Mr. C. Long spoke in favour of the appointment of a committee. It would be to be regretted, if the public lost this opportunity of obtaining a collection more useful than any other that could be found for the improvement of the arts. If the House refused to purchase this collection of lord Elgin, it would be hard on his lordship to be prevented from disposing of it otherwise. Mr. Preston opposed the motion, on the ground of the influence of example, and the distressed state of the country. Lord Elgin ought to have come boldly forward, and have made them a present to the country. He thought, that if ambassadors were encouraged to make these speculations, many might return home in the character of merchants. He could not consent to pay for the collection according to what might be called its value, but only as far as it was a compensation to an ambassador for his expenses in procuring it. He did not see that lord Elgin was bound by what the committee thought right. Mr. Brougham was sorry that in the discharge of his duty he must object to the appointment of a committee. He participated, at the same time, in feeling with other hon. members that it was extremely desirable such a collection should be in the possession of this country. It was very rational that we should wish to indulge ourselves in this sort of gratification, but he was under the necessity of looking to the other side of the question. This country had not the money to spend. As a nation we found ourselves precisely in the situation of an individual who might see many things he would like to purchase, and which he might purchase too at a cheap price, but he could not indulge himself with the article, for upon asking himself the question he found that he had no money in his pocket. Perhaps this collection might cost about forty or fifty thousand pounds, but even if it would cost only ten or twelve thousand this was not the time to press expenses upon the public. This was a time when we were called upon to cut down expenses of every description. If it could be afforded, consideration was due to the present state of midshipmen, and also of half-pay officers, retiring upon what was not equal to their support, but he believed the only answer which could be returned was, that in the present state of the country, we were not able to afford them any further assistance; still if we could not give them bread we ought not to indulge ourselves in the purchase of stones. On these grounds he felt it his duty to object to the present motion, and should therefore conclude by moving the previous question. ་་ Sir John Newport had not been able to satisfy his mind that these marbles had been acquired in that way that could authorize the nation to purchase them. He therefore should support the amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the committee to be appointed would of course consider the question of the expenses of the noble lord carefully, and see also whether they had been properly applied or not. He saw no good ground for taking up the subject at some other time. If the business could be adjourned, with a fair and full security for our retaining possession of this most valuable collection, it would certainly be preferable; but it would be very burthensome to lord Elgin to be debarred from selling it to any body else, while parliament thought fit to refuse to purchase it. Mr. Babington thought the mode in which the collection had been acquired partook of the nature of spoliation. It was of the greatest importance to ascertain whether this collection had been procured by such means as were honourable to this country. We were at present looked at with much attention, and perhaps jealousy, by other nations; and many in a neighbouring country might rejoice to find us tripping. He hoped the committee would be careful in seeing that the whole transaction was consonant with national honour. If these remains of antiquity were not honourably acquired, he hoped we should have nothing to do with them. Mr. Croker said, it was extremely desirable for the committee to inquire into the points mentioned by the hon. member. He would not vote for the committee, if he did not think it essential to ascertain that what had been done was compatible with the noble lord's and with the country's honour. The previous question was put and negatived; after which the main question was agreed to, and a committee appointed. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, February 26. PUNISHMENT OF THE PILLORY.] Earl Stanhope took an opportunity to address the House upon this subject. He observed, their lordships would recollect that in the last session of parliament, a bill had been brought up to them from the Commons respecting the abolition of the punishment of the pillory. It was then suggested by a noble and learned lord, and approved by the noble earl on the ministerial bench, that it would be very proper to submit the subject to the learned judges, in order that they might draw up a bill upon it. The case was generally stated to be a proper one, and that the judges should be directed to form into one bill all the laws relative to the punishment of the pillory, as on a former particular occasion all the laws that related to the penalty of death, were proposed to be included in one act. In the subject referred to, he thought it peculiarly proper to have called upon the judges to draw up an act of parliament for the House, so that all the laws upon the subject should be consolidated into one. Under that impression he had moved a resolution, that the learned judges should prepare and lay before the House a bill, to reduce into one act all the laws then in force, which prescribed the penalty of the pillory, or authorized the infliction thereof. He had inquired, and had not found that any such bill had been delivered. He was sure he should never speak of the learned judges of the land, save with the greatest respect. But when their lordships made an order, and when, as he learned from the votes of the Commons, the subject was now agitating there, he must be allowed to express his opinion, that it were better such a bill had been prepared by the judges, and submitted to that House, previous to a bill coming up again from the Commons on the same subject. He merely suggested the