stitution; in steadily supporting the just, legal, limited prerogatives of the crown on the one hand, the substantial rights and privileges of the people on the other, and the superintendance and control of parliament over all. However doubtful, therefore, he might be of the expediency of the motion, he could not give it a direct negative, because he was in his conscience persuaded of the truth of the proposition it expressed. If it was contended, that the Bill of Rights had stopped short of any declaration, that in express terms restrained his majesty from bringing foreign troops into the kingdom in time of war, the act of settlement had put that point beyond a doubt, by expressly enacting, that, "no person born out of the kingdom shall be capable to enjoy any office, or place of trust, civil or military." And surely, if foreign troops were brought into the kingdom for the purpose of serving there, it would hardly be contended, that by being so employed, they were not placed in a situation of military trust. Could so clear and positive a provision stand in need of any aid from implication? That would be amply supplied by the 29th Geo. 2. c. 5; for when in 1756 it was judged expedient to employ certain foreign Protestants resident in America, in his majesty's military service there, it was not only deemed necessary to have the sanction of an act of parliament for that purpose, but that sanction was given under such restrictions and qualifications as evidently showed the extreme caution with which parliament entrusted such a prerogative in the hands of the crown, even in cases where the expediency was acknowledged. The truth, therefore, of the assertion, that no such prerogative could be legally exercised by the king, without the authority of parliament, he believed, had never been seriously doubted before the debate of to-day, and would not, he trusted, continue to be doubted, when that debate was at an end.-But, it was by no means a necessary conclusion, that, because a declaration was true, it ought therefore to be adopted by that House. If any member should move the House to declare, that by the law of England the eldest son was entitled to inherit the lands of which his father had died possessed in fee simple, though no man could deny the assertion, yet he should certainly expect to be informed by what emergency it was called for, and to what purpose it was to be applied, before he should think it con sistent with the wisdom or dignity of parliament to make any such declaration. It was no part of the duty, and ill befitted the wisdom of parliament, to make absolute declarations of law. There were but two grounds, upon which declarations could be proper: either, that the position was in itself doubtful, and stood in need of the authority of parliamentary declaration, or that there had been an alarming violation of the law on the point which it was proposed to declare. He could see no pretence for alleging this in the present instance. So far was the reason announced by his majesty's message from containing any just ground of alarm, that he thought it was a measure equally called for by justice, humanity, and even necessity. The troops of his majesty's allies, engaged in a war in which every thing dear to this country, and essential to the safety of Europe, was at stake, had been embarked, for the purpose of being employed on foreign service in a foreign country, the legality of which no man could dispute. They had rendezvoused on the coast of this kingdom, and the objects of the service for which they were originally intended, having been either defeated or delayed, they had been permitted to land, to relieve them from those contagious disorders to which, by their confinement in ships, they must be inevitably exposed. If this could even be considered as a violation of the letter of the law, where was the danger? where the substantial illegality of the measure? where was the ground that called upon parliament to interfere? Suppose a ves sel, loaded with felons sentenced to transportation, was on the coasts of this kingdom-that she was driven by a tempest on the rocks, or that a contagious distemper had broken out, which endangered the life of every man on board-in this situation the convicts swim on shore, to preserve themselves from inevitable destruction; would the hon. gentleman, in such a case move the House for a solemn declaration that "felons being found at large in this kingdom, before the term of their transportation had expired, was contrary to law?" As few would be found to assert the propriety as to deny the truth of such a declaration.-For these reasons he could not bring himself either to deny or assent to the proposition that had been made, and he earnestly entreated the House not rashly to come to a direct decision of the ques tion. To relieve the House from the diffi within the kingdom in time of peace. He hoped the House would leave the question as they found it; namely, as it had been left when the Bill of Rights was passed. culty in which they appeared to be involved, and from the necessity of a decision which could be attended with no good, and might be productive of much mischief, he concluded with moving the previous question. Mr. W. Smith combated the prerogative of the crown to land foreign troops. He wished to know, if such a prerogative existed, what was the security of the subject. The king, it was admitted on all hands, had the indubitable right of declaring war. If he had annexed to that prerogative the right of landing foreign troops. in the kingdom, without number, the liberty and security of the subject were no more. Mr. Pitt said, he would state, on a fair view of the question, his reasons on the one hand for giving his vote for the previous question, and, on the other, for giving his direct negative to the original motion, provided the previous question had not been moved. He was happy in having that opportunity of avowing himself one of the advisers