man could be put to death in the dominions of this country by any other authority than the Mutiny Act, or the law of the land. He put it to the crown lawyers, to say, by what law disputes arising between the British troops, or inhabitants, and the Hanoverians, were to be decided.

cellor; that this clause of the Bill of Rights, by the spirit and fair construction of it, applied to all the dominions of the crown. That this construction was confirmed by the Mutiny Act; which after reciting the very words of the Bill of Rights, goes on to say, that it is necessary that a body of forces should be kept up for the safety of the kingdom, and for the defence of the possessions of the crown of Great-Britain, &c. From whence he inferred, that it was the opinion of the legislature, that forces could not be kept up for any of these purposes, without consent of parliament. That it was no answer, to say that, in fact, the number of troops mentioned in that Act, are only those kept up in Great Britain, exclusive of those employed in the garrisons abroad; because estimates were every year laid before parliament, and supplies granted for the express purpose of supporting the troops kept in those garrisons, as well as in Great Britain, and therefore the one had the consent of parliament as well as the other.

He argued further, that the employing foreign officers was unlawful, from the Act of Settlement, by which no person born out of the dominions of Great Britain, though naturalized, could enjoy any office or place of trust civil or military. And that the command of a body of troops at Gibraltar or Minorca, was certainly an office or place of military trust. That this extended not only to the kingdom of Great Britain but to all its dominions, he said, was still further confirmed by the Act of 29 Geo. 2, c. 5, by which the king was enabled to grant military commissions to foreign Protestants in America, which would have been altogether unnecessary, if the king by his own authority could have employed foreigners in any part of his dominions. And he pointed out to the attention of the House, the precautions taken in that Act, by limiting the number of such foreign officers, obliging them to take the oaths, and declaring that the colonel should be a natural born subject; none of which were or could be taken in the present instance of the Hanoverian troops, without the authority of parliament. After enlarging upon these topics, he stated to the House the doubts and difficulties that must arise, by what law those foreign troops should be governed, or their discipline maintained. For notwithstanding all that had been said of their own martial law, he insisted that no [VOL. XVIII.]

He contended, that the proposition contained in the motion, was not only strictly warranted by the principles of law and the constitution, but that it was highly neces sary that the House should come to such a declaration, to avert the danger arising from the precedent; more especially after the approbation expressed in their Address. It had, indeed, been alledged, that the approbation went no further than the gracious motives which had induced his Majesty to the measure in question. That he had always looked upon this distinction as illusory and absurd; but at all events the only way to demonstrate that the approbation went only to the motives and not to the measure itself, was to come to the resolution now proposed.

He concluded with saying, that the experience of all nations evinced the extreme danger of calling in the assistance of foreign troops; and that the Saxons, who had been called into this island to support the British government, had themselves most effectually conquered and overturned it. But of all foreign troops, said he, the most dangerous are those who are the subjects of the king and not of the crown and parliament. Should any future prince of the illustrious house that now sits upon the throne, perfectly unlike his present Majesty, assisted by ministers not very unlike the advisers of this measure; should, I say, such a prince, deluded by such advisers, entertain the mad and nefarious design of overturning the constitution of this country; of destroying that liberty which was the glory and strength of his government, and reducing his kingdom to the same abject state with those of most of his neighbours, what means could be so proper to effectuate so wicked a purpose, as filling all parts of our dominions beyond sea, with foreign mercenaries, and putting our strongest garrisons, and half our empire, into the hands of officers and soldiers, the devoted subjects of the king, but totally independent on the crown or parliament of the kingdom?

Mr. Hans Stanley explained that foreign soldiers serving in England were under the laws of England: and in respect of the expediency of the measure relative to the [ 3 H]

want of men, he observed, that we had more men than the king of Prussia, who kept 200,000 men on foot, and as many as the House of Austria; but as our men were employed in arts and manufactures, it was more expedient to take foreign troops into our pay, which had been the uniform practice of the kingdom, from the battle of Newcastle upon Tyne to this day: of which very many instances were to be met with in Rymer and Froisard.

Mr. Gordon asserted, that the measure was illegal; that a recruiting serjeant could not enlist a single foreigner, much less could you march five battalions to Gibraltar; but condemned the motion, for being an abstract proposition, without any connected question, it might carry too severe a censure upon an Act, which he was convinced was well meant, and very expedient; he trusted, that its illegality might be established by an alteration in the preamble of the Bill of Indemnity; and therefore moved the previous question.

