i a 
HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
Such were the principal debates, 
which occupied the attention of 
parliament, before the Christmas 
recess. 
“In the slight, but we trust suffi- 
ciently accurate and comprehen- 
sive sketch, we have given of the 
_ subject matter of the public bills, 
_ which came before the legislation in 
this first period of the domestic 
‘tions; 
‘tend its deceptive and deleterious 
history of the year; we have dwelt 
more particularly, on the discussions 
which arose from the consideration 
of the king’s speech; and on those 
which took place on the army and 
havy estimates ; as being, not only 
highly important in themselves, in 
a national point ‘of view; but as 
amply unfolding the opinions of the 
_ great leading characters of the day; 
and the outline of their political 
associations. We purposely waved, 
however, any ‘examination of the 
minister’s financial statement : first, 
because it passed in the house of 
commons without remark or com- 
ment of any kind; and secondly, 
because an appropriate opportunity 
will present itself,’ at a more ad- 
vanced period of the account of 
the remaining proceedings of the 
session of parliament, which comes 
within the limits of our present vo* 
lume; and in which we shallexa- 
mine with impartiality, whether this 
statement, satisfactory and flatter- 
ing as it was in its details, deserved 
that credit and applause, which Mr, 
Addington solemnly claimed as its 
right; or whether it were founded 
in that fallacious and temporizing 
system, which had hitherto paralyzed 
and crippled us in our foreign rela- 
and now threatened to ex- 
effects over our domestic concerns. 
But however public opinion might 
61 
be held in equilibrium, on those 
great leading features of the early 
part of the session; it decidedly 
manifested itself, as hostile to the 
last act of it; namely, the introduc- 
tion of the bill for navy cominis- 
sioners; and perhaps no subject of 
equal importance ever agitated the 
public mind, or produced more 
eager or animated debate within the 
walls of parliament. The introduc- 
tion of the bill in question, was con- 
sidered on all hands, as a measure at 
once nugatory as to the benefits it 
proposed; oppressive and arbitrary 
in its mode of operation; invidious 
with respect to the navy board, 
whose most material functions it 
usurped; and as being, as expensive 
as useless to the nation. While this 
bill depended in parliament, the 
reasoning for its being thrown out 
was supported on various grounds. 
It was convincingly proved, that 
there existed no necessity for such 
a measure; as the commissioners 
for executing the office of lord 
high admiral of England, possessed 
by their constituted authority, and 
within themselves, sufficient pow- 
ers, if they chose to exert them, to 
correct the abuses complained of; 
since by authorizing the navy-board 
(which by patent possessed the 
right of administering oaths, and of 
punishing all frauds committed in 
the naval department) to inquire 
into the alleged’ causes of com- 
plaint, they might, and must have 
been eflectually removed. ‘To en-_ 
force this argument, it was urged, 
that when in the year 1792, the 
grossest miscoriduct occurred in the 
ordnance department in the West 
Indies; recourse had not been had 
to the institution of a new board, 
ii order te dgtect and punish the 
ofienders. 