of the measure that had been adopted with respect to the landing of the troops in this country. He did not desire any bill of indemnity in consequence of this; if any charge was to be brought against him as an individual, he should only demand the right of being tried by the law of the land. In such case, there were only two principles to be proceeded upon, the written law, or the known practice and established usage of parliament. The motion was liable to two objections; in the first place it was by no means applicable to the circumstances that gave rise to it! and in the next it was purely abstract, and not founded upon any measure that could possibly be considered as demanding any particular declaration. The question was, whether or not it was a culpable omission on the part of ministers not to advise his majesty to ob Mr. Yorke was for the previous question, but said, he knew of no constitutional right or prerogative by which the king could bring into, keep, or maintain, foreign troops within this kingdom, or employ foreign officers on British pay, without the previous consent of parliament. The Attorney General said, that the reason why he should give his vote for the previous question was, because the resolution that had been proposed, was totally mapplicable to the circumstances that gave rise to the motion, and went beyond what our ancestors had done in consequence of circumstances nearly similar to the present. No man could deny, that, de facto, foreign troops had been landed in this kingdom since the period of the Revolution, or since the passing of the Bill of Rights the words of which were these "the raising and maintaining of an army within the kingdom in time of peace.' After the Revolution, king William had his Dutch troops here in time of war, and that House had not called upon him to disband them, nor had they been disbanded till the time of peace. With respect to the act of settlement, he could not conceive by what possible chain of argument the present subject came within the clause in that act that had been alluded to, or how it could be assimilated to the naturalization bill. He would ask, whether parliament had come to any resolution since the Revolution, expressive of disapprobation of a measure that had been adopted under circumstances similar to the present? In 1756, Hessian troops had been landed in this country; and on the king's communicating the circum-tain the previous consent of parliament stance to parliament, an address of thanks was the consequence. In 1775 some Hanoverian troops had been sent to Gibraltar, to replace British troops that had been sent to America. But that was a circumstance that did not apply in the present instance, because the circumstance did not occur within the kingdom, and because it happened in time of peace. He would not state any thing about what the law was previous to the passing of the Bill of Rights. With respect to the act of settlement, it went to the prevention of raising and maintaining a large army before any foreign troops was suffered to land in this country in time of war, and at a period when the safety of the country demanded such a measure? His majesty had afforded parliament the most early communication of the circumstance, and what was the result? Why, an address of thanks was voted by that House to his majesty, in consequence of the communication that his majesty had afforded. Was it, therefore, to be argued that this was a measure totally repugnant to every positive law? But this was not all; the constant and uniform practice that had been adopt ed, and which was fortified by precedent, operated to a full, complete and ample justification of the measure. It had been stated, that in 1745 foreign troops were brought into this kingdom, from the apprehension of an invasion; this was an instance that had been alluded to by the hon. mover! but it was a little unfortunate for that hon. gentleman, that in that instance the previous consent of parliament had not been obtained. But the hon. gentleman had endeavoured to explain the circumstance of foreign troops having been permitted to land in this kingdom without the previous consent of parliament upon three grounds, which were, that his majesty had, in the communication to parliament, particularly stated the number of the troops, the places where they were to be quartered, and their future destination. In the present instance, there had been a vote of thanks; but then it was asserted, that the communication that had been afforded now was not adequate to the communication that had been afforded in 1745. What was the result of this? Why, if in the communication afforded now, the precise number of the troops landed had not been stated, the circumstance of parliament not having inquired into the number, could not possibly be considered in any other point of view but as a ground of acquiescence in the measure. In the communication that had been afforded, mention was made that the troops would be quartered in the most convenient places of rendezvous, but the communication did not specifically set forth what the most convenient places were. This was the only difference. But the question was, whether that House would pronounce that the bringing of foreign troops into the kingdom, without the previous consent of parliament, was contrary to law? Now the practice of the year 1745 was very nearly similar to the practice that had been lately adopted. Did the hon. gentleman recollect, that on the 23d of March 1756, at which period the parliament had been sitting for some months, when this country was making preparations for war, and when party spirit ran high, the king intimated to parliament his intention of bringing some Hessian troops into the kingdom, and that the transports to convey them hither had actually sailed? What happened? Why, parliament voted an address of thanks to his majesty for the measures he had taken. This proved, most unquestion See Vol. 15, p. 702, ably, that