The Solicitor General stated to the House the different periods of time when, and the occasions for which, foreign troops had been introduced into this kingdom without the consent of parliament; observing that there were so many precedents for such a practice, that he wondered any objections should now be so seriously started against it. He embraced a variety of circumstances and arguments against the motion and in favour of the previous question. Having established the legality of the measure, he went to the propriety of it, and took occasion to remark, that if the militia laws were duly enforced, enlarged and extended, there would never more be any occasion for them to debate on questions concerning foreign troops, as such would be totally unnecessary.

Mr. Burke observed, that one hon. gen. tleman was against the motion, because it was not an abstract proposition; another was against it, because it was an abstract proposition. He said, it was not kind of Mr. Gordon to fight opposition with a weapon which he knew they could not make use of. He observed, that the hon. member knew the measure was illegal, yet he would vote in favour of it. Now, said Mr. Burke, if I, or any of the gentlemen on this side of the House, were to argue in this manner, it would cause a horse-laugh in the House. This is not an argument à fortiori, but à majori: it is the argument of a majority. He said she learned gentleman who spoke last had

ransacked history, statutes and journals, and had taken a very large journey, through which he did not wish to follow him, but he was always glad to meet him at his return home. Let us, said he, strip off all this learned foliage from his argument; let us unswathe this Egyptian corpse, and strip it of its salt, gum and mummy, and see what sort of a dry skeleton is underneath-nothing but a single point of law! The gentleman asserts that nothing but a Bill can declare the consent of parliament, not an address, not a resolution of the House; yet he thinks a resolution of the House would in this case be better than a Bill of Indemnity: so that we find a bill is nothing, an address is nothing, a resolution is nothing, nay I fear our liberty is nothing, and that, ere long, our rights, freedom, and spirit, nay the House itself will vanish, in a previous question.

Lord North desired to know whence the proofs and authorities of a point of law could be better drawn than from history, statutes, and journals; he did not think it was from wit, or flowers of eloquence, that they should be deduced. He admired the hon. gentleman's method of proving a resolution to be, nothing; an address, nothing; a Bill, nothing; and by the same mode of reasoning he was inclined, he said, to conclude, that a long witty speech was-nothing.

General Conway was very sorry to see such learned gentlemen as Mr. Serjeant Adair and the Solicitor General differ so widely on so important a point. He said, that for his part he did not understand the laws to a practical nicety; but his expe rience in that House had given him so much knowledge of the constitution, that he felt the measure illegal and dangerous. He could not conceive with what propriety a Bill of Indemnity could be proposed for a measure that was legal; the ideas of criminality and indemnity were, he asserted, inseparable. He condemned the conduct of those who advised his Majesty to bring foreigners into this king. dom, without the consent of parliament, but said he would vote for the previous question, because the motion was too general, and passed a censure on a measure, which so far as his Majesty was concern. ed, he was sure proceeded from the best motives.

Sir William Lemon approved of the American measures, but such was his dis approbation of the paragraph in his Ma

The previous question being put, that the main question be now put; the House divided. The Noes went forth.

Lord Barrington could not satisfy the hon. gentleman; but before Monday he would consult some papers which would enable him to answer as much of those particulars as was prudent to be disclosed.

Col. Barré. What the noble lord has now said is in the true spirit of the administration. Give information they will not; but they will call upon parliament to vote fresh troops, without letting parliament know the least of what they ought to know concerning those which are already employed. I shall therefore move, "That there be laid before the House an account of the last returns of the number of effective men, in the several regiments and corps in his Majesty's service, serving in North America, together with a state of the number of sick and wounded; distinguishing the several places where the said troops are stationed."

Lord Barrington. Ever since I have been concerned in the army, I know of no precedent similar to what is now called for. To call during a war, for the return of an army, has indeed been attempted, but was always opposed, as a practice which might prove exceedingly inconvenient. In the present case, I do not know that any evils would flow from it, but if done by a resolution of the House, it will become a most dangerous precedent. As to the information which the gentleman

Colonel Barré. Without entering into the matter of precedent, why not give the House an information which can do no harm, and may do much good? In these matters accuracy is to be wished for. As to telling the facts to me, I want not to have a private curiosity gratified: I want not to be paid in private a public debt. The information should be general. The ministers of the crown have admitted that they were deceived-they have deceived parliament; which would not have been the case, had information been laid before us: my motion demands only information, that before we vote more troops we may know something concerning those we have already. Let us know to what extent future estimates are to go, that when we have voted one number, supposing it to be the total, there may not be after demands. The House must proceed in the dark, as we have hitherto done, if we are not informed what the state of the army in Boston is, and what the distribution is to be. The information I have had, which is that of the public, is only that of the troops being besieged; a light-house burnt under the nose of the fleet, and the men sent to repair it carried off by the enemy. Let us know the truth, and we shall then be able to proceed with our eyes open.

