HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, February 23. of expense to be incurred. On another question also, the pecuniary indemnity to be paid by France, he wished to bring the question before the House, whether the sums paid on account of it, and the issues out of those sums, were subjected to the regular constitutional control of parliament? The noble marquis concluded by moving for an account of the sums paid by Great Britain to the governments of Hanover and Brunswick Luneburgh, on account of the treaties concluded at Paris in August last; and also an account of the sums paid by the French government, on account of the pecuniary indemnity to be paid by France, to whom paid, and the payments made there out. Earl Bathurst said, he had no intention of opposing the motions, and could assure the noble marquis, that when he laid the papers on the table, he should explain the motives of the treaties with Hanover and Brunswick Luneburgh in a manner that would, he trusted, be perfectly satisfactory. The Earl of Lauderdale suggested, that this country, in addition to the expense mentioned by his noble friend, was also charged with the payment of pensions to the Hanoverian troops, the widows of officers, &c. and that this item should be included in the motion. SUBSIDIARY TREATIES.] The Marquis of Lansdowne, in pursuance of his notice, adverted to the information which it became necessary to move for, in order to elucidate some points connected with the treaties which they had recently had under discussion. He alluded more particularly to the subsidiary treaties for procuring a considerable German force in aid of the common cause. In what was stated by the ministers respecting this subject in the course of last session, it was distinctly alleged, that the whole expense of these subsidies was to be at the rate of 11. 2s. per man. Yet it now appeared by the documents on the table, that in August last two ex post facto treaties were concluded at Paris with the governments of Hanover and Brunswick Luneburgh, under which the whole expense incurred for every man sent to our armies by these governments was to be defrayed by this country; and not merely this, but even the kettles and drums were to be included in the amount of expense and paid for in the same way. He trusted no one would suppose that in saying this, he meant the slightest reflection on the troops of those states which were employed by us; on the contrary, their gallantry and bravery were deserving of every encomium. His object was to protest against this system of concealing from parliament facts with which they ought to be made acquainted; he being entitled to assume, that ministers, at the time they stated the whole expense of these troops to be incurred at 11. 29. per man, must have known of those circumstances, whatever they were, that would be the cause of our incurring that further expense, which was the subject of Mr. Lacon thought it his duty to state the two treaties subsequently entered into. his reasons for dissenting from the prayer A similar thing happened in the session of the petition presented by his hon. colbefore last, when, without the knowledge league. He should vote for the property of parliament a treaty was concluded for tax, because he was convinced that, in the maintaining the Russian navy then in our distressed state of the country, neither the ports, by which an expense of 500,000l. present, nor any set of ministers, would was incurred. The treaty was not com- impose such a burthen, if it were not abmunicated to parliament until long after-solutely necessary. He deprecated the wards, and to this day the motives of it remained unexplained. He deprecated this kind of concealment, which had been so strongly also exemplified in the present instance, in the treaties concluded with Hanover and Brunswick Luneburgh, in direct contradiction to the assurances of ministers to parliament, as to the amount (VOL. XXXII.) This was done, and the motions thus amended, were agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, February 23. PETITIONS AGAINST THE PROPERTY TAX.] General Loftus presented a petition from the inhabitants of Great Yarmouth in the county of Norfolk, against the property tax. mode which had been suggested by an hon. alderman of raising the money wanted by loan. But should it be proposed to continue the property tax for more than a year or two, however modified, it should then meet with his decided opposition. In all local matters he should most implicitly obey the directions of his constituents, (3 G) but, in political questions, he should retain the right of expressing his own opi nions. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESSES.] Mr. Holme Sumner said, that considering the anxiety which must necessarily be felt throughout the country as to the nature of the relief which it might be in contemplation to propose for the agriculturalists, and especially in reference to the notice already given by an hon. member, whose knowledge and experience on that subject were much looked up to, he hoped he should not be regarded as taking an unparliamentary course in requesting from that hon. gentleman some general outline of the proposition which he intended to submit to the House. among many other topics of grievances the petitioners particularly alluded to the impossibility of paying the poor-rates, the tenants property tax, and the tythes, but of the produce of their farms. They also referred to the great relief which they would experience from the repeal of the war malt duty. