The Sun. — London, England, 1822-02-23 00:00:00

hear!)—Did the Honourable 'Gentleman not. know that sailors were not in the habit of being put up in guard ships to. become sick and useless ? They were em ployed in cruizers upon the coast,- in the • Revenue ser vice, to prevent smuggling; and let the Honourable Gen tleman look to the state. of our revenue fur the register of their services. The Hon. Member told them that these five or six thousand men, instead of buffetting the gales, and per forming such services, had been employed in yacht-sailing, pleasure voyages, and conveying storekeepers' families to town. Here the Hon. Member had forgotten his geography too. Was there no service to be performed - by the navy in -the Mediterranean ? Had he forgotten that our interests in Sonth - America required looking after. And did he not re member that to get to that station it was necessary for our fleets to double Cape Horn ? If 'the Hon. Member knew all this, why did he not mention it? There was the dangerous; service upon the coast of Aftica too, where so many lives were sacrificed. Was that a description of service'which deserved to be classed with yacht sailing and pleasure sailing ?—(Hear, hear,' from • the Oppositions)—Why then did not the Hon. :Member state that those services were performed ? Gentle men did not cry " Oh ! Oh !" when they heard the Hon• Member making his statements, but they were very ready to cry out- now the ridicule of the thing was exposed.—(Loud cheering.)—He did not wish to misrepresent the Hon. Mem ' ber—(Hear, hear, hear, from the Opposition benches)—that would indeed be a piece of the most gratuitous malice. Where there was such an abundance of missstatement, to misrepre -sent for the purpose of making more appear, would be an Unexampled specimen of bad taste.—(Laughter.)—The lion. gentleman then described the service' as being nothing but -yacht and pleasure sailing in summer;• and even when his Friend suggested the foreign stations to him, he was disposed to throw them overboard.—(Alatigh.)—He thought he had now shewn the House that upon these two points, the Hon. Gentleman had advanced nothing which ought to prevent 'their going into the Committee. He then came to - the Hon. .Member's complaints and calculations, as to the expence of .the Marines. tie stated that to amount to 350,000L0ne half -of the sum voted for the pay of the whole Navy. Thus the Government, whose favourite service was the Navy, only kept it upon the same footing as the Marines. The House would recollect that this was the exact statement of the - Hons Mem- Iter. Hi would now tell them how the 'Wm. Member made his calculation : he took the whole expences of the Matines, sedges, clothing, beer-money, and every description of ex pence which they created, and deducted the whole from the wages alone of the Navy.---(Hear, hear, hear!)—This was certainly the must extraordinary and incredible mistake that he had ever known ; and if the suns had not conic out. right, he should not have believed that even the senses of the Hon. Gentleman himself could* have been subject to such a delu sion. —(Hear, hear, heat.)—He first took the wages of the Marines, which ought to have been the only thing to deduct fro m the 600,0001., and then he added all the other contin gent expences, and came to the conclusion that 900,0001. paid 'th e expences of all the Navy afloat. He might as well have taken the ot her 300.0001. from-the sums allowed for the build ing o f churches, and after adding it to the wage: of the ma rines, have pronounced that the navy had no money at all for its support.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition . !)—lt would have beets just the same thing as hringitig in the heads of ex pences to which he had adverted.—(Hear, hear, from the Op- Position !)—The House did hear, and he was glad that it did so, and trusted that it would examine for itself, and detect the mistatements which came.befure it in such a palpable shap e . The next thing to which he had to call the attention of the House was, to what the Hon. Gentleman said about the Navy Paymaster in London. There was a Colonel, and a Captain Somebody, receiving 2,7001. a year for holding this office. Would the House believe that, after all they had heard about this business, there was no such thing in all these Estimates at all ? By some mistake or other the Hon. Gen tleman hat' taken this story from the Ordinary Estimates of the Navy. And this, the House would recollect, was one of his strongest points. " What," said he, " put an Officer in London into such a situation, with a Secretary, an Aide de-esarep, and I know not what, as Paymaster of the Navy that was afloat." If Hon. Members would turn to the Ordi nary Estimates, they would find the item in its regular place. —(Cheers !)—The Hon. Gentle Man was not for increasing the Navy, and reducing the Marines. Now some people were very difficult to be pleased. It was only a few years ago, since some gentlemen opposite were crying out to increase the Ma rines. There ought not to be that distinction which the Hun. Member desired to draw between Seamen and Marines. The latter were,and must bean integralpart of the Navy. The Hon. Gentleman would take two thousand men front the Marines; and give th at num b er to th e N av y. S o w e dded was he to the Navy, that be was willing to add to itsstrength at the present time. Now he begged the House to.consider of the policy • of this proposition, by considering the situation and circuits- Stances pf the two services. Soldiers, when they entered the service s entered it for life ; whereas Seamen had their choice of remaining or [not at the expiration of three years. Let them look, then, at the purchase which the Hon. Gentleman Proposed fur his 2000 additional seamen for three years ! it was 2000 marines for life. The difference betwixt himself and the Honourable Member was, that the latter wished to • l ay out his money upon a short lease, while he would expend it upon a long one.