same rate of interest as that at which the money of individuals had been advanced.

The payments of this loan would be so arranged as to leave the sum of 5,000,000l. applicable by the commissioners to the purchase of stock in the year ended 5th July, 1821. In the year ended 5th July, 1820, the sum applied by the commissioners had amounted to about 4,400,000l., including about 600,000l. applied in Ireland. In the present year the total sum would be somewhat more than 5,000,000l., of which between 600,000l. and 700,000l. would also be applied in Ireland, leaving about 4,400,000l. for purchases in England: and here it might be proper for him to answer a question which had been more than once put to him by the honourable member for Penrhyn, viz. why, as the sinking fund now amounted to 17,000,000l., and would therefore have been sufficient, in addition to the proposed loan of 12,000,000l., the remaining sum of 5,000,000l. had had not also been borrowed from the sinking fund, so as to leave no sum to be borrowed from individuals? To this he should answer, that although the amount of debt remaining unredeemed at the close of the year might have been nearly the same in one mode of proceeding as in the other, yet it appeared to him that the effect upon credit and public convenience would have been extremely different in the two cases. The purchases of commissioners had not only the effect of cancelling a certain portion of stock at the end of every year; but, by their equable and regular operation, they in a degree regulated the market during the whole of the year, and prevented those sudden fluctuations which the accidental circumstances of sales, and of the combinations of speculators, might otherwise

occasion. Whatever might be the necessity of an individual to bring his stock to sale, he knew that there was a constant and considerable purchaser in the market, and that he could not fail, with the delay of a few days, to obtain the fair current price of what he had to sell. It was also to be recollected for how many years the public had been accustomed to the constant practice of these purchases, and how much their feelings might have been acted upon, and their apprehensions excited, by the total cessation of an establishment which has always been deemed so beneficial. He had not indeed been without some alarm at the effect which might be produced upon public opinion in the last year, when a loan from the sinking fund was for the first time carried into effect. He was ready to allow that the experiment had ended more favourably than he had apprehended it might do; but the difference was very great between the diminution, though considerable, and the total cessation of a resource of this kind. In future, indeed, he hoped that this ground of difference of opinion between the honourablemember and himself would no longer exist; for he saw no reason to depart from the expectation which he had last year held out to Parliament, that the loan lately concluded would be the last which, so long as peace continued, the government would be under the necessity of contracting, except by application to the commissioners for the sinking fund. He was here naturally led to explain a part of the subject which had on various occasions been alluded to, and which nearly connected itself with this question-hemeant a comparison between the estimates which had been formed in the session of 1819, and the actual result of the finances of that year.

He was ready to admit, that it was less favourable than had been anticipated, but he contended that the failure was not so considerable as to exceed ordinary fluctuations, or to justify the alarms which had frequently been expressed. The finance committee, in April 1819, had estimated the total income of the United Kingdom at 54,000,000l.; its actual produce had been very near 53,000,000l., of which, however, 500,000l. had arisen from taxes imposed since the committee had made their report. The diminution, therefore, of revenue, which arose almost wholly in the October quarter, and in the branch of customs, might be taken at 1,500,000l. They had estimated the clear excess of income beyond expenditure at about 2,000,000l., to which would have been added the amount of any taxes afterwards enforced. The actual excess, estimated in various ways, might be taken from one million to a million and a half; and, though certainly much less than was desirable to secure the prosperity of the country in the time of peace, yet was sufficient to complete the gloomy observations which were frequently thrown out of a great existing deficiency.

In the present year it appeared, from the accounts on the table, as nearly certain as any estimate which could be formed, that the new taxes enforced in 1819 would produce at least the estimated sum of three millions. There would therefore be a sum of about 2,500,000l. to add to the surplus of income beyond expenditure in 1819, making a clear improvement in our situation, in the present year, of about three millions and a half. It is true that this sum falls considerably short of the 5,000,000l. of clear income which were last year intended to be provided by Parliament but although that estimate

might not be realized in the present year, which laboured under some circumstances of depression too obvious to require particular notice, he by no means saw reason to doubt that it would be speedily completed. One indispensable requisite, indeed, as well to all financial prosperity as to every effective economy, and to all encouragement of industry, was the complete and permanent establishment of tranquillity and good order among the people. When that great point was effectually secured, he felt the greatest confidence of the rest.

Having completed this part of his statement, he adverted, in a subsequent explanation, to the mode by which the charges of the loan were to be provided for. The principle which he adopted was that of the act of 1813. It had been at that time explained, though not positively enacted, that a sum of 100 millions ought in time of peace to be reserved in the hands of the commissioners, as a resource for the first exigencies of any future wars. That sum had been now completed, and there was a considerable excess in the hands of the commissioners. The sum now actually standing in their names amounted to about 144,000,000!. He should therefore propose to provide for the charge of the present loans by cancelling the excess of stock beyond 100,000,000l. in the names of the commissioners to such an extent as was necessary for providing for the expense as it arose, and so as to leave the sum of at least 5,000,000l. as a clear sinking fund for the present year.