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. not nume Sir Thomas Acland presented a petition from certain gentlemen, proprietors and cultivators of land, residing in the vicinity of Exeter, complaining of the distress which they felt. He stated, that there was one circumstance connected with the petition, which was peculiarly worthy of the attention of the House. It was signed by about 500 of the principal yeomanry Mr. Western replied, that he should be of the county, that highly respectable most happy to comply with the request of and most important class of the commuthe hon. member, if he thought that by nity. Though they were so doing he should be acting consistently rous, they might fairly be considered as with the very nature of the motion of speaking the sense of that part of the which he had given notice. That motion country. The hon. baronet stated the was for a committee of the whole House substance of the petition, which referred to take into consideration the distressed to the extreme distress felt by the agristate of the agriculture of the country, cultural interest, which was so great inand to devise some means for relieving deed, that they were compelled to draw it from the perilous and unexampled upon their capitals in order to support difficulties under which it now labour- themselves; and that they would resort ed. If, therefore, he were to antici- to other means than the cultivation of the pate the object of that motion by any ground for that support, if there were any premature statement, he should defeat it profitable mode of employing their money. altogether, as his sole view was to elicit They concluded their petition, not by callthe collective wisdom and information of ing for any specific relief, but by throwing the House. For himself, he certainly had themselves on the feelings and sympathy some plans which he intended to propose, of the House, and relying upon their judg as likely to be productive of the desired ment for the best means of affording it. relief, but he could not think it expedient-Upon the petition being read by the to state them at the present moment. clerk, Sir C. Burrell presented a petition from Mr. Brougham expressed his surprise, certain land-holders, land-owners, &c. of that the hon. baronet, in stating the subthe town of Steyning, in Sussex, complain- stance of the petition, had omitted to ing of the agricultural distresses. The mention the property tax, as one of the hon. baronet was about to read the peti-principal causes of the distress complained tion, when The Speaker reminded him, that it was the duty of a member to state the substance merely, and that of the clerk at the table to read it at length. It would be an entire departure from parliamentary practice, for any hon. member to read the whole of a petition, though he was certainly at liberty to read particular parts. With that explanation the hon. member would not be at a loss as to what he was to 'do. Sir C. Burrell proceeded to state the substance of the petition, observing, that of. He was led to conclude that the petition was merely a general and vague ap plication to the legislature for relief, with out pointing out any means by which the relief could be obtained. It appeared, however, from the reading of the petition, that the omission was in the hon. baronet himself, and not in the petition. The petitioners themselves were aware of the source of their sufferings, though the hon. baronet did not think fit to touch upon it. In point of fact, therefore, the petition was as much a petition against the property tax, as it was for relief generally. Mr. Preston thought that the man who did not tell the truth at the present moment, was a traitor to his country. In twelve months time the country would want the necessaries of life. Did not the House know that one part of the metropolis was starving? Some were supported by charity, and others running towards prison and ruin. A vast trade was carried on in smuggling corn from other countries. He did not mean to oppose the petition, but he thought it his duty to speak his opinion, when the country was rushing into ruin by the immensity of taxation on the one hand, and the weakness of ministers on the other. Sir T. Acland said, he wondered the hon. and learned gentleman did not express another part of his surprise, that any one could be so devoid of common sense as to come down to that House with a petition, of which he wished a part to be concealed, and yet desire it to be read at length by the clerk, in order to expose his own inadequacy. If the hon. and learned gentleman had only done him the honour to attend to the general way in which he opened the matter of the petition, he would have had no occasion to make the remarks which he had so precipitately offered to the House; and if he would only allow him to go through the other petition which he held in his hand, he would see from his conduct, whether he had any design to suppress or omit any thing materially connected with their object. Mr. Brougham disclaimed any idea of imputing to the hon. baronet the motives which he seemed to imagine was his intention. He only meant to express his surprise at finding the contents of the petition differ so materially in a substantive part of it, from what might have been expected from the manner in which it had been opened by the hon baronet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that his hon. friend had only stated generally the grievances of which the petitioners complained, and the hon. and learned gentleman had no right to say that the petition was against the property tax, more than any of the other griev ances. Lord Binning thought, from the manner in which the hon. and learned member had described the nature of the petition, that he would find the property tax put forward in it as a great and leading grievance. But he saw that it was only mentioned in company with servants' wages and manure. Mr. W. Smith observed, that even in that