—(f:ear, hear !)—The difference in the expe nse of the two services seemed wholly to leave escaped hilt notice. The cost of a seaman was seventy pounds a man, While that of a marine was about forty. But our political e conomist would sell one raw material which was at forty, in order to purchase !another raw material which was at s eventy. The Hon. Gentleman had said, that in the year 9 7, seamen were maintained at 41. a man per month, Whereas now each man cost 61. 10s. But, let the House net conceive that 41. per man hail been sufficient for the support ?I . the Navy in 1792, a period to which every thing seemed to le e referred. Two millions of additional grants were in that . Year made to the Navy. If they looked to the Journals of the Rouse for that year, and made the necessary allowance for t he changes which had taken place in the country, it was as 'lnlishing to see how near the proportion of our naval pproximated to those of that period. If Gentlemen ex tied,tu they would find that for the year 1792, the Estimates Tor the Navy amounted to 1,800,0001 But there was another grant made within the year for 131,0001. and a grant of 635 ,0001. out of the surplus of the preceding year. And n otwithstanding these two grants, ' at the end of the year 'the !Navy debt was increased about 470,0001. making the Whole 'expences of the Navy amount to 3,236,0001. The t otal of our demand for the present year was 3,310,0001.7. riots the Estimates were not bona fide 100,0001. more than t hose for 1792. With regard to the Ordnance, let the ""nourable Gentleman go fairly into a Committee. That ' l ; ) .41 theltaee Where they could att le out his charges wit 'nl face to face, and that would b be the place to detect the ' e normities which he declared to exist. He was astonished 1 ° hear the Hon. Gentleman complaining of naval officers be n; made - generals and colonels in the marines. He was 'sur "feted that any objection could be made to that method of .e lttiowled his M ging the services of distinguished men. It was !setter for ajesty, instead of rewarding them with pen 41°°s, to place them at the head of the glorious corps whom th ey had often led on to battle and conquest. But then the s °Pourable Member was afraid of the extent to which these ,g ) Pointruents might be carried. What was the extent which Hon. Member dreaded at present ? Out of 200 Flag-Of seers, and es or 900 Captains, three Generals, and four Colo -llels Isere appointed, at an income of 6or 7,0001. The insti :tion which placed natal officers at the head of the marines, IP to-existent with the appointment of the marines itself. net corps was originally formed from the army, and the Co :!tels of the regiMents, being, as it were (he used the word I titout any offensive meaning) sinecurists, it was thought t; t ore consistent to place sailors in the honorary situation of mending the corps. Before they swept away these regu ,s,"ons, they must be prepared to alter the system of colonel cies throughout the army. And if they did that, be would go 'antler, and say, that they ought even then to make an ex 'ePtion in favour of the naval officers at the bead of the ma ,t,'Pes. But, said the Hon. Gentleman, hod men might be ap pointed. Now bethought it would not be too tedious to the u tise for hint to read half a page, which contained the names ~f those officers who had held the situations in question. • He Sstet read the Generals,—There was Admiral Boscawen, Ad j T i ral the llon John Forbes, Admiral Barrington, Lord Clive, to rd Viscount Bridport, and last, and present, long may he -°n tinne to be so, the Earl St. Vincent .--( Cheers .)— There ss s the li s t o f th e w h o l e o f th e m, and let the House see what "!'n W et the dan ger o f h av i ng b a d m e n in that s ituation . 'He would pls . read a list of Lieutenant-Generals.—Sir C, Saunders, Sir PYes Lord Viscount Bridport, and the Earl of St. Vincent ; 1 . a gain, the Major-Generals were, Lord Gardiner, Lord.Col -sw,esd, Sir It. Bickerton, Sir G.' Hope, and last, a name Which he honoured with more than ordinary respect, Sir G. loockburn. Were these names which•should Make them jea ,°.! of conferring this honour upon Naval Of fi cers ? They o re, Men loaded with pensions, stars, and dignities, many ,ineto with peerages ; " and, Sir," (addressing him ;`" to the Speaker,) " most of them haring' received `the ..:Phs of your predecessors from that Chair."—(Loud cheers.) _SR! this upon which the Honourable Gentleman would ri,tatbe finger of reform, was but 'one star of the bright ' a _l w xy of British glory- -( Cheering )-- He trusted that he bad 137__eseaid enough to ' persuade the House to go into a Com et • The wisdom of our ancestors had instituted the should as the place - where the details of the supplies 'Quid be ven and discussed. But th e Hon. Gentl e man, U nder the p retence - of •wanting information, did all he could to shut it ont—(Loud cries of heat !)—by Opposing the re .g_ttiarcourse of business. Did be hop e - , - when in a Committee, should expect g u t that Gentleman 'aatisfaction . ! God forbid that he knew any thing so p re p os t erous !—(L aug h ter .)—H e ea th at the Hon, Gentleman did not wish him to expect such a thing. flat let him at all events abide by the practice of Parliament. Let him go into the Committee, and there would be the opportunity for all his objections to be made and met fairly and openly; and even if the House should' be so unreasonable as to go against his opinions, he would again have a time for renewing his attempts - to convince them upon the bringing up of the Report. God forbid that he should say, that if there was a case of abuse, the Hon.: Member should not bring that particular case forward ; but let him confine himself to it. Let him not think of taking the whole of the Navy into his own hands. According to his motion, his present wish was, that his Majesty should give an account of all officers and men on board the fleet afloat, with other information, which was against the practice of all time, and against the Constitution.