our constitution, and was the spirit of the bill which was attempted to be perverted. The wise plan of our ancestors had infused into the Bill of Rights a general principle, which provided better for posterity on unforeseen occasions than if it had been limited and tied up for partial and particular purposes. He quoted precedents in order to enforce his statements, and said that the very principle of the mutiny bill applied equally to war and peace. The act of settlement explicitly declares, that no foreigner is capable of any civil or military trust. The act of George 1st leaves not a shadow of doubt on this point, when it expressly says, that no foreigner, naturalized, can be employed in a military capacity. It is but reasonable, then, that the country should be alarmed when troops in crowds were brought into the kingdom. He contended, that every precedent down to 1782, would bear him out in his argument. He showed by the letter of each message, that until the present instance, the communication had been in sufficient time to enable parliament to take measures against the landing, if they thought it unsafe, or improper: here the thing was done without giving them time for such measure. But it was said the crown could introduce troops without their consent, provided they were not exercised and disciplined. Was it, then, to be gravely argued, that the crown possessed the prerogative of landing at pleasure an armed banditti? For such must all troops not subject to discipline be. He could not keep native troops without the mutiny law; but he could keep foreign troops; and the violation of the most sacred compact, with respect to the regulation of the standing army, was necessary to the existence of this prerogative. But it seems the crown might land troops without previous communication; without assent; he might do this to any amount; but when here, they could not be employed but with the sanction of parliament! and so parliament were to see the introduction of troops with perfect indifference, because afterwards they might dispute the use to which they might be put! He did not highly approve of arguing the case with 30,000 armed logi

cians.

Lord Hawkesbury said, that with regard to the illegality of landing foreign troops in the kingdom without the consent of parliament, there could not be a question

upon the subject; but undoubtedly the measure, in this case, as in every other, ought to be considered with a particular attention to the peculiar circumstances of it. With regard to the instance in question, no noble lord imputed blame to ministers, or raised a doubt as to its expediency or necessity. With regard to the right of the crown in this particular, the various acts of the legislature, and the universally received principles of common law, were sufficiently clear upon it, as well as upon every other part of the constitution, without calling upon parliament upon every occasion to ratify them. He was as ready as any noble lord could be to declare, that the employing foreign troops in this country was illegal; but then the present case did not amount to that, for these troops were actually enga ged for foreign service, but had been landed through the mere necessity of preserving their health. As to the precedent of 1641, he thought it by no means a good precedent, because at that time the parliament were on the eve of engaging in a civil war; and looking to resistance, it was clearly of great moment to them to prevent Charles 1st from landing any foreign troops in this island. With respect to the Bill of Rights, if it had been the intention of the great characters concerned in it, they certainly would have provided for a case like the present, could they have foreseen that any such case would arise; for the Bill of Rights was drawn up by men of the highest character then living. As to the subsequent instances, he passed briefly over them, and showed the tardiness with which parliament had entered into any consideration upon the subject of foreign troops; that the legality or illegality had not been even the subject of their examination; and that the subordinate considerations of their subsidy and destination had alone been in their view. He contended that this was one of the, prerogatives of the crown, which should be trusted to the discretion of the executive power, which was responsible for the exercise of it. Ministers did not feel the smallest apprehension from what they had done, consequently did not wish for a bill of indemnity; and as he thought it was totally unnecessary, he should give the motion his negative.

Earl Stanhope was happy that his noble relation seemed so little inclined to favour that monstrous doctrine that had been laid down in another place. It had been

elsewhere stated by persons high in official situation, that the king by his prerogative, had a right to land as many armed foreigners into this country, either in time of peace or war, as he pleased, without the sanction of parliament, and to march them wherever he thought proper. All he would say upon this point was, that if any minister of this country attempted to practise the doctrine that had been stated, he trusted it would be resisted with that violence which it called for. He differed widely from a noble lord who had argued that it was legal for the king to introduce a foreign army into this country. The noble secretary of state did not go so far, but he seemed to think that the legality of keeping a foreign army in this country depended upon the manner in which it was to be employed, because it would be illegal to employ those troops without a second communication from the king to parliament, stating in what manner they were to be employed. Thus the noble lord did not wish to carry the sublime Tory principles of prerogative, which had been dwelt upon in another place, so far. In this way, then, these noble lords did not differ with those with whom he agreed that night; they allowed that there was right by prerogative, at the same time that they argued there was no law against landing these foreign troops; so that this was all the difference between them, as to which, the onus probandi certainly lay with the other side. He quoted judge Hale to ascertain that what was called the statute law took its date in 1189, and all the law before that period being founded on usage merely, was styled the lex non scripta, or common law. He next quoted Blackstone, to prove that the first standing armies in Europe was in France in 1445, which made it necessary to guard against the dangerous consequences of a standing army; and this being several centuries after the commencement of the statute law, it was impossible that the common law could at all apply. He then came to the precedent of 1775, when foreign troops had been landed, and it had been found necessary to come to parliament to obtain its sanction, and a bill for quartering these troops. This certainly proved that, without the sanction of parliament they could not be kept in the kingdom. With surprise he had heard a noble earl desire the House to look only to what had happened since the revolution, and not to look far

