In 1716, great difficulty was experienced in procuring a loan of £600,000. The interest offered was four per cent.; and while the propriety of the loan was being debated on the second evening, Mr. Lechmere entered the House hastily, and told them that only £45,000 had been subscribed. Sir Robert Walpole instantly rose, and said, “I know that the members of the Stock Exchange have combined not to advance money on the loan. Every one is aware how the administration of this country has been distressed by stock-jobbers.” The interest of four per cent. appeared so low to men accustomed to the enormous premiums of a few years previous, that they treated the proposed terms with contempt, and enlisted the sympathy of the public by reporting that it was the first step towards the reduction of the interest on the national debt. When the same minister proposed a loan of £1,700,000, to supply a deficiency, the opposition was so great, that, had not Sir Robert appealed to an empty exchequer, and declared that the debt had been incurred by a previous government, he would have been refused. The feelings of the House were greatly incensed by the discovery that the money was jobbed away with unequalled recklessness; and public-spirited men were not wanting to resist, in the name of the country, such shameless expenditure. They protested, because—and the protest drawn in 1729 would do for 1849—“the national debt ought not to be increased when the taxes are heavily felt in all parts of the country; when our foreign trade is encumbered and diminished; when our manufactures decay; when our poor daily multiply; and when national calamities surround us.” The report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into public accounts sanctioned the opposition which such men as Sir John Barnard gave to unjust demands. They proved that colonels received large sums from clothing contractors, as premiums for their favor, and that £1,400 had been given for a single contract. “The practice,” said the report, “is so notorious and universal, that it wants no representation.” Some barefaced practices were related in the same document; nor can there be any wonder that, with such gross mismanagement, it was said,—“The army was in the field, no money in the treasury,—none of the remitters would contract again. The Bank refused to lend £100,000 on good security. The navy was 11 millions in debt, and the yearly income greatly deficient.” In 1717 the Bank first undertook the payment of dividends to the national creditors, previous to which they were paid quarterly; when, however, they were undertaken by the Bank, this plan was found inconvenient, and since that period they have been paid half-yearly.