—(Hear from the Opposi tion.—)He would tell Honourable Gentlemen why it was against the Constitution. The Constitution provided that the operations of the fleet should he ordered and directed by'the King in Council with the Admiralty. Even the Mi nisters had no official means of knowing the commands given by the King, except through the First Lord of the Admiralty,. who held a seat in the Cabinet. He contended, therefore, ' that it was unconstitutional to call upon the 'Crown for the information required by the motion of the Hon. Memtier. If the Parliament consented to go into details of the fleet afloat, as was now proposed, they would be affording a precedent for: a practice which, if once established, would be a great inconvenience in time of peace, and in time of war destruc tive to the power of the British Navy, and with the Navy to the very existence of great Britain herself.—(The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst loud and continued cheering.) Mr. BENNET said, that one might suppose from the speech of the Hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, that his Hon. Friend had-askerrfor something which would tend to inflict a great injury or disgrace on the nation. With great ingenuity and abilities none could doubt, that Hon. Gentleman had entered into a long' speech, from which the only real inference was, that the Hun. Gentleman had found a mare's nest, for he had, instead of combating the arguments of his Hun. Friend, found a subject on which he had descanted at great length. The Hon. Gentleman had contended, that the nation and the House ought, without inquiry or investigation. to give credit to, and place confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, as if they had been the source of much good to the nation. Yes; that good had been enormous taxation, an enormous, debt, and an extravagant expenditure, which was the object of the Hon. Gentleman's panegyric, although the supporting that system formed one of the articles of accusation brought by the coun try against the House of Commons. The Hutt. Gentleman had not only in that House, but also elsewhere, direCted his attacks against his Hon. Friend, but those attacks were use less. He should desire that the motion and the 'amendment should be read. The SPEAKER read from the Chair the motion and the amendment: ..Mr. BENNET then proceeded 'to contend, that the House had, on the 6th of March, 1818, given its assent to the pro duction of the Estimates of that year, by which means the House became acquainted with the Navy of that year. How, therefore, could the Hon. GentlematLmaintain, that secrecy ought to be kept up ? Was be not afraid of secrecy ? Why else bad the Hon. Gentleman quarrelled with the Hon. Mem ber for Aberdeen ? Whence else had his harsh remarks arisen ? His Hon. Friend had spoken of the extraordinary sum denianded for wear and tear of ships during peace. He would maintain, that his Hon. Friend was right in bringing that matter before the House. It was objected to him by tire Hon. Gentleman that he seemed desirous of injuring the Navy. That was an absurd accusation, for no man was more' desirous of supporting the Navy than his Hon. Friend. He did not - desire that the navy services should be injured, but that the jobbing services should he removed. The topics of his Hon. Friend had been misrepresented, and blundered upon by the Hon. Gentleman, .but those misrepresentations did not reverse the truth of those allegations. . Mr. CROKER exOlained. With respect to the observa tions of the Hon. Member, that he made remarks upon the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, he could ass.ure the House that he never made any observations upon !be public conduct of Hon. Members out of that Hoiase. - .Vitli respect to the granting of the Estimates in 1918, he-would but remind the House, that although that grant was but one of four mo tions to which alone the House had granted its assent, and that instead of those Estimates being prospective, they had beets antecedent ones, for they gave accounts only of the Navy up to the sd of. March of that year, and of course did not contain the Estimates for any future time. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House di vided— For the amendment - - - - 54 Against it ' - - - - 144 Majority againSt the amendment --90 On our returning into the Gallery, we .found Mr. CALCRAFT on his legs. He said that he felt it his duty to suggest to the Lords of the Admiralty the utility of making some provision for insane officers. He would not piopose any motion on the subject, hut merely call,the atten tion of his Majesty's Government to it, convinced that some regulation would be highly beneficial for men`labouring un der that dreadful disorder. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he was sure any proposition of that nature would receive"the concurrence of his Majesty's Governnicnt," Mr.l-lUME ' rose for the purpose of submitting another motion to the House. The Hon. Member contended that .the Hon. Gentleman opposite had attempted to answer much of what he never said, and that he had mis-stated that which he did say. Besides which, -he had entirely. passed by the chief point of his Speech. What he insisted upon was, in 1819 we paid only 15,000,0001. for the Service which now required 17,000,0001. This point remained whollY unanswered. It was, as. his Honourable Friend had stated, in conse7 quence of that blind confidence in Ministers which the ma jority of the House was in the practice of granting, that the nation had gone on year atter year plunging deeper into debt. It was, therefore, that he thought it was time they should call for a change, and for a new and a better mode Of trans acting the business of the nation. Let' them have the detaili of what they were called upon to vote of the public money, always provided that they would not by that means. be fur nishing political details to an enemy. But in spite of all the Metaphor, - and' high - bombastic style of the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Croker), who undertook to shOw how ignorant ~he (Mr. Hume) was, he had himself .mistaken what he had said. He (Mr. Hume) bad said, that - the Whole expenditure of the Nary, wear and tear, was seventeen ; and this sum the Hon. Gentleman undertook to reduce to five millions. Why, in one line of the items, ship-building alone, he would find a total' f 8,530,0001. As to the breakwater at Plymouth, the Hon. Gentleman did not kilo* what was ex pended in that. work. In the Estimates it was 702,0001. and the lion. Gentleman stated it at a million. By the Estimates the total was 17,702,0001. whatever it might be in the mind of the Honourable Member (Mr. Croke* He (Mr. Hume) had moved for Returns of the Supplies, in order to avoid flat contradiction, which had been the case when he bad it not on paper to support his assertions. According to the Return made to his motion, it appeared that in' 1792, the number of men for the sea-service was sixteen thousand, and the supply,-Ancluding Ordnance, amounted to 1,985,4821. — This was true, or it was not; but if there was any incorrect ness in what he advanced upon it, it was not to he charged upon him, but upon the returns he had received. It was too much for the Hon. Member to say that the estimates of 1792 had nothing to do with his (Mr. Hnme's) motion. He called fur details of the enormous sums they were called upon to vote, and the House would not do their duty if they permit ted that explanation to be refused. The Hon. Gentleman bad admitted the principle of the sinecure list to be hail.— (No, no, from Mr. Croker.)—Very well, then he (Mr. Hume) asserted that it was bad. That House was never niggardly in rewarding meritorious officers ; and the granting of pensions might be safely left in their hands. After a few more obser vations as to the propriety of their having the estimates be fore they granted the supply, the Hon. Member moved as an amendment to the motion for going into the Committee, that the following words be substituted for the words " that tile Speaker do now leave the Chair," "That there be laid before the House returns, stating the prices at which the, provisions were furnished for victualling the British Navy for the years 1819, 1817, and 1841 ; and of the amount of one entire day's rations to the seamen • and also how 532,3501. for victualling the Nary was to be laid out." Mr. CROKER did not rise to eater into the discussion of the matters touched on by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen. He had almost stated all he had 'to say upon the subjects which his last speeCh embraced. But, so far as the Hon. Meuiber had made charges of inaccuracy against the public departments, upon which he wished to lay the burden of his own mistakes, he thought himself called upon to say a word or two. The Hon. Member had called_ for a Return of the Supply voted fur the year 1792, for the service of the Navy, 'and in obedience to that call he had got all he asked for, and he (Mr. C.) did not see how he could get more., If the Hon. Gentleman had had any real object in asking for this Return, he could hare called for an Account of the Naval Eipendi tura for that year; but he had lied down the Department making the Return to an account of the Supply. It would be in the recollection of the 11Mise that he (Mr. Croker) said, that the Vote in Supply was above the expenditure for that year, and if they looked at the Journals, they would Stid it was so. Therefore, if through a blunder of bia.own in mak ing the motion he had been led astray, he mast; blaMe hitn -self. Had they, in making up the return, put in the aniotlat Of the expenditure, it would have been said that theyditl i so for the purpose of blinding the Hon. Member and the House, and such like objecti. 'The . o . thei-returit he called for *as of the same nature. It was for the whole expences of the Ma trine Corps, to be summed up with wbat be called a total of the whole. I4ere it appeared the Hon. Member got more than be wanted, and was equally puzzled, though from a•dif-, ferent cause.. The Hon. Member .said, the - supplies of 1792 had nothing to do with. his argument. He agreed with him, but as the Hon. Meinber had' introduced that subject, he - (Mr. C.) had followed him.(Hear, hear!) • Colonel DAVIES wished to know whether it svas.the inten-. lion of the Hon. Gentleman to oppose his. Hon. Friend's mo tion on the ground of refississg all Returns . of whatsoever nature; or on the ground that adopting the course proposed by his Hon. Friend's motion; it would have the effect of re-. tarding public basiness. .He could not suppose that this De partment meant to refuse what every • other Department bad. granted, and if it did, why, he asked, was &necessary fur the Admiralty to involve itself in so much mysterious silence ? Mr. CROKER said, from the Hen. .G•elitleman's question, he was•obliged to conclude -either that he was not in the, House when he had' statedalse view he took of the ease, or, that he had not paid attention to it. In either case he was afraid that the House, for the sake of the Hon. and Gallant Member, would not have the patience to hear bias (Mr. Crokerl again. The House then divided, when the numbers were, For the amendment Against it Majority for the - original motion. • —lO4 