|ther for the constitution of this country; and that all before was fitter for a discussion in an Antiquarian society than that House. In this he differed widely from the noble earl, and considered that not an iota of our constitution was altered by the revolution, but merely established. The noble secretary of state had mentioned the standing council of parliament as a justification of any measure, however illegal, that might appear to the executive government necessary or expedient; but he would ask where was this standing council during the recess of parliament? As to precedents he considered them as nothing, particularly when argued as they were that night. It had been argued as precedent, that illegal measures had been taken in many instances without any notice being taken of them by parliament; but upon this idea ministers might do just as they pleased; for he believed there was nothing so bad, so illegal, or so enormous, but there might be a precedent for a similar crime without its being noticed by parliament. He concluded by giving his hearty assent to the motion.

The Earl of Carnarvon considered the bringing in, or maintaining a foreign army in this country to be totally illegal and unconstitutional, but saw nothing in the present case that called for a bill of indemnity. He professed himself to be against the introduction of abstract questions; the prerogative of the crown had better be left as he found it. The bill he considered as truly ridiculous; and to prove it was so, he begged leave to state a supposed case; for this bill, if it meant any thing, was to preserve the ministers from the dangers of an impeachment. Now suppose there were a number of foreign troops engaged for an expedition, and that one division of them should be wrecked on the coast of Sussex, and the other, from long confinement on shipboard, were threatened with an alarming disorder, and the minister should advise their being suffered to land; in both these cases he would be equally criminal for having suffered them to be on shore; and the impeachment must run something in this form," Whereas the minister did cruelly and wilfully consent to save the lives of sundry men who were shipwrecked; and whereas, with the like cruel intent, he assisted in restoring to health certain other men, &c." Now could any man find him guilty for such crimes? And if he could not be found guilty, it

was an absurdity to think of a bill of indemnity.

The Earl of Guilford was clearly of opinion, that no foreign army could legally be landed in this country, and that no argument of expediency could justify any deviation from the principles of the constitution. Some noble lords, too fond of precedents, seemed to argue that every deviation which had been overlooked by parliament, was as much in their favour as if there had been an existing law on their side. He called the attention of the House to the ingenious manner in which the act of settlement had been attempted to be evaded by the noble secretary of state. The noble lord had said, they were no army, nor in any military trust; because to make them an army, three things were necessary, to discipline, to clothe, and to pay them, which could not be done but by parliament; and from thence had argued as if to lay the order for bringing foreign troops before parliament without any notice whatever. In this manner James 2d, might have brought into this country a sufficient number of French troops to have prevented us from enjoying the blessings which we had, and he trusted long would enjoy, under the mild government of the house of Brunswick. Some noble Lords had stated a bill of indemnity to be the same as a bill of impeachment: he thought there was a wide difference. As to what had been said about the message from the throne being sufficient for the executive government to act upon, he would conclude with observing, in the words of lord Coke," that the king's message was gracious; but what is the law of the land?"

The Duke of Portland considered the bringing of any foreign troops into this kingdom, and keeping them, was illegal and unconstitutional; at the same time, he saw nothing in the present case that made a bill of indemnity necessary. He saw no sort of danger from the landing the Hessians at this time, under the circumstances which brought them to their present temporary station.

The Earl of Carlisle wished noble lords had not introduced the abstract question; but as it had been introduced, he would not hesitate to declare, that he thought that there could be no doubt that the introduction of foreign troops, without the consent of parliament, was unconstitutional and illegal, at the same time he conceived the nature of the case to be such as to render a

bill of indemnity unnecessary and improper He compared it to the case of 1776, when a famine was dreaded and ministers had acted without the sanction of parliament; a bill of indemnity was then proposed, and was refused by earl Camden.

