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 144,000,000l. 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

dated fund, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that it was last year three millions in arrear. This deficiency had arisen before the new taxes became productive, and also included the charge of two loans. Mr Grenfell here deprecated the system of the government being dependent on the Bank of England for the means of meeting the deficiency on the consolidated fund. It did appear to him an unseemly and odious blot on its character, to be unable to pay the public creditor except at the will and pleasure of that corporation.Mr Ricardo insisted, that, unsatisfactory as the statement of the Chancel lor of the Exchequer had been, it was still more favourable than the truth

that instead of any the smallest sinking fund, there was an actual deficiency. Mr Maberley, after drawing an almost equally gloomy picture of the state of the finances, concluded by recommending a property tax, as the least objectionable and only effectual mode of placing affairs in a more favourable state. This hint was not ill received by Mr Vansittart, who expressed his belief that the country would at last feel the necessity of this or some other equally rigorous financial measure. Alderman Heygate deprecated the system of loans in time of peace, and conceived it unworthy of a country like England to be eternally changing her plans of finance. He hoped the deficiency, if any, of next year, would be met by more vigorous and effective measures. He ascribed much of the distress of the country to the recent diminution of 5,000,000l. in the issue of Bank of England notes, and 4,000,000l. in those of country banks, in all 9,000,000l., about a sixth part of the currency of the country. There could be no pretence for a further diminution of the circulating medium; indeed paper was now more valuable

than gold.-Mr Huskisson, admitting how important it was that the consolidated fund should be out of arrears, and that there should exist an effective sinking fund, expressed his hope that the latter would soon amount to 5,000,000l. The debate here closed.

The opposition, during the present session, found only one opportunity to exercise their function of watching the minor steps of ministerial proceeding, and advancing charges of blameable profusion of the public money. This charge, which excited considerable interest, was founded on the filling up of the situation of fifth Baron of Exchequer, after a commission, appointed to inquire into Scots courts of justice, had reported their opinion that the number four would be sufficient. Lord Archibald Hamilton, who stood now as head of the whig interest for Scotland, introduced this subject to the notice of Parliament on the 15th of May. He began with stating the proceedings out of which the report arose. It was now six years since his right honourable friend (Sir J. Newport) commenced his exertions for an inquiry into the courts of justice, with a view to their improvement. His motion for the appointment of commissioners for that purpose was made and agreed to in 1814. Now it would scarcely be believed, that after the lapse of six years not one arrangement was made for carrying into effect the recommendation of the commissioners. The report giving an account of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, called the sixth report, was laid upon the table last year, and two other reports had been since presented. He should quote the very words of the commissioners upon the appointment which was the subject of his motion. They were as follows: "We think it our duty here to express our opinion that the provisions made in respect to an

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 present 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 Camp bell, 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

1799 till last year, except one year that he held an office in London. He was by this means better fitted for the ministerial and judicial functions of a baron than he could have been by the longest practice as an advocate in the Courts of Justice. As the English law is the law of the Court of Exchequer, a barrister had to learn all the forms and rules of the Court when appointed to preside in it as one of the Barons. The noble lord had said that he had performed his office by deputy, but he (the Lord Advocate) knew that he had performed it personally, since 1799 till last year, except the year that he had an office in London. Nor was such an appointment of an inferior officer without precedent, for Baron Moncrieff had been deputy King's Remembrancer for 25 years before he was appointed one of the Barons. Another remark he begged leave to make here, respecting the selection of the individual. By his appointment a very considerable saving was occasioned, because the office of King's Remembrancer ceased, on its becoming vacant, by an act of an honourable member on the floor. The saving hence arising amounted to one half the salary of one of the Barons of Exchequer. By the statute of Anne it was enacted, that the number of Barons should not be fewer than five. The expression was, "should not exceed five;" but this, he contended, in Parliamentary language, implied the same thing. "We always have been accustomed to five," said his lordship; "you have always been accustomed to four; we prefer five, according to what we have been accustomed to; you prefer four, according to your custom." The nature of the business required an admixture of Scotch and English lawyers; of the former, there could scarcely be fewer than three, or of the latter than two. If there

district with which I am connected, whom I may be called upon to repress. With what consistency can I, as deputy lieutenant or justice of the peace, put down at the point of the sword those whom distress has goaded to madness, and who from time to time are outraged by acts of this kind?" The noble lord concluded by moving, that the House concur with the commissioners, that five Barons of Exchequer in Scotland were unnecessary, and that four were sufficient for all the business of that court. In reply to these observations, the defence of the measure was under taken by Sir William Rae, Lord Advocate. On him it naturally devol ved, both as holding an office usually supposed to include that of minister for Scotland, and as having taken an active part in forwarding the appointment. The constitution, he observed, of the Court of Exchequer, was founded upon the national contract at the union of the two countries-a union which proved satisfactory to the people, and promoted the interests of that part of the country, for more than a century. That contract was not to be wantonly broken in upon. The appointment took place in consequence of a circumstance connected with the trial by jury, lately introduced into Scotland. Mr Adam, Lord Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court, and to whose zeal, talents, and good management, the success of the experiment was mainly owing, found his duties as Baron of Exchequer incompatible with due attention to the business of that court. He therefore resigned the former, that he might betow on the latter his undivided attention. With regard to the choice made of a successor, an individual better fitted for the situation could not have been found. He had held the office of principal Remembrancer in the Court of Exchequer from the year