when the parliament was sitting, if there had been any law to require it, his majesty might have obtained their consent to the measure in nearly as expeditious a manner, were the occasion so pressing as to demand it, as by affording a communication to the House; yet the ministers then advised his majesty to make the circumstance a matter of communica tion, and not of application to the House. The precedent in 1756 must have stared that House in the face, had there been any law then in existence that required the previous consent of parliament. It would then have appeared, whether an act of indemnity was indispensably necessary, or whether ministers were in any degree criminal for having advised the measure. But the parliament then passed no act declaratory of the law. În the subsequent session on the 13th December, the secretary at war moved to bring in a bill for the legalizing the quartering and maintaining these troops. The previous silence of the legislature was a strong argument: but the strongest of all possible arguments was the exposition of the legislative act, which went not only to ratify, but to legalize the measure that had been adopted. But the question did not stop here. In 1775, during the contest with America, and before the interposition of France, foreign troops had been sent to Gibraltar and Minorca; but it had not then been argued that the measure was contrary to law. But had an act of indemnity been then passed, it would not have borne upon the present question. If it were to be made a question, that we were not then in a state of war, still it would be of no import. However, it was a little singular that this bill of indemnity never passed. He did not rely on this bill of indemnity so thrown out, but upon the opinion of the legislature that it was contrary to established usage. He would next advert to what had been said by Mr. Speaker Onslow. That hon. gentleman had stated, that the bringing of foreign troops into this country, without the previous consent of parliament, was a measure that was new, alarming and unprecedented. But in opposition to this language, stood known usage and established practice. He had shown, that if a bill of indemnity had passed, it would not have operated on the present ques tion; and he had also shown why it had not passed. The troops that had been originally sent to Gibraltar and Minorca, raised or maintained within the kingdom in time of peace. The next circumstance that had been resorted to, was the rule of positive law. That Dutch guards were not suffered to be maintained in time of peace, was a fact. The parliament then only followed up the measure in time of peace in the same manner that we followed it up now in time of war. The parliament had refused the maintenance of guards and garrisons, and they voted that the Dutch troops which made part of the guards and garrisons, should be disbanded. The king was then desirous that the parliament would alter their decree; but the parliament adhered to their original principle. The question then was, whether the king should be guarded by Dutch troops or by natural-born subjects? That left the Bill of Rights exactly where it found it. The next authority that had been alluded to, was a clause in the act of settlement, and he was not a little surprised to hear it cited; for what was it? It went only to guard against the placing of any offices, civil or military, within the kingdom, in the hands of foreigners. He thought the original motion wholly inapplicable to the circumstances that gave rise to it, and totally groundless, if a reference was to be had to the Journals upon the table, and should therefore vote for the previous question. at a time when this country was at war, was not the only historical fact to be adverted to; for in 1782, it was communicated to parliament, that these troops were coming to this country. What happened? No bill of indemnity was passed, to make the arrangement for quartering them here legal. From this it did not appear that the opinion of parliament was contrary to the bringing foreign troops into this country. In the year 1784 troops had been brought upon the coast of the country; but the establishment with respect to maintaining them was not increased till the time that they were to go to their place of destination. He would give up the question relative to the period of peace or war; but here a temporary rendezvous had been afforded them and that place of rendezvous was admitted to be the most convenient place where they might act against the enemy. The measure then was precisely the same as now. An address was voted to his majesty and that was then thought sufficient. The troops having arrived, remained till the season for their departure. The mode that had been practised then to bring the matter immediately before the cognizance of parliament, was exactly and precisely the same that had been adopted in the last instance. His majesty, in his speech, had ordered the treaties of Hesse Cassel and of Darmstadt to be laid before the House. These papers being laid on the table, the parliament voted a supply to his majesty to enable his majesty to maintain those troops; and this they did with their eyes open. It had been urged, that no security could exist in the country, if his majesty were to bring into the country what troops he pleased, without the previous consent of parliament; but he would observe, in opposition to this, that his majesty had no power to maintain those troops without the consent of parliament. The power of the purse was above all other powers; and over that parliament had the complete control. Had the hon. mover proved that this was a measure that was against positive law? The first authority that had been resorted to was the Bill of Rights. But our ancestors had confined themselves to the definition of the constitutional question then before them, and had not declared what measures they would have adopted under circumstances similar to the