bank. There seemed as little reason to object to the security given by the distributers of stamps, and though they did their duty by deputy, the principals only were responsible.

The only one of Mr. Hume's resolutions to which Mr. Lushing ton agreed, was the third, which contained nothing beyond a statement of the nett and gross revenues, and of the charge of their collection, for the preceding year; and even this he thought it necessary to modify, by connecting with it three other resolutions; the first two declaratory of the cost of collecting the revenue in 1818 and 1819, and the last in the following terms:-" that the expense of managing and collecting the revenue last year has been considerably diminished, as compared with the years 1818 and 1819; that a minute investigation has been instituted into all the expenses and management of the several branches, in order that every reduction may be made therein that can be effected without detriment to the public service; and that a continuance of the same vigilance is essential to the best interests of the country." All Mr. Hume's resolutions, except the third, were negatived; Mr. Lushington's first two were adopted, and the third was with drawn.

The commissioners, who had been appointed in 1814 to inquire into the constitution of the courts of justice, had, in their sixth report, which was laid before the House in 1819, expressed their opinion, that one of the five barons, who constituted the court of exchequer in Scotland, might, without inconvenience, be reduced, and that the whole busi

ness of the court might be trans acted by a chief baron and three puisne barons. A vacancy had occurred in November 1819, by the resignation of Mr. Baron Adams; but instead of acting upon the recommendation of the commissioners,

ministers had lately filled it up by appointing to it sir P. Murray, who had long acted as king's remembrancer in the same court. On the 15th May, lord A. Hamilton moved for a copy of this appointment, with a view to propose a vote of censure ou ministers for having thus filled up the vacant place of a superfluous fifth baron, in position to the recorded opinion of the commission of inquiry. He stated, that in the Scotch exchequer, there were four terms; one beginning on the 24th of November, and terminating on the 20th of December; another beginning on the 15th of January, and ending on the 3rd of February; a third beginning on the 12th of May, and ending on the 2nd of June; and a fourth beginning on the 17th of June, and ending on the 5th of July, making in the whole 65 or 66 days in the year. The court did not usually meet on Monday, except it was the first or the last day of term. Thus, the barons were not employed in their judicial duties more than two months in the year. average number of causes set down for trial did not exceed a hundred. The barons, indeed, acted as a board of treasury, and the average number of petitions and memorials disposed of by them in this capacity was about 1,300. But, in fact, this part of their duty was mere formal routine: they transmitted the memorials to the remembrancer:

The

he made his report; and they approved or disapproved of the report thus made. The duties imposed on them were light, when compared with those which were discharged by the four barons of the exchequer in England. The latter went the circuit: the barons of Scotland 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 not that labour. In England the barons had to decide on references from parliament; in Scotland they had nothing similar to do. 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.

The lord advocate and lord Castlereagh, in defending the appointment, maintained, that ministers could not be charged with having proceeded hastily in filling up in March a vacancy which had occurred in the preceding November. They impugned the authority of the opinion of the majority of the commissioners, by opposing to it the dissentient voice of that one among them (Sir Ilay Campbell), who was best qualified for coming to a correct judgment upon the point; and they expatiated upon the absurdity of making the English

judicature a pattern, after which that of Scotland ought to be modelled, especially in cases where the provinces of the corresponding courts in the two countries were different. In England, the decisions of the court of exchequer were subject to review. In Scotland, its proceedings were final, nor was there any power of repeal or revision. Much stress was also laid on the authority of the lord president, the lord justice clerk, the lord commissioner of the jury court, and the lord chief baron, who had all declared their opinion, that the constitution of the Scotch court should remain as it was.

Lord A. Hamilton's motion was lost by a very small majority, the ayes being 177, the noes 189.

After the division, Mr. Brougham inquired, whether, as another vacancy had, perhaps, by that time occurred, it was to be filled up immediately without inquiry. Lord Castlereagh's reply was, that the public service could not be left unprovided for. In June a vacancy did occur, in consequence of the death of the senior baron, the honourable Fletcher Norton. But the strength, which the minority had mustered on the former occasion, had rendered ministers more cautious: for when lord A. Hamilton, on the 24th of June, gave notice of his intention to move, that the vacant seat in the court of exchequer in Scotland should not be filled up, lord Castlereagh stated, that the motion would be unnecessary, as the ministers had resolved not to appoint a new baron in the place of the late baron Norton.

OUR UR relations with foreign states and dependencies during the present session of parliament, as well as for some preceding years, continued so free from alteration, that little scope was given for making them the subject of parliamentary discussion. The only topic of this kind, which attracted any share of public attention, related to our administration of the Ionian islands.

On the 29th of June, lord John Russell moved for the production of some papers relating to the cession of Parga. That transaction, the noble lord declared, was a case of as notorious treachery and oppression, as had ever occurred; for, though the Parguinotes were not named in the treaty of 1815, yet, being included in that of 1800, they had a right to demand, that their property and religion should not be sacrificed to the Turks. But what had been their fate? The property, which a treaty had intended to secure, had been ravished from them-the religion, which it had been stipulated to preserve, had been violated-and the bulwarks, the safeguards, it had been at

was

tempted to set up, had been swept away. The property of these Parguinotes, which given up to the Turks, was estimated by a writer in the Quarterly Review at 300,000l. The injustice, which had occurred in this part of the transaction, was enormous; the buyer was permitted to estimate the property, while the seller was denied that right. The Turks were allowed to make an estimate; that privilege was refused to the Parguinotes. In the first instance, the sum of money, at which the property was estimated by the British consul, was 277,000l.: the Turks, as matter of course, estimated it at very considerably less: and the estimate subsequently transmitted by Sir Thomas Maitland, was of no greater an amount thau 150,0001. After the preliminary valuations were completed, and the sum was thus diminished, the Parguinotes were obliged to accept payment in the Turkish alloy. This arrangement being concluded, the unhappy people wished for some spot of ground, where they might erect a new town; but the place assigned for

them was so barren and unpromising, that they were unable to use it.

