hands of persons named, and liable to be promoted, by the Crown. Now, though the peremptory challenges certainly do something to remove this, they do, at present, very little. They are limited to five in number, and, after these are exhausted, the nomination remains with the Court, subject to no control or correction whatever;-so that ultimately the appointment of the Jury still rests with the presiding Judge. And this selection, as matters now stand, is made out of forty-five men who have been previously brought together, in small parties, by Sheriffs searching for them, without any positive direction or restraint whatever. This last is one of the worst preparations that can well be imagined for a fair and impartial Jury. But when, to all this, is added the power which the prosecutor has of objecting peremptorily to five of the fifteen Jurymen after the Judge has named them, there must be something miraculous in the Crown, if it chuses to interest itself in the matter, ever failing to get a Jury on whom it may rely. At present, the system is perhaps worse than it was; because the mere possession of five challenges by the prisoner is no adequate counterpoise for the additional power acquired by the Crown, from the possession of the same number, and from the fifteen Jurors previously undergoing a double selection, by the Sheriffs and by the Judge.

The only way to remove these objections, which, it will be observed, are inseparable from any system under which the Judge names-and to increase the authority of Courts of Jus-, tice by exempting them from suspicion, is to leave the challenge as it is, but to adopt the other two improvements we have suggested. These are, 1st, To force the Sheriffs to take the fortyfive persons by rotation; and, 2dly, To dispense with the nomination of the petty jury by the Court, by introducing a ballot in place of it.

We have been told, that the great obstacle, in that part of the kingdom to which we must always look for Scottish political improvement, to this last and most indispensable change, was, that the ballot was not English. We certainly rarely wish, in matters touching justice or liberty, to go beyond the example of that country, where they are best known and practised; but it is a great error to imagine, that in borrowing political improvements from one country for the use of another, their exact forms must be taken, or their spirit be renounced. The ballot is English in the case of High Treason; and it has been introduced, with the most perfect success into Scotland, in almost all civil causes depending on facts. This forms a sufficient foundation in experience for its application to our ordinary criminal trials; more especially as there has confessedly been no adequate substitute hitherto discovered for it. Nothing

can so completely exclude partiality; while the incovenience of the lot falling occasionally on an unfit person, is remedied quietly and in a moment, by the peremptory challenge.

But if the ballot be not English, it is at least as much so as the nomination by the Judge. This last is the great evil; and if it cannot be cured, as we are decidedly of opinion that it ought to be, by the ballot, it ought to be superseded by some other device. We have heard one other scheme proposed, which we mention, because, if the ballot be not introduced, it seems to form the only plausible substitute for it that has yet been invented. It has sometimes been suggested, that the nomination might be left to the clerk, leaving him to exercise his discretion. But nobody can know any thing of Scotland, without seeing that this would be the source of the most abominable and incorrigible abuses. The proposal to which we allude, however, is, that provided the previous preparation of the lists were perfectly fair, it might do to let the clerk merely call out the names, and to take the first fifteen who answered, and were not challenged, as the Jury; and that when there were more trials than one, the list should be gone through by rotation in this way,—it being always understood, that a proportional number of names shall be so read from each of the lists returned from the different counties. If the ballot, which plainly secures all the advantages of this plan, without its defects, cannot be obtained, we rather believe that this would be the next best scheme. It would save the Court-it would diminish partiality,—and it would possess the great recommendation of making it absolutely necessary that the Sheriffs should make up their lists accurately, and operate upon them fairly.

But whatever method be adopted, it is plain that the present system cannot stand. Every friend to justice must rejoice in what has been already done; but his satisfaction must rest chiefly on the triumph which reason has obtained over bigotry, and on the way being now opened up for the introduction of a more perfect law than we have ever yet enjoyed. The improvement that is desired, indeed, is at once so simple and so necessary, that we cannot conceive how the Court and the Government, now that the prejudices that were excited have been cleared away, can resist concurring in completing a change which must prove so honourable to them both. We trust, however, that Mr Kennedy will persevere till he secures to his country the full measure of improvement which he originally intended for it; and he may be assured that his name will be permanently incorporated with the recollection of the most beneficial alteration that has ever taken place in the history of our criminal jurisprudence.

ART. XII. The Builder's Guide. London, 1821.

WE E are glad to observe, that ministers have at length come round to our opinion, and avowed their determination to give no specific or artificial aid to the agriculturists, and to afford them no relief, except what they may derive, in common with the other classes, from a reduction of taxation. Our object in the present article is to strengthen this judicious determination, by showing, in as few words as pos sible, how a very material relief may be afforded to the agriculturists, and the community in general, by the repeal of a tax, which, though extremely partial and oppressive in its operation, yields only an inconsiderable revenue.

