which, if not quickly healed, may spread a dangerous venom. The sentiments it breathes are full of higher claims of prerogative than any speech that I can remember since the Revolution. It appears to contain slights of this Council, neglect of Parliament, indifference of their approbation. The part I wish to call your Lordships’ attention to is that wherein his Majesty informs the House, “he has taken possession of the garrisons of Gibraltar and Port-Mahon with his Hanoverian forces.” Far be it from me to impute the sentiments of this speech to the respectable mouth that was made to utter it. I am confident his Majesty has too high notions of what is right, too great a love for justice, to wish to invade knowingly the real privileges of this nation. I may go further, my Lords, and even acquit the Ministers of any wicked, premeditated design to infringe the subject’s liberty. I do not think such evil of them; but I cannot so easily acquit them of ignorance of our laws, or indifference or inattention to them.

My Lords, I take it to be an undoubted truth, an axiom in this Government, that the King can maintain no standing forces, other than what are approved by Parliament. But that I may not appear to build on my own reason only, give me leave to quote some acts of Parliament in support of what I have advanced. I must begin by that great declaration of our liberties, the Bill of Rights. This act, my Lords, contains the claim of various indubitable rights from ancient usage, nor asks as favours any part. It is a capitulation with our Kings. The act declares the raising and keeping a standing army within the kingdom, without consent of Parliament, is against law. The next I shall quote is the Mutiny Bill, which sets out in the preamble in the words of the Bill of Rights, but proceeds, “that it is necessary for the safety of the kingdom, the defence of the possessions of the Crown, and the preservation of the balance of Europe, that a certain number of forces should be kept up.” It then limits what the number should be. I am well aware, it may be said the garrisons of Gibraltar and Port-Mahon are not in that number; whence, or for what reason that irregularity arose I am ignorant; but thus far it is cured, that they are annually provided for as to pay and maintenance by Parliament, and therefore must be supposed approved.

My Lords, in the course of the late war, it was thought necessary to raise a regiment of Americans of four thousand men, in which some foreign officers were to serve; but it was not by the King’s prerogative, but by act of Parliament. At that time that great man, Lord Chatham, was Minister. In this act, though passed amidst all the turbulency of a war, flagrante bello, the greatest precautions were taken to guard the people’s rights; the number of foreign officers were limited to fifty, the soldiers were to be naturalized subjects, Protestants, to take the oath of 1 George I, and the Colonel was to be a natural born subject.

I will now bring your Lordship down to an act of later date—of so fresh a time that there are few in this House who were not in that Parliament that passed it; I mean the 8 George III, to increase the Irish Army. This act recites, in the preamble, the Act of 10 William, for disbanding the Irish forces, and then provides that as it may be necessary to keep up, for the defence of Ireland, twelve thousand men, in order to give some assistance to the foreign garrisons, the army should be increased to fifteen thousand two hundred and thirty-five, all natural born subjects. We see here the King calling for assistance of the British Parliament, in order to increase the army in Ireland. He does not, even at the head of the Parliament of that kingdom, think his authority sufficient, without sanction of the Parliament of Great Britain, to make the least addition to his forces. I must likewise take notice, my Lords, that it will be matter of much doubt whether Hanoverian forces, employed at Gibraltar or Minorca will be under any law of war. The Mutiny Act extends but to troops therein specified, or voted by Parliament. What law will they then be under? They cannot carry Hanoverian laws with them. The laws of England alone can govern; as British subjects, they will be under the protection of British laws.

My Lords, the King’s prerogative I conceive to be no greater in one part of his dominions than another; the subject is equally protected by the laws, whether shivering in the highlands of the north, or scorching upon Gibraltar’ s rock. The late determined case of Fabrigas and Mostyn has cleared the subject’s rights. From every instance I have had the honour of submitting to you, and from the constant practice, I must infer that the King has no right to maintain, in any part of the dominions of the British Crown, any troops other than are consented to by Parliament, both as to number and to nation.

I will therefore conclude with moving, “That bringing into any part of the dominions of the Crown of Great Britain the Electoral Troops of his Majesty, or any other foreign troops, without the previous consent of Parliament, is dangerous and unconstitutional.” I must observe that, by unconstitutional, I mean, is against law.

Which being objected to, and a question stated thereupon :

The Earl of Rochford confessed that he was one of his Majesty’s Ministers who advised the measure, against which the vote of censure was now moved; that he was fully satisfied it was perfectly justifiable, and was ready to abide the consequences. That however far the professions of any noble Lord might go, he would yield to none in a warm and steady attachment to the Constitution, to the very bill now so justly extolled, the Bill of Rights, that great foundation of our liberties; but saying this, he could not perceive that, in the most remote degree, that law could be construed to reach the measure now so peremptorily condemned. For his part, he was unable to see how it offended against the law, either in letter or spirit. The clause plainly importing two conditions: bringing troops “within the kingdom,” and “in time of peace;” whereas it was evident to the clearest demonstration, that the troops in question were not within the kingdom; nor would any Lord venture to affirm that we were now debating in a time of peace and tranquillity. Those were the motives which induced him to concur in the measure; nor had he heard a syllable urged against the propriety of it, since it became a matter of publick discussion, sufficient to alter the opinion he at first conceived. But having learned that a noble Lord in the other House, [Lord North,] who was governed by the same reasons, finding that they did not strike several gentlemen in the same light, was now probably moving a Bill of Indemnity, for the purpose of dispelling all apprehensions; and as that would of course meet the ideas of the noble Lords on the other side, he must be under the necessity of moving the previous question. He knew how unfavourable to the full debate and discussion of questions of importance this mode of proceeding was deemed; yet, he believed, when the motives he now alleged were attended to with candour, he should appear fully justified in the opinion of every part of the House. His Lordship resorted to a variety of other arguments in defence of the measure, particularly on the ground of expediency, and the urgent necessity there was for adopting it, in order that the troops which the Hanoverians were intended to replace might return to this kingdom, so as to forward the necessary embarcations for America early in the spring. He observed that the fears suggested by the noble Duke were ill founded; for still there would be a considerable force, composed of British troops, remaining in the garrisons; in the proportion at least of fourteen hundred to one thousand in one fortress, and six hundred to nine hundred in the other. In short, his Lordship defended the measure, on its being legal, constitutional, and expedient.

Earl Talbot spoke against the propriety of the Act of Indemnity, alluded to by the last noble Lord. He had never heard it so much as asserted, that an act of indemnity answered any other purpose than to secure the advisers of measures against private actions, arising from damages sustained by personal contracts. Such were the cases relative to the importation of hides, and stopping the ports in 1766, to prevent the exportation of corn. As to the law declaring those rights, so warmly contended for by the noble Duke, it could not admit of a ground for an impeachment, because that law stated nothing as describing any particular species of offence, and consequently annexed no punishment. In his opinion, therefore, a Bill of Indemnity could not apply, because the measure, if at all illegal, which he was convinced it was not, called for no protection against either impeachment or private actions.

The Duke of Grafton began with expressing his astonishment that any Lord in that House, any real friend to his country, any man who loved the Constitution he was born under, could employ his time in commenting on the letter, and explaining away the spirit of that great bulwark of the