light the introduction of these into any part of the British dominions was viewed by all good patriots, and how indispensably requisite it was deemed that no such measure should pass without the explicit consent of parliament. Ministers might give the most positive assurances that the stay of a foreign armed force would be short, but that was not the question. When once introduced, and the principle of introduction tolerated, who was to limit the nunibers to be stationed on British ground, on those many pretences for which ministers were į never at a loss? When sufficiently numerous to brave all controul, by whom were they to be dismissed without their own consent? Would parliamentary representations, without something more substantial and coercive, prevail upon them to depart? In such a case as the present, it became him, and every member of a British House of Parliament, to speak out, mindless of frowns and careless of favours. It was notorious, that by granting an unlimited power of the sword to Kings and Princes, the liberties of Europe had been destroyed. While parliament acted with wisdom, it would look on its own privileges as founded on public freedom; that once overturued, their own privileges would soon be violated. They ought therefore, for their own interest, to stand by the people, who alone would stand by them in the day of need: but to secure this support, they should beware of delivering the nation into the power of strangers, who, when once fraily settled, would for their own

sake become the instruments of oppression. Ministerial emissaries studiously sought to represent numbers of people in this country as enemies to monarchy; but if this representation were true, the most effectual method of removing this enmity would be to divest monarchy of its terrors, by refusing such an augmentation of his power as the prerogative in question was aiming at. The introduction of the Hessian troops, from general views of good policy in conducting the war, Mr. Fox did by no means condemn; it was merely, he affirmed, the right of the excutive power tò introduce them into the kingdom, independently of Parliament, which he denied; as a prerogative incompatible with the security of public freedom, and tending incontrovertibly to lodge a degree of authority in the executive department, which at some period might enable it to compass the most fatal designs to this country. This long and animated discussion terminated in favour of ministry, by a division of 184 against 35.

Opposition however considered this subject in too serious a light to give it up without any further debate;-the public opinion was on their side. Though people approved of the measure itself, of allowing the Hessians to enjoy the benefits of a residence on so healthy a spot as the Isle of Wight, still the propriety of a parliamentary permission for this purpose, appeared too manifest for ministers declining to accept of an indemnity for a conduct which was not reputed blameable in any other light than in their refusal to acknowledge its illegality. Their obstinacy on this occasion did them considerable

considerable prejudice. It afforded the discontented a handle to tax them with iniquitous intentions; and it was not without difficulty that their friends could find motives to exculpate them. The false pride of obstinate perseve rance in measures once adopted, rather than candidly and magnanimously own an error, has often been accompanied by many vils, both to individuals and nazions. This false pride is noticed by foreigners as a vice peculiarly incident to the English.

This weighty subject was resumed in the House of Commons on the 14th of March. The preogative of the crown to introduce foreign troops without the permis sion of Parliament, was defended in a long speech by Mr. Grenville, who insisted on the point, that he could not find any law clearly apposite to the present case. Mr. Grey, Mr. Adair, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Smith, spoke on the side of opposition.

Mr. Fox declared, in strong terms, his reprobation of the prerogative in question. Were the crown legally entitled to such a claim, the constitution was a nullity; and those who had so boldly of late represented it in this light, would be found to have spoken a fatal truth. Responsibility was the shield with which ministers covered themselves when meditating unconstitutional designs; but if such a protection were allowed, there was no measure, however injurious to this country, which they would not be able to carry. But ministers should not be suffered to proceed in their iniquitous career: they should be stopt in the outset: merely to warn them of their mise