Upon our re-admission to the Gallery, we found the House in a Committee of Supply, and, Sir J. OSBORNE on his making some observations, which, from the rush of strangers, were not audible the gallery. He concluded, by'usoving the first resolution, that 21,000 men be granted to his Majesty, for the sea-service' of the ensuing year, including 8000 Royal Marines. Mr. HUME said. he must again ask what were the circum stances of the country which required that there should be 2000 men more now than in 1817, for the same purpose ? The reductions that bad been made .io the Navy werernot owing to the economy of Ministers, but to the sh;ath of Bona parte. All their promises of economy.had not produced one shilling. The number of the mari ars he thought dispropor tionate with the number of seamen ; turd he should. therefore propose, as an ameridment to the resolution, that 19,000 men be substituted for 41,000. Sir G. COCKBURN reminded the House that on a former occasion, when an increase had been made to the number* the corps of the Royal Marines, he had pointed out the great value of disciplined Varines to the nation. He would then repeat, that on the opening of a former war they had suf fered materially from the want of a sufficient number of marines to man the navy with. The consequence was, that theywere obliged to employ soldiers, to their great dissatisfac tion, and to the detriment of the service, for they were all sea sick as soon as they got out to sea. Upon This it was thought better to keep up a huge number of seasoned marines, who in peace might be employed in doing garrison duty in their sea-ports. and in the event of war,. be ready to man the ser vice.7--(Hear.)—fhey did not want to increase the number of seamen for the service of the ensuing year, and they were loth to diminish the body of marines. They might have been able to reduce more, had it not been far the increased de mand from South America and the Mediterranean. and it should be remembered that out of 13,000 seamen, 1,500 were employed round the coast for the security of the revenue, Sir I. COFFIN said a few words in explanation of what had fallen from him on a preceding night. Mr. BENNET called on Hon. 'Members to stand by their constituents and the people of England, in refusing, to vote for the support of a greater number of men for the sea service now than there were in 1817. He wished to God the people of England would luck into that House. He wished to God they could get possession of the list of Gentlemen on the other side, who -supported the Ministers in such measures, that, they might. post them through the country.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial Beriches.)—He called upon the House to - do their duty, according to the promises they had made,out of doorS. • SirGEORGE CLERK said, that if Honourable - Members would look utile other parts of thr Navy EstiMates, they would see there was a reduction equal to -two millions.— (Hear, hear.')—He hoped the House would not listen so the suggestions of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen to reduce any part 'of that 'useful body of men,"the Royal Marines. Mr. HUME•referred to the printed Estimates,. which stated the naval expenditure for 1817 at 5,876,0001.—f0r the present year 4,890,0001.; so that where the Hon. Member gut his two millions diminution from he did not ksrow. Mr. CROKER, said that the Hon. Member had.only. made a trifling mistake of 671,0001.—(Hear, and a laugh)-having included in the Expenditure of 1817 that amount which was charged for Old Stores. .„ . Mr. HC 11E pledged himself to the House, that he had quoted the figureS accurately as they appeared in the. Ac counts turaished by the Government. The Hon. Member (Mr. Croker) was, in fact, wrong, fur he added the sum for Old Stores to the 5,900,0001. when that suns ought to be de ducted from such Account.—(Hear, hear!) Mr; CROKER would give the items for 1817. The Ordi nary Estimates were 2,476,1501., from Which was to be de ducted for Old Stores • 671.0001.; the Extraordinaries were 1,691,0001. • .t he Transport Service, 261,0001. ; fur 'Wear and Tear, i 6,492,0001. ._ Mr. HUME repeated that he had.onlyqraeited the Accounts which appeared on the table of the House. Strangers were oboist to withdraw for a division, when , The Marquis of LONDONDERRY- , rose to observe that the increase which had taken place in the Marines, a few years ago,.had enabled the Ministers to snake the extensive reduc tions in the Army that had recently taken place. The Ma rines were enabled also to perform duty at garrisons, arsenals, &c. and such 'arrangement enabled the Government to make considerable reductions in the Army. Sir I. COFFIN briefly bore testimony to' the great utility of the marine forces; while on service lie had frequently been an eye-witness of their valise. , • The gallery was cleared for a division—the numbers were— ' For the amendment Against it Majority against it —lO4 The next vote moved was 593,5791, wages for 21,000 sea men and marines. Immediately on the question being put, the gallery was cleared fur a division, but it did not take place, and on our re-admission we found Mr. HUME on his legs, complaining of the confused man ner in which the public accounts were kept, and censuring that part of the vote under discussion which referred to the Coast Blockade system. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that two years ago the annual vote had been reduced by 80,0001. inconsequence of tbe,reduction 01.15,000 amen, and that there was thus far a saving to the Revenue. Mr. HOBHOUSE could not forbear expressing his sur prise at the course pursued by his Majesty's Ministers.