Although another subject (to be speedily introduced) had now almost exclusively occupied public attention, yet some observations were made on this exposition of the financial state of the country. Mr A. Baring having made an inquiry about the consoli

English baron are no longer essential or requisite. With the exception of one of our number, we concur in thinking, that five barons are one more than necessary, and that the business of the Exchequer might be conducted with equal advantage by four, as in the Court of Exchequer in England, and without adding to the duties and labour of these judges." If the House did not concur in the recommendation of the commissioners, the eight Reports which they had already presented would be useless paper, and Parliament would neither do its duty by them nor by the country. He would now state the duty of the Barons, and he begged it to be observed, that the account was not that of an enemy, but was supplied by these judges themselves. They stated, as was to be found in the 10th page of the Report, that there were four terms; one beginning on the 24th of November, and terminating on the 20th December; another beginning on the 15th of January, and ending on the 3d of February; a third beginning on the 12th of May, and ending on the 2d of June; and a fourth beginning on the 17th of June, and ending on the 5th of July. The Court, it was remarked, did not usually meet on Monday, except it was the first or the last day of term. Thus, then, the Barons were not employed in their judicial duties more than two months in the year, and this, be it remembered, was their own account of their employment. The average number of causes set down for trial did not exceed a hundred. They likewise acted as a board of treasury, and the average number of petitions, memorials, and other applications disposed of by them in that capacity, amounted to 1300. In point of practice, the disposal of this part of the business belonged to the Remembrancer; it was their duty only to transmit these memorials to

him, to order him to make out his report, of which they disapproved or approved. When they had given their approbation or disapprobation, their labour was at an end. Now he would beg leave to contrast the duties which they thus performed, with the duties performed by the Barons of the Court of Exchequer in England. The Barons of the Exchequer Court of England went the circuit; the Barons of Scotand performed no part of this duty. The Court of Exchequer in England performed the duties of a Court of Equity; in Scotland no such duty devolved upon the Barons. In England, other suitors could apply to the Court of Exchequer besides the suitors of the Crown; in Scotland only the suitors of the Crown. The Barons of England took their turn at the Old Bailey, and performed other parts in the administration of justice; in Scotland they had no similar labour. In England the Barons had to decide on references from Parliament; in Scotland they had to do nothing similar. There could, therefore, be no comparison between the labour performed by the four Barons of the Court of Exchequer in England and the five of Scotland. He would beg to know, as connected with this subject, what was the opinion entertained of the appointment of the present Chief-Baron of the Exchequer (the late Attorney-General of England, Sir Samuel Shepherd.) Did he consider himself, or was he considered by his friends, as going to perform a laborious duty, or going to fill an easy situation, if not a sinecure office? The late Chief Baron (the Right Honourable Robert Dundas) held his office three years, while he never appeared in court; he was in Italy two of those years from bad health, and when he returned he was unable to attend to business. The prescot Lord High Commissioner of the Jury Court

of Scotland, though almost unacquainted with the laws of Scotland, and going down to establish a new court, and to perform the laborious dnties of a new appointment, was yet able to execute the functions of a Baron of the Exchequer in addition to his other avocations. Indeed, when it was proposed in the last Parliament to grant retired pensions to the judges, it was contended by some hon. members, that such pensions ought not to be allowed to the Barons of the Exchequer, as they were already in a state of retirement. He could not refrain from denouncing a scandalous appointment, alike injurious to the character of Parliament and to the credit of the courts of justice. The opinion of the commissioners had been unanimous, with the exception of Sir Ilay Campbell, whose nomination had been objected to, on the ground that nothing had been done regarding appointments in courts of justice for the last half century, but by his advice. The opinion of no person in Scotland could be of less weight, as, without meaning any personal disrespect to him, he had protected all the abuses that had prevailed for the last fifty years, and might say of them, quorum pars magna fui. The next name that he found subscribed to the report was that of Sir James Montgomery, who had been Lord Advocate of Scotland. His authority, he did not hesitate to say, weighed as much with him as that of the learned lord or of the Lord Register opposite. Mr Robertson Scott, and Mr Threipland, were every way qualified for their appointment by character and knowledge. He came to Mr Glassford, though last not least, whose opinion deserved the greater credit, as he had written a book upon the courts. That gentleman had said in his publication, that the appointments of the Exchequer were sources of patronage, but

not offices of business. With regard to the individual appointed, (Sir Patrick Murray) he was scarcely known as a lawyer, and had seldom entered the courts, unless from curiosity. The only argument which could be urged for the number five was, that if four were equally divided, there might be want of a deciding voice; but the experience of England shewed how little room there was for this apprehension; and it would be strange to incur the expense of an additional judge for the mere purpose of inequality. The Lord Advocate had indeed produced a paper, purporting to contain the opinion of four judges, the heads of the courts in Scotland, and which was unfavourable to the discontinuance of the fifth Baron. Lord A. conceived that the judges, from their very situation, were liable to bias, and that their whole authority was destroyed by one assertion contained in this paper. In opposition to the recommendation of the commissioners, that the duties of the two clerks of bills should be devolved on the principal clerks of session, it expressed an opinion that the last office was sufficient to occupy the whole time and attention of any individual. What would the House think, when it understood that Sir Walter Scott was one of the principal clerks of Session? Could they believe that his whole time was engrossed by the duties of that office? The paper containing their opinion. did not carry conviction to the people of Scotland; it did not carry conviction to all the judges; it did not, he was assured, carry conviction to the bar. As the paper could not carry conviction, so neither could the vote of that House, if a vote of confirmation, carry conviction to the country. "The time may soon come," continued his lordship, "when I shall meet with this appointment in the mouths of persons in the disturbed