propriety of such a bill, without making any formal motion now upon the subject. It might, however, be proper to know, what had been done on the occasion, or whether such a bill had been framed. No doubt a sufficient reason would be assigned; but as the learned judges were then present, he thought it right to say this much, in order that their lordships might be informed if any mistake had occurred in the delivery of the notice, that it might be clearly known such an order was made, and that some hint might be given when it would be at tended to. With respect to an opinion which had been given last year, that nothing could be more cruel than to heap additional trouble upon the judges, who were already borne down by the immense weight of business allotted to them, he had to observe, that he had more than once urged their lordships to have assessors of their own, for the transaction of such important business as that referred to. For instance, if one of the judges, a master in chancery, and a sound commonlaw lawyer, were to attend the House as its assessors, and to submit to them various important statutes, erroneously drawn up, for correction, or for reducing various laws into one act, upon a given subject, much more good would be done, in those respects, than had of late been even attempted. CEYLON.] Lord Holland, asked whether it was intended to lay any further papers on the table respecting the war in Ceylon with the emperor of Candy? He observed, there was an account of the termination of the war, but nothing as to the motives which led to it; and when the result was looked at, which was nothing less than the subversion of a most ancient empire, and the exclusion of a most ancient dynasty, he thought some further information upon the subject ought to be laid before the House. The Earl of Liverpool said, it was not the intention of his Majesty's servants to communicate any further information upon the subject; but it was open to the noble lord to move for whatever further papers he thought necessary. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, February 26. LIVERPOOL CANAL BILL.] Lord Lascelles moved the second reading of the above Bill. His lordship observed, that many objections were made to the measure, and, he believed, petitions were preparing against it; but, as those objections related principally to the raising of tolls, and some other matters of regulation, he conceived they could be removed in the committee. He should, therefore, move the second reading of the Bill, which, if delayed, would occasion much inconvenience to a number of persons who were now attending in town. Sir Robert Peel did not mean to oppose the motion, as the noble lord seemed to suppose that the objections would be disposed of in the committee. He wished, however, to observe, that petitions would shortly be presented against it from Liverpool, and from several other places. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. ACCOUNT OF MONEY RAISED BY POORSRATES.] Mr. Addington presented to the House, pursuant to their order, An ACCOUNT of all Money raised by Poors Rates, or other Rate or Rates, in the several Counties in England and Wales, in the year ending the 25th of March 1815;-showing, the Number of Parishes which have not made Returns, and also the Number of Parishes which have made Returns, under the Act 55 Geo. 3, c. 47, relative to the Expense and Maintenance of the Poor and Highways. 21299,075 77 ya li bometni su gimi 623,046 160d to vivilstroda i lepo had won on George P. Brietzcke, ston O TOTAL OF ENGLAND £. 6,753,331 11 941 Appointed by Lord Viscount Sidmouth, his MaDepartment, to form an Abstract from the Returns jesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home relative to the Expense and Maintenance of the Poor in England, under the Act 55 Geo. 3, cap. 47 the standing orders would prevent the reception of any petitions on the subject of the income tax after to day. He was convinced this was a manœuvre to prevent the voice of the country being heard. Lord Compton also stated that such an opinion existed in his county. PETITIONS AGAINST THE PROPERTY | labouring under the same mistake, imaTAX.] Petitions against the property gining that this was a new tax, and that tax were presented from Selkirk, Newport in Cornwall, St. Mary Stratford Bow, St. Leonard Shoreditch, Uxbridge, Northampton, Bristol, Ward of Cornhill, Ward of Farringdon Without, St. Bride's Fleet-street, Warwick, Southwark, Ward of Walbrook, Bread-street Ward, Castle Baynard Ward, Ipswich, Launceston, Saint Saviour's Southwark, King's Lynn, Coleman-street Ward, Cromer, Norfolk, Haddington, Hampshire, Kimbolton, Aberdour Farming Society, Arundel, Lewes, Liverpool, Berwick upon Tweed, Sandwich, Annan, Westminster, Broadstreet Ward, Norwich, St. Anne, Limehouse, Swansea, Cambridge, Ely, Doncaster, Northallerton, Cottingham, Devonshire, Ward of Farringdon Within, and Taunton. In consequence of the House being called over, the gallery was not opened till nearly seven o'clock. In the course of the evening, Lord Althorp on presenting a petition from the county of Northampton against the property tax and the peace establishment, said, that although not passed unanimously, it was carried by a very large majority. Mr. Cartwright stated that the minority was respectable, and that he could not support that part of the petition which related to the property tax. Mr. Hart Davis presented a petition from Bristol, signed by above 4,000 inhabitants, but felt it his painful duty to declare that the sentiments contained in the petition did not accord with his own. Mr. Protheroe presented a petition from the corporation of Bristol against the property tax, and declared that in his opinion the continuance of the property tax was a most judicious measure for the purpose of winding up the expenses of the war. General Gascoyne presented a petition from Liverpool against the property tax. He said that no difference of opinion existed in the town with regard to the prayer of the petition. He fully coincided in those sentiments; the House was pledged to the discontinuance of the tax during peace, and he should oppose it as long as he had a seat in that House. Mr. Brougham wished to state a fact which came within his own knowledge. All the signatures were procured in a few hours, on the supposition that the petition could not be presented after to day. Many parts of the country, he said, were (VOL. XXXII.