conduct, was no remedy; and tamely to wait for new proofs of their guilt, especially in matters of the highest importance, might only tend to place them beyond the reach of punishment. Silence in such cases was criminal in the representatives of a free people, who ought to be duly apprized of the degree of authority lodged in the Sovereign by the legislature. But the acts and regulations so often referred to, were intelligible to every liberal capacity ; nose but minds inclined to cavil, would raise any doubts of their meaning. If ministers did not harbour intentions that could not bear inspection, why should they be averse to challenge as their due an act of indemnity, which would remove at once all suspicion, and tranquillize the public, not slightly agitated by their bringing forward a prerogative, which if acquiesced in, was evidently pregnant with the worst evils that could befall the British constitution. The late Lord Mansfield, a name of the highest respectability, strenuously recommended to ministers who, pressed by necessity, had taken measures the legality of which was doubtful, always to secure themselves by a bill of indemnity. The point in agitation was of such im. portance, that ministers could not too speedily clear their character of all sinister imputations. Nor ought parliament to defer a moment longer the decision of a question that involved such essential interests. If it passed undecided, the public would possibly imagine that, by their not contesting its legality, the House tacitly allowed the pryrogative to be legal, or, what would be more ignominious, that it had

Wanted

wanted spirit to contest it. Which ever of these opinions went forth, neither of them would do credit to the commons of Great Britain. Mr. Pitt spoke next to this knotty question. The House, he observed, had, on the preceding debate on this subject, explicitly declared the act under consideration not illegal. But were a bill of indemnity to pass, would not this be recalling their declaration? The business had undergone a solemn and mature deliberation, and no more could with propriety be said relating to it. It had long been the wisdom of Parliament to avoid precise decisions on points of a disputable nature, and to act in the mean time with a view to seasons and circumstances, which were a surer guide. Nothing but unavoidable necessity should force men to decide in a case where the issue must be mortifying to one of the parties concerned. It had been asserted that the prerogative in debate had never yet been laid properly before Parliament; but this assertion was erroneous. No war had occurred within a century, that had not brought it into discussion. But Parliament had constantly declined a positive deci sion, doubtless for reasons which, when coolly examined, would to the impartial appear justly founded. No specific law could be cited, prohibiting the crown to intro duce foreign troops into the king, dom without consent of parliament. Precedents were manifestly in favour of this prerogative. Ministers were described as too proud to court a bill of indemnity; but such a bill was no disgrace, when required for the legalizing of a transaction, evidently beneficial to

the community :-and such a bili he shortly proposed to claim. But it were unbecoming to solicit such a bill, merely to avoid altercation or to obtain popularity.

After a few words in reply from Mr. Grey, expressing the necessity of coming to an immediate decision on this matter, the motion was negatived by 170 against 41.

This subject was also brought before the house of Lords oa the 21st of February, by the Earl of Albemarle. He took a retrospective view of all that had passed for a long course of years respecting the subject in debate, in order to shew what solicitude it had at all times occasioned. He particularized the bill of indemnity insisted on by the House of Com mons against the ministry, which had garrisoned Gibraltar and Minorca with foreign troops. The previous landing of these in England, in the way to their destination, occasioned a formal asseveration in that House, that the crown had no right to take such a step without the formal consent of Parliament. In consequence of these premises, he moved that a bill of indemnity should be brought in, for the conduct of ministers on this occasion.

It was contended, on the other hand, by Lord Spencer, that when a foreign force was only landed in the kingdom on its passage to ano ther place of destination, when its residence was to be of short continuance, and an immediate communication of the measnre was made to Parliament, there was no law prohibiting the crown to introduce foreign troops under such circumstances. The quartering of the Hessians in the Isle of Wight,

answering

answering precisely this description, the ministry stood acquitted in their use of the royal preroga tive on this occasion. It was not pretended that the King's preroga tive extended to the introduction of a foreign military either to suppress domestic insurrections, to serve as garrisons, or to be sta tioned permanently in any part of the realm, unless by formal consent of Parliament; but no law forbade their transient admission on the terms above specified.

It was acknowledged by Lord Auckland, that he did not consider the landing of the Hessians as strictly conformable to law, nor yet as an illegal act on the part of ministry. The silence of the law, in some cases, was an admonition to Parliament to pass them over unobserved, unless it were evident that to be silent, would amount to a breach of the duty they owed to their country. But without well-founded apprehensions that an ill use was intended of the prerogatives vested in the crown, they should be left untouched, as necessary for the quiet and good order of the community.