The Marquis of Lansdown said, that when he came down to the House he did not know in what manner the question was to be taken up. He complimented the noble mover on having made his first appearance in that House in such a manner as he never recollected to have been equalled by any young lord. He had shown most clearly the necessity for that discussion, for which the House and the country owed him their particular thanks. From all he had heard he was happy that it had been brought on, not as a party question, not as an abstract question, not as a political question, but as one of the most important that could possibly be argued in that House, because it was intimately connected with the existence of the constitution of this country. An attempt was made to avoid such discussions as unnecessary, because, to agitate doubts upon a subject where there really were none, some noble lords thought was dangerous; he thought it no more dangerous than if any of their lordships was to consult a lawyer about the title of his estate, when it was not challenged; and as to being unnecessary, that day's debate was a complete answer.-His noble friend had gone upon the best grounds, and taking all the circumstances, what could be so proper a way of bringing the question before the House as by a bill of indemnity? He did not recollect whether his name was or was not to the protest in 1782, but his mind was perfectly made up on the subject, and he gave it most explicitly, "that without the previous consent and sanction of parliament, the king could not bring legally a single man into this country." His lordship then went over the different precedents of 1741, 45, 56; at last, in 1775, a bold and proper stand was made against the practice, which was followed up in 1782. The last precedent, that of 1784, was fresh in their memories, but whatever blame might be ascribed at that time to ministers, that was a time of much confusion, and not to be used as a precedent now. There were however, much higher and stronger reasons for his giving his vote for the motion that night. This pretended right had been compared to different branches of the king's prerogative, his power of pardon, and

veto: but here there was a material difference; those were powers given and acknowledged; but the power of introducing foreign troops into this country either in time of peace or war, without the consent of parliament, never was given. Other doctrines of a nature equally curious had been used, and an attempt made to place the executive power of the crown and the parliament, as plaintiff and defendant, upon which ministers built their grand argument of responsibility. In short, they are to do what they please, and tell us, we do not wish for an act of indemnity; if we have done wrong we are responsible. And this sort of doctrine, attended by the supposed influence that ministers ought to have, had a wonderful effect in softening and conciliating majorities in both houses of parliament. He was extremely sorry to hear some noble lords treat bills of indemnity as measures, that seldom had been or ought to be used. He must remind noble lords, that they had not always thought so; not long ago, when the country was threatened with a famine, and numbers found it indispensably necessary to act illegally, very great and curious discussions took place; and when it was mentioned only to be a temporary measure for ten days, a bill of indemnity was insisted upon, and it was properly said that ten days were as bad as ten years; if the law was infringed upon by ministers, from whatever cause a bill of indemnity was necessary, and this applied to the noble earl's argument of shipwreck. Though he rejoiced in this discussion, he still said that there was something left in the wound; he wished to have it perfectly cleared away. Ministers and their friends cannot argue the legality that they admit: but as is the case in all questions of prerogative, one says, he thinks, another believes, and still nobody can make out the precise extent to which they wish to carry their maxims of prerogative, till finding they have carried them too far, they lower them and lower them one after another, till they get a man who is eloquent enough to deny them quite, and is altogether angry if any one dares to say that ever he could have thought or said

So.

That conduct was not new in public political assemblies. He was truly happy that his noble friend had struck a bold blow at that system. The phalanx ought to be shook, and he had shaken them in an honourable and manly way. He should give his hearty assent to the motion.

The Earl of Mansfield would not suffer the principles that impressed his mind to be warped by what he had heard in the House. He had formed his judgment, not by abstract and theoretical proposi. tions, but by the practice of our ancestors in the purest times. It did not appear to him possible precisely to define what was the extent of the prerogative of the crown in this or that peculiar instance, because, as the prerogative itself was nothing more than a discretionary power lodged in the crown for the common benefit of the kingdom and the king's subjects, the wisdom, expediency, and necessity of its exercise, depended altogether on the nature of the emergency which called it forth, and of the extent of that emergency parliament were to be the judges. The king's ministers were undoubtedly responsible to parliament for the whole of their conduct and the question at all times when the prerogative of the Crown was made use of, would be, not, whether ministers had a right to use the royal prerogative, but whether the occasion justified the manner in which they had exercised it. After what had been heard, there was but little occasion for him to say any thing respecting the precedents of former times; he would content himself, therefore, with adverting to the precedent of 1784 which had occurred in the time of the present ministers, and must be fresh in all their lordships minds. Noble lords must remember, that the time to which he alluded was a period in which ministers were not likely to pass unwatched, nor did their conduct stand much chance of escaping censure, if it had been thought that censure was deserved. For his part, he saw no shadow of violence to the constitution in the transaction of 1784, nor did he perceive any shadow of violence to the constitution in the recent instance of landing the Hessian troops, and therefore he should vote against the bill.

The Duke of Bedford said, that every noble lord had agreed as to the illegality of the measure. He was therefore surprised that the noble secretary of state had followed up that opinion by very ambiguous arguments; and the other noble lords who were satisfied as to the illegality, contended very unaccountably, he thought, against the bill of indemnity. Now he would ask any one of those noble lords, whether if he really thought ministers had done wrong, he would have voted for a bill of indemnity? From what he had