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer took this opportunity of giving notice, that he meant to propose the income tax in the committee of ways and means on Wednesday, and hoped those members who had notices on the book would give way to him. Mr. Baring said, that so far from that he would rather add another notice than remove the one now existing, in order to prevent the right hon. gentleman from, running a race with the country. Suck precipitation was most indecent. He declared he would oppose the measure in every stage, and keep it as long before the House as he could. He knew the anxiety, of the country on this account to be very great. He wished hon. gentlemen would, attend more to their constituents than to private meetings at the minister's house, thereby endeavouring to stifle their voice. Sir Charles Mordaunt said a meeting had been called in his county; his constituents were anxious to have an opportunity of expressing their sentiments, and he therefore required delay. Mr. Wharton said, that it was the intention of Beverly to petition if they were given time. Mr. Lyttelton said, he had received intelligence from his constituents stating that they had delayed a requisition until the motion of the hon. member of Essex had been disposed of. If the income tax was thus hurried on, their object must necessarily be defeated. Sir Gilbert Heathcote stated that a similar occurrence would take place in Rutlandshire. Mr. Wynn stated the same fact with regard to the counties of Denbigh and Montgomery. Mr. Charles Dundas observed, that Berkshire was very desirous of meeting, and that a requisition had been sent for the purpose. He trusted the chancellor of the exchequer would abandon his intention of being so precipitate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer de clared he had so long ago announced his intention respecting the property tax, that, (3 H) a fall opportunity had been given of petitioning against it; and that he was persuaded the sense of the country at large was not adverse to its being continued for the period and under the modifications which he had proposed; he should therefore bring forward the discussion on Friday next. Mr. Tierney said, that the right hon. gentleman seemed to take it for granted that the estimates he intended to propose would be agreed to by the House; but he trusted gentlemen would remember, that if they were not carried, the property tax would not be wanted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ob served, that he should proceed in the usual course of beginning with the esti mates first, and proceeding to the ways and means afterwards. Lord Milton presented several petitions against the income tax from Doncaster, North Allerton, North and South Cave, and the parish of Cottingham, all in the county of York. Sir Thomas Acland said, he held in his hand not less than twenty-six petitions, the object of which he should endeavour to state generally. The first he should • Mr. Babington was in favour of delay. notice was one signed by 700 occupiers His constituents intended to petition, but and owners of land in North Devon, comhad hitherto been prevented by the indis-plaining of the distresses under which their position of the mayor, who was incapable of attending public business. Mr. Ponsonby expressed his surprise that the right hon. gentleman would not accommodate himself to the wishes of the country. Did he conceive that the opposition to this tax was artificial or fictitious, or that it was excited by a party spirit? Mr. Gore Langton said, his majesty's ministers wished to prevent the voice of the people from being heard, which he considered most unfair. agriculture laboured, of the heavy burthens imposed upon the farmer by county rates, poor-rates, and tithes, and par ticularly by the property-tax, which they estimated at seventeen and a half per cent. on the land. They stated, that many of them, in order to meet these payments had been under the necessity of selling their young cattle to great disadvantage, and some of them were now in confinement for debt, from inability to pay. This pe tition also complained of the severity of the salt tax. Another petition which he held in his hand was from the yeomanry of the district of Tiverton, once an opulent body of men, complaining of the pro Sir Francis Burdett said, he held in his hand a petition which was unanimously agreed to at a very numerous meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster, and signed by a certain number of them. The peti-perty tax, and setting forth the great intioners complained, that it was the declared intention of ministers to propose the continuance of the income tax, in violation of their most solemn pledges to the contrary. Against this tax they protested as an intolerable grievance, and also against the maintenance of a large military establishment, which in their judgment, as well as his own, was utterly incompatible with the liberties of the country. Sir James Shaw presented a petition against the income tax from the inhabitants of the ward of Broad Street, who, he said, had supported his Majesty's government for the last twenty-five years, but were now unanimous in their opposition to this proposed tax. Mr. W. Smith presented a petition from the city of Norwich to the same effect, which, he said, expressed the sentiments crease of poor-rates, in consequence of the distresses of the agricultural labourers. The petitioners stated their wish, that if the income tax was still deemed necessary, it should undergo some modification, and that, if possible, the same should be the case with the assessed taxes. The hon. baronet proceeded to observe, that from the best attention he had been able to give the petitions, some of them were for the unqualified removal of the income tax; others for some modification of it should it still be deemed necessary. The first petition presented by the hon. baronet was then brought up and read by the clerk, who was proceeding merely to read the titles of others, when Mr. Tierney interposed, observing, that he thought all of them should be read. All they knew at present from them was, |