present. The Bill of Rights went only to say, that no army could be Mr. Fox said, he never recollected a question that had given rise to so much extraneous matter, or to so great a variety of abstract arguments as the present, and felt considerable difficulty in replying to the different observations; notwithstanding the grave advice of the attorney-general, on the danger of agitating the question, he considered himself bound by his duty to his constituents to deliver his sentiments on the present occasion. The hon. and learned gentleman had expressed his doubts on this extension of the prerogative, and wished that the question might not be argued; but the chancellor of the exchequer had differed materially from the learned gentleman, and had given a decided opinion upon this point of prerogative. It was not for him to account for the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, who persevered in his opinion on a question that had excited no small share of indignation, even among those who cooperated with him on other subjects. If the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman were true, nothing that had been said by the most atrocious libellers of the con he trusted the House would ever exercise its dignity, and show them that the king was endowed with no prerogative that militated against the constitution.-It had been said, that the gentlemen who supported the motion had presumed on more wisdom than their ancestors; although the precedent of 1737 clearly bore them out in every argument they had offered. It was urged, too, that they had not brought forward a single new argument on the subject in debate. Then, how inconsistent was it to accuse them of being bold innovators, and agitators of a question repeatedly discussed, and which it was argued should sleep for ever. Mr. Fox ridiculed the idea that as the word stitution could be reprehended by administration; because the arguments of the right hon. gentleman went to prove, that we had a constitution in words, but not in reality. But thank God, this was not true; for the Bill of Rights was in direct contradiction to what he had advanced. Mr. Fox reprobated the attempt to justify the landing of foreign troops without the consent of parliament. It was unnecessary for him to point out the consequence that must arise from such doctrines, if adopted, where foreigners, being the instruments of any misguided prince or licentious government, might be turned against the dearest rights of the constitution. Great stress had been laid by the chancellor of the exchequer on the cir-"war" was not precisely specified in the cumstance, that they were not to remain long in the country; but now the House was informed that they were to remain in the kingdom until sent on foreign service. He was of opinion, that a bill of indemnity should have been at least introduced to justify the measure-a measure which, during the American war, was declared, in both Houses of Parliament, to be one that annihilated, Magna Charta. If a bill of indemnity had been brought in, the preamble would have run thus, as in former instances; "Whereas certain doubts have arisen:" but to this constitutional phraseology the minister was averse, as he argued, that the prerogative of the crown was fully competent to the introduction of foreign troops, agreeably to the Bill of Rights. His learned friend (Mr. Adair) had observed, that it was better not to argue the question than for the opposers of the motion to have a decision against them; but to this he never could subscribe; for though left in a minority, it was his duty to persevere in what he thought for the benefit of his country; and though the House might not take eare of its honour, it did not follow that he should deal treacherously with his own. A bill of indemnity had been offered to the chancellor of the exchequer, but this he rejected with indignation: he, however, conceived it equally the duty of parliament to form a bill of indemnity on one question, at it might be necessary to bring forward a bill of attainder on another. But if a bill of that nature was brought forward, gentlemen on the other side would thereby seem to confess, what they were not willing to admit, that the prerogatives of the sovereign were not such as they wished to maintain, though Bill of Rights and the word "peace” was alone mentioned, his majesty could, consistently with the constitution, introduce foreign troops into the kingdom. This, he said, was a fallacious argument, reprehensible in the extreme, as being a most daring attack on the Bill of Rights, which was not to be an enacting, but a declaratory law, upon which the House should, on all occasions, put the most liberal construction. Allowing the chancellor of the exchequer every argument that could operate in his favour founded on the precedents he had adduced, he would ask him what had been the law anterior to the passing of the Bill of Rights or the act of settlement? If the House had been guided by precedents, those acts never would have passed, which prevented the landing or the suffering of foreign troops to remain in this kingdom. He maintained, that it was monstrous and absurd to say, according to the right hon. gentleman's definition of the Bill of Rights, that the royal prerogative could be exercised to land foreign troops in this country in time of war, or in time of peace. If this were the case, how could he reconcile to himself the mutiny bill, the preamble of which was in direct contradiction to the arguments adduced by the right hon. gentleman? Mr. Fox reminded gentlemen of the debates that had taken place in 1775, on sending foreign troops to garrison Minorca and Gibraltar. With what indignation was the preamble of a bill of indemnity brought in by ministers then received, because it stated that doubts had arisen respecting the legality of employing foreign troops in any part of his majesty's dominions without the consent of parliament! The bill with this |