Lord Barrington. The last return is that of July 19th, which was received here the 25th October. By this it appears that the number of men in Boston, exclusive of three regiments going over to join them, was 8,550, of which 1,482 were sick and wounded, and 354 missing, of which

Mr. Welbore Ellis. I submit it to the noble lord, whether it would not be also for the information of the House, to lay before us these particulars of the rebel army?

Colonel Barré. I give the right hon. gentleman credit for what he says; lay before the House the number and strength of the provincial troops, that we may know whether you can fight them, that we may judge of your demands, and know if the troops you ask will be as competent to the service they are to perform as were those of last year. He expressed his surprise

that government had no returns of the army later than the 19th July.

Mr. T. Townshend. On the point of precedent, I can give the noble lord one, fully in point. I moved for the return of the regiments employed in the affair of St. Vincent's, and it was laid before the House.*

Mr. Fox. It is evident from what has passed, that the plea of acting contrary to precedent will not avail the noble lord. What therefore is the true reason for the ministers refusing to lay the information called for before the House? Merely, I assert, to keep parliament in ignorance. Was the fair truth to be laid before the House, the demands of ministers would be inconsistent with the facts they produced. This was the case last session, and they have kept back all information, and imposed on the House in order to get the cry of the people before the extent of the evil was known. But they have taken care, to a degree of affectation, to inform you that it is the rights not of the crown but of parliament, for which they are fighting, and yet with an inconsistency worthy only of themselves, they will not allow parliament the least information to know how to fight for those rights which they say are peculiarly its own. This is the conduct, Sir, which has driven from them some of the most manly and respectable characters in the kingdom. They were deceived; they openly tell these men who call themselves ministers, You deceived us; you would not let us know the state either of America, or the force you had there to quell the disturbances; acting thus in the dark, we were led into error, but we will not persist in it; we know your intentional deceit, and we leave you.' This, Sir, is also the case of parliament; and the only remedy is for parliament to imitate the conduct of those manly characters, by refusing to vote away the money of their constituents for measures about which they are absolutely in the dark.

Sir Gilbert Elliot. Whether or not the precedent be for or against the information, I shall be equally against the motion. It would make a precedent of the most mischievous tendency. What is the return of an army? Why, every particular concerning it given with the utmost accuracy, and perfectly authentic. Can it ever be proper to publish such a statement,

* See Vol. 17, p. 568.

while your enemy is in the field? Would it not be giving him intelligence of the most advantageous nature? Could any ministers carry on the business of the public, if any gentleman in this House had a right to call for such an account? It would be impossible. If ministers act badly they should be turned out of their places: but the public service can never be advanced by calling for accounts which destroy your confidence in them.

Mr. Burke. So, Sir, it is now laid down as a maxim not only to refuse the information, but to take care that such information shall never be givenand this is to be the case, because parliament, instead of calling for information, should give confidence to ministers. This, Sir, is not only telling us that we must bear our ignorance, but perpetuating it; and making a minister's having forfeited a right to all confidence, the greatest plea for placing the more in him for the future. This is a mode of reasoning I never heard of before. As to the importance of the information now called for, and the danger of producing it, makes one smile. Can you imagine that this army return of July last, can be conveyed to America and become better intelligence than general Washington has already? I will not have so poor an opi nion of his abilities, who could write that excellent letter, we have all read, to general Gage; but suppose him, and the generals Lee and Putnam, to be more assi duous and attentive. These men know much more of your army than your return can give them. They coop it up, besiege it, destroy it, crush it. Your officers are swept off by the rifles, if they show their noses.

Lord North wished as ardently as any person to stop the effusion of blood on both sides; but thought it could only be effected by sending over a formidable army early in the spring, and appointing proper persons on the spot to give pardons, as mentioned in the Speech. He was against the motion, as it would ground a precedent for future abuses: the case of the Caribbs was very different from the present: in that the minister was accused of sending too many men to an unwholesome climate; and, besides, there was no great danger of the Caribbs reading our accounts.

Colonel Barré observed, that the conduct of the minister in withholding proper information, put him in mind of a king,