— They promised every thing, but granted nothing, and treated with taunts and sneers those Gentlemen on Isis side of the House, who were resolved to discharge their duty its defiance of every obstacle. Seeing that it was impossible to ge any further without having the necessary Estimates laid upon the table, be should now move, as an amendment, that the Chair man do report progress, and ask leave to sit again. ,Lord ALTHORPE objected to the merits of the original motion, but in so low a tune as not to be audible in the . gallery. COCKBURN observed, that, front motives of poli cy. it would not be prudent to publish all the details, lest an enemy might at any time take advantage of them to ascertain the disposition of our navy. Mr. BROUGHAM ; in the course of some observations, said, he wished to know hose much per man had been grant ed before the fall had taken place in the price ut provisions, now that 11. 19s. per man was called fur since the reduc tion ? Sir G. COCKBURN replied, that the probable Estimate for the last two years might have been 21. Is. per man monthly. Mr. W. SMITH said, that the reason given fur not laying the details of the expenditure before the House, was by no means satisfactory. At present we had. no enemy to appre hend any thing from, and therefore nothing was to be feared from laying before ie House an account of the disposition of the navy. Mr. BERNAL spoke briefly to the same effect, observing, that the high destinies of the nation could not be endangered by publishing the details in question. The Hon. Member then objected to the principle of vesting in the Commissioners of the Revenue the payment of the men employed in the Coast Blockade service. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Said a few wards in vindication of the measure. Mr. LOCKHART supported the amendment, assigning as his reason for doing so, the propriety of not agreeing to a single , grant, till it ShoUld be clearly shown it could be paid, considering the peculiar distress that prevailed all over the country. To vote without this point be i ng first ascertained would be only to proceed at rafidona. 'After some further conversation; in which Mr. Brougham, Mr. Croker, Mr. Hume, Lord Londonderry, and. Mr. H. Sumner took part, the Conimittee divided on the amendment, when the numbers . Were— , Ayes - - - . - 47 Noes - - - , 127 Majority in faiour of Miniiters The original motion Was theti,carried without a division,, after a few words, from Sir R, Wilson, ,Mr. Brougham, and the Marquis of Londonderry. Mr.'GOULBURN brought in a Bill to regulate the Impor tation of"Arrirs; "Atornitnition, &C. into Ireland; which was read the fiist . tirne, and ordered to be read the second time on Tuesday. . . Mr.'GOULBURN 'brOught to . indemnify perions 1 who have seized or retained Arms since the Ist November last in Ireland, for the Preservation of the Public Peace.— Read the first time, and ordered' to' be read the seeand time on Tuesday. . , . The House adjourned at HALF-PAST TWELVE this morning. 'MAJORITY AND MINORITY. AGAINST AND FOR LORD ALTHORN'S MOTION, " That it is the opinion of this House that the Reduction in the Amount of Taxation proposed by his Majesty's Ministers is not sufficient to satisfy the just expectatious of the People."— FEB. 21. MAJORITY. Downie,R. Davis, fart Martin, J. Mansfield, J. Mills, C. Mitchell, John Neale, Sir H. B. Nightingale, Sir 31. Nolan, N. Nicholl, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Nugent, Sir G. • Owen, Sir John Onslow, A. • . O'Grady, -Standish Pringle, Sir W. Prendergast, NI. G. Pollen, Sir John Paget, Hon. B. Paget, Hon. Sir C. PeChell, Sir T. B. Phillimore, J. • Peel, Rt. Hon. R. Peel, Palmerston, Lord Pitt, W. M. Pearse, John Pennant, G. Ryder, Rt. Hon. R. Raine; J. Robertson, A. Robinson,Rt Hn.F. Rice, Hon. G. Rogers, Ed. Rowley; Sir Josias Sotheron, Frank Saruion, Viscount Stewart, Alex. Stuart(Armagh)W. Sketfington, Right Hon. J. Scott,' S. Sheldon, R. Sumner, G. ff. Strutt, J. H. Shifter, Sir G. Smith, T. Smith, S. Smith, Abel Sniith, Robt. Smith, C. • Thompson, W. Townshend, Hn. H. Twiss, Horace Taylor,. Sir H. Cie, 111. 'Upton, Hon. A. Vernon, George Vivian, Sir H. Vansittart, Right non. N. Villiers, Rt. Hn. C. Wrottesley, H. Wilson, W. , W..C. Wilson, Sir Henry Wilson, Thomas Wellesley, Rd. Willoughby, .H. Wodehouse, Hn. J. Wodehouse, Ed. Wildman, J. P. Williams, R. Wood, Col. Wynn, C. W. Wortley, J. S. Wihnot, R. Whitmore, W. W. Wetherell, C. . Ward, Robt. Walker, Josh. Wallace, Rt. lln. T. Wall, C. B. Yarmouth, Earl of Apsley, Lord Alexander, J. Alexander, J. D. Arbuthnot Rt Hon. C. Atwood, M. Acland, T. D. A'Court, - E. K. Sir J. AShurst, Astell, Wm. Bective, Lord - Bastard, E. P. Bastard, John 131ake, Robert • Binning,: Lord Browne, J. Browne, Rt. Lin. D. Browne, Peter Bruce, Robert Balfour, John Bernard, .Visct. Bourne,. Rt. Hon. W. J. Brogden, J. Burgh, Sir U. Ilailiie, John Brownlow, C. Buehannan, John Bradshaw, R. H. Blackburne, J. Bankes, H. Bankes, U. ' Bathurst, Rt. Hon. C. 13. • . Bryclges, G. 13rancliing, C. Burrell, Walter. • Corbett, Panton Coote, Sir C. Cranborne, Visct. Cole, .Sir Chaplin ' C. Childe, W. L. Campbell, Arch. Curteis i .1. E. Ald. Coekerell ; - Sir C. Calthorpe,Hn:F.G. Croker, J. W. Courtenay, T. P. Courtenay, W.- Cherry, U. H. Cocks,_Hon..J..S. Canning, Rtlln.G. CoOper,. It; B. • • Cholmeley, Cholmondeley, Ld. H. Calvert, John Clandos, Marcp of Copley ? Sir J. S. • Cartwright, R. W. Clive,: lien. Cockburne, Sin U. Cast, flon„ E. Cheese, x:.11. Claughten l Tbomas Chamberlayne, W. Clerk, Sir G. Clinton, W. H. COpgreye Sir W. Cripps, jos. Curzon; Hon. Rt. Dundas, Rt. H n. W. DaWkins, J. Dawkins, H. -. Doyeton i lien. DOWdeswell, S. E. Diiett, .T. - Dawson, G. R. Dawson, M. . . . . TELimt§-..-Steplien Lushington and Sir J. Osborn. Don 'Sir A. Estenurt, T. G. 