-duties had been increased. In 1804 the Stamp-duty on notes of five pounds in value and upwards had been increased 50 per cent. Consequently, the 20,000 l. would by that increase be made 30,000 l. In 1808 a further increase of the Stamp-duties took place of 33 per cent. That would carry the original sum to 40,000 l. But that was more than he wanted to establish his argument; as, in addition to the 62,500 l. for notes of one pound in value, it would make above 102,000 l. It was evident, therefore, that 20,000 l. in
[1084
1799 must have been a sum larger in proportion than the sum of 99,000 l. or 100,000 l. which he contended the Bank ought to pay for its existing circulation.
Mr. Manningthought that upon the present occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done his duty; he had made an advantageous bargain for the public.
Mr. Tierneysaid, all that his hon. friend wished was, that the Bank of England should pay at the same rate with private bankers. It was of the utmost importance to fix the principle, that in all future bargains with the Bank, they should ascertain the amount of their circulation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdefended the transaction with the Bank.
Mr. A. Baringsaid, that if the matter were rightly inquired into, it would be found that compensation was rather due to the Bank.
Mr. Thorntondefended the conduct of the Bank.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that up to 1800 the Bank did pay a full and fair composition, and he could see no reason why this system should have been deviated from.
Mr. Prestoncomplained of the severity of the Stamp-duty ad valorem on annuities. No person could borrow money at the legal rate of interest, when Government were competitors at a larger rate. Persons possessed of estates of 20,000 l. or 30,000 l. a year, were obliged to go to the annuity market. Why should they be obliged to pay for their necessities? The probate duty was also very unequal and oppressive.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the observations of the hon. gentleman respecting annuities were deserving of consideration.
Mr. Forbesmade some obversations on the licences paid by the Scotch Banking Companies.
The Report was then agreed to.

MOTION RESPECTING THE PROFITS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
The order of the day for the further consideration of the question relative to the public balances in the hands of the Bank having been read,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested the expediency of deferring any further debate for the present. As the resolutions on both sides would be printed, and no new enactment was intended during the present session, it appeared more

1085]
advisable to resume the discussion when there should be a fuller attendance, and the subject should have undergone the requisite previous consideration.
Mr. Grenfellreadily acquiesced in the right hon. gentleman's suggestion. He had only wished to lay a foundation during the present session for some future legislative proceeding, and he was happy to reflect that so much valuable information had already been laid before the House.
Mr. Mellishwas adverse to the postponement of the discussion.
Mr. Grenfellhad no desire to shrink from immediate discussion. None of the delay that had taken place was attributable to him; and he was satisfied that the only result of discussion, come when it would, would be to secure a great saving of public money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved, that the further consideration be deferred till Monday next.
Mr. Manningprotested against leaving an impression on the public mind unfavourable to the Bank, arising out of so grave a charge as that preferred by the hon. member. Any gentleman by an easy calculation might see that the allowance to the Bank for the management of public business did not exceed 8d. in the 100 l. Nothing could be further from the fact than that any collusion existed between the Executive Government and the Bank.
Mr. Tierneywas glad to find something at last extracted from the Bank directors. He lamented, however, that they should have taken so long a time to consider what they had to say. Ample time and various opportunities had occurred for entering into a general explanation, and the Resolutions themselves presented the means of conveying the sentiments of the Bank to the public, and in an authentic shape. Now, however, at the close of the session, the directors were full of anxiety for statement and discussion. He had heard of people whom it was difficult to get to sing, but once prevailed on, it was difficult to make them desist. He must for his own part protest against the doctrine, that because a settlement as to the composition between the public and the Bank was made eight years ago, Parliament ought not to interfere with, or to revive that settlement. There had been a greatly increased expenditure since that period, and a large accumulation of public balances in the hands of the Bank; and these
[1086
were quite sufficient reasons, in his opinion, to call for the vigilance of the House of Commons.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would declare it to be his intention to make the composition with the Bank depend in some degree on the basis of their circulation, he should not wish to press his proposition: but when the Bank already made about 300,000 l. a year on account of their management, and also 800,000 l. a year on account of the increase of their issues, it appeared reasonable, that the public should have some farther participation in their profits. He proposed that the discussion should be resumed on Thursday next.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought there would be no use in fixing the discussion for Thursday, as there was no probability of any considerable attendance of members.
Mr. Baringthought that the great responsibility to which the Bank subjected itself, entitled it to the profits that it received.
Mr. Hammersleywas afraid that these perpetual discussions with respect to the affairs of the Bank would disincline gentlemen of the respectability of those who were now Bank directors from accepting the office.
After some further consideration, the further discussion was adjourned to this day se'nnight.

PETITION OF MRS. PEARSON RESPECTING HER DISCOVERY FOR THE CURE OF SCROFULA, OR KING'S-EVIL.
—Sir Gerard Noel, in presenting the Petition of Mrs. Elizabeth Pearson, of Alfred-place, Bedford-square, respecting her discovery for the cure of Scrofula or King's-evil; said, that he took much blame to himself for not having earlier introduced to the attention of the House, a subject so interesting to humanity, as an effectual remedy for a complaint so general, so afflicting, and hitherto deemed so hopeless. He held in his hand documents which most folly confirmed the allegations of the Petition. He had by him testimonials of eminent individuals of the faculty, respecting the efficacy of Mrs. Pearson's discovery; and he had himself seen a number of such astonishing cures effected by that lady, as he would not have believed, hail he not had ocular evidence of them. He should, at an early period next session, bring the subject more fully under the considera-

1087]
tion of the House, but he should at present do no more than present the Petition.
The Petition was then read, and ordered to lie on the table. It sets forth, "That your petitioner having, upwards of 33 years back, been forcibly struck with the deplorable effects, and great and increasing prevalence of Scrofula or King's-evil, which had baffled the skill of the most eminent professors of physic, applied herself with unremitted assiduity to discover an efficacious remedy for that melancholy disease; and from long and laborious experiments of herbs and their medicinal powers, was happy enough to compound and prepare a poultice of vegetable, and an extract of vegetable juice, which she has fully proved, in an extensive practice of upwards of the last 20 years, completely to eradicate the said complaint, and restore to a healthy and vigorous state the constitution, where not entirely exhausted, or labouring under other disorders."

THAMES BATHING BILL.
Lord Sidmouth presented certainpetitions against this Bill, which were ordered to lie on the table. On the committal of the Bill,
Lord Sidmouthadverted to what had passed elsewhere upon the subject of this Bill, and, after expressing his disinclination to press any proposition likely to be rejected in the other House, observed, that several representations had been made to him by respectable individuals resident on the banks of the Thames, as well as by watermen and others, with regard to indecent exhibitions on the river, and moved
[1074
a clause to prohibit bathing from seven o'clock in the morning until sun-set, within a certain distance of any public stairs, or openings to streets.
The clause was agreed to. The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.