case, as the property tax was the subject which occupied the consideration of parliament, and not servants' wages and manure, the petition must be considered as against the property tax. Sir T. Acland considered that the statement of the hon. gentleman would have made it appear, as if he wished to sink the merits of the question. That was far from his intention. Had that hon. member considered the petition, he would have found that it stated all the burthens which pressed upon agriculture, and the property tax only, as one amongst the rest. Sir T. Acland presented a petition to the same purport, and in the same words as the first, from the gentlemen proprietors, cultivators, and occupiers of land, near Honiton, in the county of Devon, which was read and ordered to lie on the table. Sir T. Acland then stated, that he held several petitions of a nearly similar nature, from various parts of Devonshire. One of them recited the distresses of agriculture, and called upon the House for relief from the great burthen of taxation principally owing to the property-tax. Another stated, that as the land-owner paid 10 per cent., and the land-occupier seven, the whole amount of the tax was in fact 17 per cent. He concluded by presenting those petitions, which were read, and ordered to lie on the table. MONUMENT TO SIR THOMAS PICTON. Mr. Jones observed, that as he saw a right hon. gentleman in his place, who was chairman of the committee for superintending the erection of national monuments, he wished to know whether only 3000 guineas was to be the sum allotted to the erection of a monument to the me. mory of sir Thomas Picton. He certainly thought that sum too small, and the more so, as he had been in St. Paul's that day, and observed several monuments erected to the memory of post captains in the navy, some of which had cost four and even six thousand pounds. Mr. Long replied, that no person could be more sensible of the eminent services of Sir Thomas Picton than he was; but as to the sum allotted for his monument, that did not fall within his department, it being altogether at the discretion of the Lords of the Treasury. He could state, however, that the sum certainly was to be 3000 guincas. He was not aware that any of the monuments in St. Paul's, erected to the memory of post captains in the navy, had cost a larger sum, though it might possibly be the fact. But it should be remembered, that during the war, the difficulty of procuring the marble usually employed for monuments was so great, and the expense so much larger, that what then cost as much as six guineas per foot, was now reduced to somewhat about two guineas. A less sum therefore, would be necessary for a monument of equal magnitude. Mr. Jones said, that the answer of the right hon. gentleman was not satisfactory to him; and he was proceeding to make some further remarks, when the Speaker reminded him, that as he had not announced his intention of concluding with a motion, there was then no question before the House. Mr. Jones apologized for the irregularity, of which he was not aware, being only a young member of that House, and stated that he should feel it his duty, on some future occasion, to bring forward a motion upon the subject, unless he was anticipated by the right hon. gentleman, or some other member. * THE EARL OF ELGIN'S PETITION.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of the House to the collection of marbles in possession of the Earl of Elgin. Towards the close of the last session of parliament, the noble earl had presented a petition to the House, praying that an inquiry might be made into the value of his collection, which he was desirous of selling to government for the use of the public. The circumstances under which the noble lord had become possessed of those matchless productions were so well known, that the right hon. gentleman said, he would not trouble the House at any length on the subject. They were acquired by him, in the course of his mission to Constantinople, with the greatest exertions, and at a very considerable expense, and might be justly considered as the most valuable works of art that had ever been brought from the western parts of Europe. Every person acquainted with that noble lord must be aware, that his object had been solely directed to the advancement of the arts; but being unable, from circumstances which it was then un *See vol. 31. p. 828. necessary to repeat, to fulfil his munificent intentions, he was naturally anxious that the public should enjoy the advantage of his labours. As to the amount of the remuneration to be given to his lordship, the right hon. gentleman wished to leave it to the judgment of the house. The col lection was too well known to make it necessary for him to refer to the opinions of the most eminent artists; it was, beyond all question, the most ancient and genuine that had ever appeared, and the country would be naturally proud of possessing a mass of models for the arts, which the united collections of Europe could hardly produce. The committee, however, for which he intended to move, would be enabled to call proper judges before them in order to ascertain the value. It was agreed, on both sides of the House, that, in the present situation of the country, it was in the highest degree desirable to avoid any unnecessary expenditure; but it should not be forgotten, that if the present opportunity was neglected it might never occur again. He saw no prospect but, in the course of a short time, these exquisite works of art must be dispersed, or disposed of to foreign purchasers. The House had before an opportunity of acquiring a valuable collection, and they had, for public purposes, and on public grounds, availed themselves of it. They had now the offer of a more splendid