'Evelyn, Lindon Ellison, C. Esstnor, Visct. Egerton, W. Ellis C. R Elliot, Hon. W. Fynes, Henry Fane, John Fane, V. FleMing, J. Fleeming, Fellowes''',. W. H. Forbzs, C. Gurney, Hudson. Grant, Itt. 1111. C. Greirille; Hn. Sir C. Gilbert, D. G. Grer.fell, Pascoe Clifford, Sir It. Goulburn, Henry Gordon, Hon; W: Gooch, T. S.:- Gower,. Lord F.' L. Grant, A. C. oii.ws, 0. Handley„ Henry , Harvey, Sir . E. Hotham, Lord Hainilton, Sir T. H. -Hill,Rt.Hon.Sir G. Hill, Rowland Haber, Richard Heygate, Aid. Hawkins, Sir C. Huskisson,Rt.Hon. W. Hardinge, Sir H. Holford, G. P. If gimes, W. Haldimand, W. Innes, John Irving, John Jenkinson, Hon. C. Knox, Hon.' T. Kingsborough, Ld Ke4, G. A. 14, Knatchbull, Sir Ed. Lowther, Lord Lowther, John Lo3vther, 1. jun. Legge,. lion. H. Leigh; F. • Lewis ; W. . , Lucy, Otorge Lascelles, Hon. %V. Lindsay, Hon. H. Lopg, Kt, Hon. C. Londonderry; 'liar- quess.of Lygon, ,Hon. H. Luttrell,.H. J. Luttrell, J.. F.- Littleton, Ed.; Lewis, T.. F. Marryat, Jos. Magennis,Sidi. Musgrove, Sir P. Macqueen, Morland, Sir S. B. Monteith, ti. . Montgomery, J. Macnaughton,E.A. Morgan, G. G. Mountcharles, Lord Macdonald, H. G. Money,• W. T. Manning, W. MINORITY . Allen, J. 11. Fitzgerald,LordW. Ossulston, Lord Boughton, Sir W. Fitzroy, Lord J. Palmer, C. F. . E.. R. : --• Grattan, J. Pares, Thos. - Barhain, J. F. jun. Guise, Sir W. Peirse, IL Benett; John Hamilton, Lord A. Pelham,. Hon. C.A. Baring, Sir T. - Heathcote, Sir G. Phillips, G. R. Barrett, S. B. M.. Heathcote, J. G. Price, R. Bennet, Hon. 11. G. Heron, Sir R. Pym, F. Benyon, Benj. , Hill, Lord Arthur Ramsbottom, John Bernal, - Hobhouse, J. C. Ramsden, J. C. Bentinck, Lord W. Honeywood, W. P. Ricardo, D. ' Birch, J.. Howard, Hon. W. Ridley, Sir M. W. ! goughey, Sir J.-F. 'Hughes ' W. L. Robarts, A. Brougham, H. Hume, J. Roberts, George Browne, -Dom. Hurst, R. . Robinson, Sir. G. Bright, Henry Hutchinson, Hon. Rumbold, C. Butter, - .orth, J. C. 11. Russell, Lord J. Burdett, Sii F. • James, W. Russell, R. G. Byng, George Johnson, Col. Rice, T. S., Calvert, N. Jones, John Scourfield, W. H. Calvert, C. Kennedy, W. Smith,- Hon. Rt. Chaloncr, It. • Lambton, J. G. Smith, Wm. Calerak, John Lennart', J. B. Scarlett, J. Cavendish, C. Leycester, Ralph Sefton, Earl of Caulfield, Hon. H. Leake, Wm. Stanley, Lord Clifton, Lord Lethbridge, Sir T. Stewart, (Tyrone) Coffin, Sir I. Langston, J. H. W. COncannon, L. Lawley, -F. Stuart, Lord J. Ctespigny, Sir W. Maberly, .J. Sykes, D. Crompton, S. Maberly, W. L. Shelley, Sir John Ctirwen, J. C. Macdonald, Jas. Tavistock, Marq. Creevey, T. .81`Intosh, Sir J. Taylor, M. A. Davenport, D. . Markham, Admiral Tennyson, C. Davies, T. H. Maxwell, John Tierney, Rt.Hn. G. Denison, W. J. Monck, J. B. Titchfield, Marq. Dunchs, Hon. -T. Moore, Peter Talk, C. A. Dickinson, W. . Marjoribanks, S. Warre, J. A. Ebrington, Visct..- Normanby, Lord Webbe, Ed. Ellice, .Ed. Newport, Rt. Hon. Wilkins, Walter Ford, M. Sir John • Wilson, Sir R. Fairlie, Sir W. C. Nugent, Lord Wells, John Ferisusson, SirR.C. O'Call f ighan, Jas. Wood, Alderman. Farrand, .Robert Ord, Wm. Wyvill, M. TELLERS—Viscount Althorpe and Viscount Duncannon. - The two -Mr. Whitbreads were prevented from attending by the death of a near relation ; Sir W. Rowley and Sir W. Lenion, by indisposition. MINORITY. ON MR. FIUME'S MOTION FOR A REVURN OF THE RANK AND PAY, &C. OF THE OFFICERS OF THE NAVY. Althoz:p, Visct. Honeywood, W. .p. Palmer, Cu!. Birch J. Hobhouse, J. C. Price, R. Bernal, Ralph Hurst, R. - Parnell, Sir H. Bury, Viscount Hughes, W. L. Phillips, G. R. Bennet, Hon. H. G. Johnson, Col. Price, Richard. I3enett, John James, W. . Rickford, WM. Baring, Sir T. Jervoise, Cl: P. Raiii,sden, J. C. Crespigny, Sir W. Leycester, Ralph. Robarts, - •. Calvert, Lennard, T. B. Sefton, Earj of - Crompton, Sam. Lushington, Dr. Sykes; D. Creevey, T. • Lockhart; W. F. Scott, James Clifton, Viscount , Lamhton, J. Ai. Stuart,: Lord J. • • Davies, Col. Martin, John Smith, lion. R. Guise, Sir W. Monck, J. B. Wynn, - M. Graham, Sandford . Markham, Admiral Wilson, ,Sir R. Hutchinson, Hon. 'Maxwell, 4. . Webb, Co!. . • C. 11. Newman, It. W. Wood, Ald. Heron, Sir Robert Palmer, C. P. Wilkins, W. E TELL RS--J. Hume and the Hon. H. G. Bennet. MINORITY ON 'MR. HUME'S MOTION FOR A RETURN OF THE PAR- TLCULARS IN THE VICTUALLING OF THE NAVY: Althorn, Visct. Haldimand, W. Robarts, A. . Bury, Viscount Heron, Sir It. Roberts, A: W. Bernal, k.. Hobhouse, ..): C. Robinson, Sir Geo. Brougham, Henry, _ Jarnes,•W,. Ricardo, David , Barret, S. B. M. Johnson, Col. Ramsden, J. C. Bennet, Hon. H.G: .Jervoise; G. P. Stuart, W. Baring, Sir•-T... - Leyccster, R. Sykes, D. • 'Chalquer, Rbbert • Lambton, J. G. Sefton, Earl of Calvert, N. Lennard, T. B. Scott, CrespignY, Sir W. Lushingtozi, Dr. Stuart, Lord J. Dc - .• Nortek, J. B. Smith, Hon. R. Crompton, S. Maxwell, J. Wyvill, 31. Creevey, T. ' Martin, J. Williams, Wm. Pergusson, SirR.C. Nugent, Lord . Wilkins, W. °tabour, S. •: . Normanby,. Visct. lVood, .Alderman Guitae,.Sir. Vr. Neviman, R. • Webb„Solonel Hutchinson, - 'Hon. ' Pryse; P. 'Wilson, Sirlt. C. H. m Paler __ . TELLEEB—J. Hume and Colonel Davies. r_ _t'-_ \ ..t. . , - -...--, „ : - \ 7.. . ,_"' 4 1 r, ,-,..- ~,, t -.!,..... f ..... - ..../... 4 ,. . ~ . „.„. ~,.