Mr. Goulburn, after expressing his assent to the motion, congratulated the House, that the time was at length come, when, by the papers, which were soon to be laid on the table, the conduct of our government in this transaction would be amply justified. He maintained, that we had not restored Parga to Turkey, without being fully satisfied that the latter had an indisputable right to the island; and he proceeded to prove his assertion by reference to the treaty of Campo Formio, by which it had been first made over to France, and subsequently relinquished to Turkey. The war between France and the Porte broke out in 1798, and the joint fleets of Russia and Turkey soon after took possession of the Ionian islands. The treaty of 1800, which followed, was one of teraporary distribution, not of final cession: but not long afterwards fin 1801), the Ionian islands, including Parga, were given in sovereignty to Turkey, with, however, a distinct government of their own. This amounted to a direct transfer; and the contract was as complete, as any that had ever occurred between two nations. In 1806 Russia declared war against Turkey, and conquered Parga and the other possessions of the Porte on the Albanian coast; but, when peace was subsequently made, the integrity of the Turkish dominions was fully recognised. There was nothing, therefore, to warrant Great Britain in assigning the rights of sovereignty over Parga to any other power than Turkey. It was very true, that in the treaty

formed at the congress of Vienna, no mention was made of Parga; but this was not an accidental omission, inasmuch as Turkey being no party to the negotiations, it would have been most extraordinary if she or her dependencies had been introduced into the treaty. The very engagement, under which the British troops had entered Parga, prevented this government from keeping possession of it; and he denied most positively, that there was any understanding that it should remain in the hands of this country. He had written to Sir James Campbell, the commanding officer stationed there, who had replied, that he had never authorized any person to give any assurance to the Parguinotes, which might lead them to suppose, that they were to remain under the protection of Great Britain. With regard to the mode, in which the restoration of the island to the Turks had been conducted, every thing which was practicable had been done for the Parguinotes. As far as the treatment of the Parguinotes by the Turkish government was in question, they had not complained of it, nor had any of those inconveniences or oppressions, of which so much was said, been experienced during the six years of their dependence on that state. Parga stood in absolute need of the protection of some foreign power; she had not within herself the means of support or of selfdefence for a single week. It would have been most impolitic in the British government to have embarked in any guarantee, which it was not prepared to maintain against Turkey. But at the same time that it was announced to the

inhabitants, that the island itself was to be transferred to Turkey, a declaration was published, that those, who were averse to the new government, would be permitted to retire; and the only question was, whether the Parguinotes had received the bona fide value of their property on their accepting the offer of retiring with their effects. The Parguinotes had no right to expect the value of their land, when they were informed by the governor of the Ionian islands, that a tract of land was to be assigned to them, and means furnished for building churches. The documents on the table presented abundant and conclusive evidence of the fitness of the place, to which they had been removed. Exact descriptions had been given in of every species of property; no general or average calculation had been relied on; and although the Parguinotes complained, that the sum allotted was unequal to the claims of justice or to their rights, he had not met with a single instance of an individual objecting to the smallness of his own particular share. They had not, indeed, received the aggregate value as fixed by their own estimate, which amounted to no less than six hundred thousand pounds—an immense sum for one town and a population of 2,700 persons. But the compensation given them actually exceeded the limit fixed by the person, who had been most anxious to defend their interests.

Sir Robert Wilson stated his opinion always to have been, that, considering the situation of Parga, it was impossible for us to keep possession of it. What he complained of was, that England should have charged itself with

the odious responsibility of the cession. Mr. Hume denied, that even the sum, which general Maitland had by proclamation de clared to be that which would be distributed among the inhabitants, had been actually paid. That sum was, by the proclamation of the 19th March, fixed at 150,000l.: yet, by the proclamation of the 19th of June, only 113,000l. were to be paid. Mr. Goulburn replied, that the discrepance admitted of explanation, without communicating to the House what that explanation was.

In this debate, as well as on many other occasions, partial attacks were made on Sir Thomas Maitland's administration of the Ionian islands; which, though allowed to be vigorous and efficient, was condemned as tyrannical and oppressive. He was accused of imposing new taxes by his own authority-of imposing these taxes on the most necessary articles, as, for instance, water, from which no one else had ever dreamed of deriving revenue-of wasting the income thus oppressively obtained in augmenting salaries and multiplying officers-of subjecting commerce to such restrictions as he pleased, and of setting at nought the rights of the people, and the privileges of those bodies in whom the legislative power was vested. Such charges, vaguely and occasionally made, were always denied by ministers; but, as they were not brought forward in any distinct shape, they did not meet with formal refutation, and, without being supported by regular proof, were so often repeated, that, though as often denied, they gradually made a considerable impression on the public mind. Lord Lau