collection; and it was certainly one of the most wonderful events of the day, that the works of Phidias should become the property of a native of Caledonia. The desire of conferring honour on the arts as well as on the arms of this country was the object of his motion; for, of all the arts, sculpture was at present the least flourishing in England. He should therefore move, "That the Petition of the earl of Elgin, which was presented to the House on the 15th of February last, be referred to a select committee, and that they do inquire whether it be expedient that the collection therein-mentioned should be purchased on behalf of the public; and if so, what price it may be reasonable to allow for the same." Lord Ossulston said, he could not object to procuring the advantage of such an interesting collection to the country. A question, however, might arise, whether an ambassador, residing in the territories of a foreign power, should have the right of appropriating to himself, and deriving benefits from objects belonging to that power. It was not the respect paid to lord Elgin, but to the power and greatness of the country which he represented, that had given him the means of procuring these chefs-d'œuvres of ancient sculpture. He thought, therefore, that the House should go no farther than to remunerate the noble lord for the trouble and expense at which he had been in bringing over these marbles. Mr. Bankes said, that the Committee would have to ascertain the mode in which the noble lord obtained these marbles, the expense to which he had been put with respect to them, and what degree of vested right the public already possessed in them. The noble lord could certainly not be considered as an independent traveller, who had a right to dispose of, at any price that he could obtain, whatever he might have collected in the course of his researches. He had availed himself of his character as an English ambassador to facilitate the acquisition. He confessed, that instead of leaving the question altogether to parliament, he should have thought it better had the noble lord fixed the price that he required. Under all the circumstances, however, although he was persuaded that the Committee would have an inconvenient and a laborious task, and although he felt very sensibly the difficulties of the times, yet the collection was one of such acknowledged value, one so unrivalled in its nature, and which it was so much to be desired that the public should possess, that he could not hesitate to entertain the proposition made by his right hon. friend. Mr. Abercrombie agreed that it was a matter of public duty not to hold out a precedent to embassadors to avail themselves of their situation to obtain such property, and then to convert it to their own purposes. He was sure, however, that the noble lord would inform the committee of the extent of his facilities. As to obstacles in forming a reasonable estimate, he conceived it would not be found so difficult as the hon. gentleman seemed to think. What they would have to do was, to inquire whether these marbles were really so valuable to the public as they were represented to be, and then to ascertain what money the noble lord had expended in procuring and bringing them to this country. It would then remain for the House to decide upon the sum to be given to his lordship. Generally, he believed, there could be but one opinion upon this subject, and that there would be no opposition to the appointment of a committee. Mr. Gordon thought it his duty in answer to the remark just made, that there could be but one opinion on the subject, to say, that in his judgment, the present distressed situation of the country did not call upon parliament to make a purchase of a set of marbles. However desirable these marbles might be for the promotion of the arts, it would be very impolitic and improper at this time to incur any unnecessary expenditure. He therefore wished the right hon. gentleman to postpone this measure till the country had been relieved from the burthens which now oppressed it. Mr. Tierney said, that no man could feel more anxious than himself that these works of art should not be scattered over the country, or be suffered to leave it. If the object of the motion was to inquire whether lord Elgin had become possessed of them in consequence of his public functions, and what expenses he had incurred, he was ready to agree to a committee; but not that particular artists should be asked what they conceived to be the value of these marbles. He thought the committee should be instructed how they ought to conduct themselves. It had been stated that lord Elgin formerly applied to Mr. Perceval on this subject, who offered a specific sum of money, which his lordship refused. He did not see, therefore, why the offer should be repeated. He thought an inquiry should be instituted as to the extent of his expenditure in procuring these marbles. Part of them were brought over in ships of war, and consequently at the public expense. If it were merely intended to hold out encouragement to embassadors to enrich their country with works of arts, then the motion was creditable to the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer; but if he meant that the noble lord, availing himself of his official character, should now call himself the possessor, he would not agree to the motion. He thought it improper, in the present situation of our finances, that the House should be invited to purchase them. The right hon. gen. tleman had said, it was very desirable to possess them. This might be very true, there were a great many things which he would wish to have, and he was sorry he had them not; but he was bound to consider his means, and the right hon. gentleman should do the same. |