„..e , „„.. . _ , , ;,----, ~' ;. ~. h QUA DRAGEMI.I ;"on, FlMlsuroaticr , n, LENT As we gave.an explanation with respect to the actual comMencement of Lent, under the article of Ash-Wednesday, it is requisite, *therefoke, only to - notice, that the Sunday now treated upon is very_ properly denominated. the first Sunday in Lent. The name of Lent is almost univer sally admitted - to have had its origin from the old Saxon word Lenten, Letitz, signifying the spring 'of the year, becauSe the fast it is meant to distinguish usually happens alio*: the com mencement of the spring, or when the days are fast increasing in length, which the Saxon word, from which Lenten is derived, implied. The ancient Christians abstained wholly from food, until the evening of each day throughout this long Fast : one meal was deemedAufficient for their refreshment and support, and-the value of what they saved by this severe privation was in all instances given to the poor. The commonalty, sensible of the benefits thus extended to them, were not backward in perpetuating its remem brance by various apt proverbs ; occasionally, however, they conveyed at the same time sinue allusions to the contingencies attached to their lowly estate, not quite expressive of entire satis faction. And "La carcel y la quaresrna part los probres es hecha," that is, " The jail and Lent were made'for poor folks," may he adduced as a striking instance of the popular feeling in Spain, a country celebrated above all others for the force of its proverbial sayings. _ _ _ The moderate use of either flesh or fish was ad mitted; and it remained for subsequent ingenn:ty to create a religious distinction between the flesh of terrene animals and fish. The object was evidently that the Christians should subject them selves to self-denial, but the particular taste of each iadividual . ought to have been known, be fore it could be ascertained whether that were really effected by an abstinence from flesh or fish, &c. :These considerations had not, however, any weight at those periods; every Bull issued by Papal.authority, whether of absolute or modi fied restriction, was most rigorously enforced ; and we find that, about the year 1212, upwards of ONE 11 CNDII ED persons were burnt for ventaring to assert their opinion that it was lawful for Christians to eat flesh during Lent; and, what was then deemed even more sinful," for a priest to marry at any time of the year contrary to ecclesiastical regulation, which afterwards abso lutely interdicted them from even entering into the connubial 'state ! ! Happily released in this country from the Popish yoke, nothing but'the most unequivocal and corroborating testimonies can satisfy our minds that such vile proceedings could ever have occurred : and such truly we have ; and we 'find that these Popish tyrannies existed in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction until very nigh, if not quite up to, the period of the Reformation. At the Reformation, 'abstinence from flesh was still enjoined on all the Fridays and Saturdays throughout the year,, as well as other days denominated fish-days ; and Queen ELIZABETH renewed these injunctions ; but her orders were accompanied mith an express decla ration that it was not as believing any religious difference in food, but a mere measure of policy to promote the consumption of fish, as an encou ragement to sect faring men, and at the same time to spare the stock of sheep. That feasting upon turbots, cod with oyster sauce, carp stewed in claret, &c. should now be deemed a mortification, and eating of flesh, certainly as easily and rnorg commonly obtained, a luxury, appears too much like a jest to be easily reconciled to - nober con sideration. That the observation of Lent was originally established in commemoration of our Saviour's miraculous fasting, and to prepare the mind for the great feast of Easter, seems generally to be admitted by the Romish Church, and by many - Protestant Divines - : but whether its origin can be traced so far back as theApostles,thePopish, writers maintain, has never been determined. IlicsiEus, quated by EUSEBIUS, adopting the then preva lent idea that the miraculous fasting was de signed to be celebrated, seems to regard it as " a superstitious and vain conceit, first undertaken as an idle and vicious attempt to imitate the powers of the Lord." The Jews' yearly P AS.• SOVER, or feast of EXPIATION, was begun by a solemn humiliation of forty days ; and the pri mitive Christians, following 'their example, ap propriated an annual fast as a proper 'preparative for the commemoration of . the great expiation, of the sins of mankind, though the number of days varied in different Churches, i aa well as the practices of each in its obser vance ; and as it is evident only forty hours were enjoined, from, about 12 .o'clock on Friday, when our Lord. fell under the dominion of death, to Sunday morningovhen ho.rose again ; which was only subsequently augmented to those number of dap ; there appears to be reason for concluding that this fast was originally instituted in solemn commemoration of the period our SAVIOUR lay in the tomb of death, as several eminent critics assert, and not of the miracninns fasting, the imitation of which I R ENXUS deno- Minated " a superstitious and vain conceit."— Days of abst i nence before Easter were fast in stituted by Pope TELESPHONIS, in the second century, but they were not enforced until thO third. ERCOMBERT, King of Kent, first appointed the fast of Lent in this country in tyie year 641. Succeeding generations marked the distinctions.be tween the various foods : in this country i we find flesh to have been .early prohibited during Lent, though Hanna( VIII: publiShed.a. Proola,. motion in 1543, allowing the use of _white meats, which continued-until by Proclamations of J AIIIU, the First,.in 1619 and 1625; and the First in, 1627. and 1631., flesh was again wholly forbidden. On the Continent numorerns ordinances ,hayo, beeii.issued to the like effect : and by the 9th canon of the Bth Celincil of To ledo, .it is ordained that if any per Ons eat flesh in Lent, they shall be deprived of the use of it all the rest of, the year, unless compelled by un avoidable necessity.. Even milk, bu4er, cheese, eggs, and any composition of which'Ahey formed an ingredient, were included in.these severe de crees, and butchers were o:bliged to have licences to kill any animal at this tnne.—Such were the persecutions inflicted upon this country - forMeoy by Popery. " Let us learn from the past to be wise for the future." W. F. D. 751.,. led Ines. urn the KEN Trier :e ver ety can es, ers lar re.: vas [7. ng . :he CIS I