We should suspect, from the supineness of the public on the subject, that it is not generally known, that all stones and slates used in the building and covering of houses, or for any other purpose, are, when carried by sea, from one port of the kingdom to another, loaded with an ad valorem duty of no less than 267. 8s. per cent! That such a tax should ever have been imposed, is matter of astonishment. In forming our opinion upon it, it is unnecessary to agitate the question, whether slate or stone be a fit object of taxation; for there cannot be a doubt, that, if taxed at all, the tax ought to be equally and impartially levied. This is too plain and incontrovertible a position to require to be substantiated by argument. But the duty in question, instead of being laid indiscriminately on all descriptions of slate and stone, is only laid on what is carried by sea; and seems really to have been intended to act as a premium for cutting up and incumbering the roads in the vicinity of every large town with stone carts! It is contended, indeed, that the superior facilities of water-carriage are sufficient, notwithstanding the duty, to enable the proprietors of quarries on the seacoast to withstand the competition of those in the interior. But why endeavour, by means of a duty, to render an improved, and naturally cheaper conveyance, as expensive as one that is naturally dearer ? Why deprive the public of the power of purchasing their building materials from such of their fellow-subjects (foreigners have nothing to do with this question) as would furnish them at the lowest price? The principle of this tax is completely at variance with every principle of improvement; and, if generally acted upon, would effectually check all melioration of any

sort whatever. In point of fact, however, the statement is altogether fallacious. An ad valorem duty of 261. Ss. per cent., levied on the value of the slate or stone at the place of import, after its prime cost has been augmented by the expenses of freight, harbour dues, &c. could not really be meant to equalize the cost of carrying slates and stones by land or sea, but to put an entire stop to the latter conveyance; and it cannot be denied, that, with respect to stone at least, it has been very nearly successful. With the exception of some public works, where the duty was generally remitted, very few buildings have hitherto been erected of sea-borne stone. The oppressiveness of the duty has given a complete monopoly of the market to those who can convey their stone by land, and has, in consequence, enabled them to charge much higher prices.

But there is another point of view in which the injustice and partiality of this tax is still more apparent. All the ports included in the jurisdiction of one collection of the customs, are considered as making only one port; and the effect of this regulation is, that slate and stone may be carried coastwise, throughout the whole extent of one of these districts, free of all duty whatever. For example, stone may be carried a distance of nearly forty miles, free of duty, along the coast of Fife: : Nay, so arbitrary is this arrangement of the ports, that Fife stone may be sent a distance of twelve or thirteen miles across the Frith to West Lothian, where there happens to be no demand for it; at the same time that it cannot be sent five miles across the Frith to Leith, where it is in great demand, and where, but for the prohibition, it would be used to the exclusion of all other stone! We ask, whether it be possible to conceive a more partial, unjust, and contradictory regulation? On what ground are the proprietors of slate and stone permitted to convey them by sea, from one port to another, in the same collection of customs, and not in every collection? What would be thought of a regulation, enabling cottons to be sold in every part of Lancashire free of duty, and prohibiting their conveyance to any other county, except on payment of an ad valorem duty of 261, 8s, per cent.? Yet, it is plain that such a regulation would not be in any respect more objectionable in principle, than the existing regulation_respecting slate and stone. Nor is this all its absurdity: For at the same time that we exclude all slates and stones carried by sea from our own markets, we permit them to be exported free of all duty, to Sweden, France, Belgium, and other foreign countries.

The injury done to the public by the duty in question, is still

greater than that which is done to the proprietors of quarries on the seacoast. Sea-borne stone is used at this moment, though to a very limited extent certainly, in the towns on the seacoast; and the fact of its being so used, notwithstanding the very great increase of price caused by the duty, shows conclusively that the abolition of the duty would allow it to be sold for such a diminished price, as would occasion a material sav ing of expense.

The partial operation and pernicious effect of the duty is epecially felt in those parts of the country which are destitute of slate and free-stone quarries. It is there for the most part impossible to erect comfortable dwelling-houses, bridges, and other public buildings, without having recourse to sea-borne stone, or to cover them with slates, without importing them by sea. Α heavy burden is thus artificially imposed on particular districts, from which other districts in the vicinity of quarries are entirely exempted; and a very great, and, in many cases, an insuperable obstacle, is in consequence presented to the completion of the most necessary improvements. A striking instance of this occurred not long since in the south of Scotland. When the magnificent bridge over the Dee, near Kirkcudbright, was first projected, it was supposed that granite for its construction might be obtained free of duty from Creetown; but it was speedily ascertained, that though Creetown was situated in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, it belonged to the Wigton collection of customs, and that, therefore, it was impossible to import from it a single block of granite for the execution of this great pub lic improvement, without paying the prohibitory duty! This had well nigh caused the abandonment of the undertaking. Ultimately, however, the bridge was constructed of softer stone, brought from Arran and Dumfriesshire; the charge on account of the duty being partially compensated by the greater ease with which the stone was wrought. That persons are thus forced to have recourse to inferior materials, is indeed one of the worst effects of the duty in question. And however much we may be satisfied with the present appearance of Edinburgh, no person who has seen any of the buildings constructed of the best seaborne stone can possibly doubt, that, had such stone only been used, the appearance of the city would have been much improved. In the towns where the quarries in the vicinity are not so good as at Edinburgh, the difference is still more striking.

This tax presses with peculiar severity on the agriculturists; and it is easy to show why it should be so. There are extremely few districts in which the slates used in the covering