Lord Romney took notice on this occasion, that nineteen years before, when he was a member of the other House, it was not even pretended that to introduce for reign troops into the British dominions, was not contrary to law; the only point then agitated was, how to word the bill of indemnity granted to the ministers who had taken that step, so as to remove all doubt as to the unlawfulness of the measure, in which all men were agreed.

This subject was considered by Lord Grenville, as altogether of an abstract nature, and highly impro

per at prescat for debate. The Hessian troops were in a situation that required them to be landed for the benefit of air and refreshment: this surely was no straining of the prerogative. The crown, it was true, could not, without consulting Parliament, maintain a standing army of natives, much less of foreigners; but in the present case, nothing had been done to throw the least blame on mi

nistry. It was ungenerous to look upon the exercise of the royal prerogative as necessarily attended with abuse. It might sometimes appear inconsistent with liberty; but while under constitutional restrictions, was experimentally found of essential utility. The responsibility of ministers had been held not in a dangerous light: but it answered two equally beneficial ends: they were not only answerable for doing wrong, but also for omit ting to do what was right. In a case like the present, for instance, were they to introduce a foreign force without necessity, or to ne glect their aid when wanted here, they would be alike culpable, Hence it fairly appeared, that to press a bill of indemnity upon mi nisters for what they had done respecting the Hessians, would prevent all future ministers, as well as the present, from resorting to the measure of calling in the assistance of foreigners when it might be most wanted, and while they were also nearest at hand to afford relief. Better therefore to leave a doubtful business undecided, than by circumscribing the motives of ministers, to expose government to a probable failure in its opera tions against the enemies of this country.

In opposition to this reasoning, Lord Guildford was decidedly of opinion, that DO expediency could be alleged against the positive tenor of the law. A strong example had been given in the last century, of the backwardness even of a wicked administration to run counter to the sense of the people, by introducing an army of foreigners into the kingdom. This was the ministry of James II. However violently intent on the accomplishment of his designs, that monarch did not dare to accept of the assistance offered him by his friend and abettor Lewis XIV. of France; and chose rather to incur the risk of not succeeding in his projects, than to offend his people by a measure which he was conscious would lay him open to their universal odium. The bill of indemnity recommended to ministers, shewed how little disposed the nation was to censure them for what they had done; but was no less a proof how unacceptable the principle of empowering the crown to admit a foreign force was to the sense of the nation. Messages from the crown were no justification of ministerial measures. The words of Lord Coke, on a similar occasion, might pertinently be quoted on the present: "the King's message was gracious; but what says the law of the land ?"

Arguments of the same import as those already specified, were urged by other Lords, on each side of the question. But the issue of the debate was, that the bill of indemnity proposed by Lord Albemarle, was negatived by seventy-seven against twelve.

This rejection of a bill which could not have affected the repu

tation of ministers, nor diminished the influence of the crown, was greatly censured by numbers, who wished that government, while engaged in so serious a business as the contest with France, would have laid aside all needless tenaciousness of its authority, and yielded to the ideas of the generality, especially as they extended no farther than to require the genuine principles of the constitution to be acknowledged. It was said, an abridgement of the royal prerogative was undoubtedly in the contemplation of that party which had imbibed the doctrines imported from France among its neighbours; but this party was so greatly outnumbered by those who adhered to the established government, that no danger could have accrued from indulging these reiterated desires, that ministers would refrain from all appearance of haughtiness, obstinacy, and love of power, and trust more than they seemed disposed to do, to the goodwill and readiness of the public to support and carry them through the arduous task of putting a stop to the progress of the ancient enemy of the British nation.

The strength and inveteracy of that formidable enemy were now daily encreasing; and it required the utmost efforts of combined Europe to meet him in the field. The empire of the sea was that object which he strenuously sought, above all others, to compass; certain that if he succeeded, the world itself would be at his command. Fall of this mighty project, his efforts were exerted in every maritime town and province of France, to collect a sufficient number of seamen to man the

fleet