Constitution, the Bill of Rights; that law which, as it were, circumscribed within it the laws and liberties of the people of England. He should not, he said, enter into the quibbles or distinctions of Westminster-Hall, or weigh each word and sentence to see what was its distinct, legal, or grammatical import. No; he should appeal to the spirit, the intention, of that new Magna Charta, that claim of old rights newly ascertained, the manifest purpose for which it was framed, the co-existing circumstances that gave it being on the part of an oppressed people; should look upon it in the light of a solemn contract entered into between the people and their newly elected Sovereign; a compact meant to be binding on their respective posterity and successors. Whenever that sacred palladium was taken away, at that instant he would be bold to affirm, the laws, Constitution, and liberties of England would be annihilated.

His Grace next proceeded to recount the particular circumstances, previous to the Revolution, which made such a declaration necessary at that period; and adduced several cogent arguments to show that James II, had he been politick enough to accede to such a declaration, might, with less noise and infinitely more safety, have effected his purposes, than he could have done by any other means; for, had the letter of the law been stretched in one instance, the spirit explained away in another, the business would have been executed without risk or danger. The arguments urged by the Lords on the other side, if pushed to their full extent, would go much farther than, perhaps, they chose at present to avow. Certainly, if “within the kingdom” did not comprehend the possessions of England, foreign troops to any number, and on any occasion, might be legally introduced into Scotland; for the argument went fairly to this. Scotland being not within the kingdom at the time the Bill of Rights was passed, foreign troops may be introduced and kept on foot there, without consent of Parliament. His Grace remarked, that such opinions being entertained by great numbers in both Houses of Parliament, was not what sunk so deeply into his mind; but when he heard a noble Lord, high in office, [Lord Rochford,] one of his Majesty’s Secretaries of State, one of his confidential servants, high in his favour, and having the ear of his Sovereign, avow such sentiments, he confessed he was struck with astonishment and grief, lest such dangerous doctrines may have made an impression on the best of minds, unfavourable to the liberties and peace of his subjects; yet, in the midst of his anxiety on this account, he was rejoiced to hear from his Lordship that the noble Lord in the other House, and his brethren in this, meant to bring in and support a bill for the purpose of removing the apprehensions and dispelling the jealousies produced by so unpopular and unconstitutional a measure. If this was to be the case, he would, for his part, accept of it, and would wish to postpone the motion before their Lordships, though he must still continue to feel for the great interests of the nation, while on so critical and tremendous an occasion, at the very eve of a contest, which, in all probability, must forever decide on the glory, honour, interest, external greatness, and internal happiness and prosperity. The persons to whom his Majesty was pleased to commit the government of his kingdoms had observed a most criminal silence respecting their great line of conduct in the future progress of this very weighty and important business.

His Grace likewise remarked, in answer to something which dropped from the two noble Lords who opposed the motion relative to the legality of augmenting the standing forces in any part of the British dominions out pf this kingdom, that, when he had the honour to preside at the Treasury, and to be one of his Majesty’s advisers in the year 1768, on the augmentation of the troops on the Irish establishment, from twelve to fifteen thousand men, he applied to the first law officer of the Crown at that time, whether the measure would be justifiable in point of legality, as it was repugnant to the Disbanding Act of William III, which provided that the standing military force in England should not exceed seven thousand men, nor in Ireland twelve thousand, in time of peace; but that able man gave his opinion, that the proposed augmentation of the Irish troops would require an act of Parliament for its aid. If such was the caution of the Ministers of that day, if such was the opinion of the first law officer, what shall we say to the present, where, I will venture to maintain, every sanction or apology is wanting?

His Grace wished, before he sat down, to know from the Ministers, whether the first law officer of the Crown, for whose abilities and integrity he entertained the highest opinion, had been previously consulted?

The Earl of Rochford denied that he gave any assurance that the noble Lord in the other House would move a Bill of Indemnity; or, that he and his brethren in office would support it in this, if he did. All he meant was, that probably the noble Lord who presides at the Treasury Board might, to quiet the ill-founded fears of the country gentlemen, move some proposition, or perhaps the Bill of Indemnity itself; but whatever measures those fears might give birth to, he would now, as he had done before, put in his claim to be understood, that he did not think there was anything illegal or unconstitutional in bringing the Hanoverian troops into the fortresses of Gibraltar and Port-Mahon, under the circumstances which suggested the measure. He was at a loss to know what the noble Duke meant by the charge of “criminal silence,” made on him and the rest of the noble Lords to whom his Majesty had committed the immediate conduct of publick affairs. Surely his Grace did not intend that they should come to that House and lay before it all their private information, produce a list of the names of those who gave it, and enter into a detail of every step intended to be taken, and every operation meant to be carried into execution, should America persist to the fatal extremity of compelling this country ultimately to have recourse to coercive measures. This, his Lordship observed, would indeed be as great an act of folly and absurdity as any attributed to them by their adversaries, throughout the whole of their Ministerial arrangements.

Lord Lyttelton rose, to support the sense the noble Duke put upon the noble Earl’s words. He said, it was in his recollection (he was sure it was in the recollection of every noble Lord in that House) that the reason, or rather the apology the noble Earl in office made to that House for putting the previous question on a motion of such singular importance, was, that a noble Lord, high in office, in the other House, intended this day to make a motion for leave to bring in a Bill of Indemnity, in order to obviate and remove the apprehensions of the country gentlemen. If, then, the noble Earl meant to retract or explain away his words, he would be bold to say, that the present motion would meet with much stronger support than his Lordship was aware of; on the other hand, if the noble Lords in office would speak out, and pledge themselves that such a quieting measure was meant to be carried into execution, for his part, he was one that would, on the present very critical occasion, prefer a Bill of Indemnity to a vote of censure on the advisers of the measure. The arguments urged by the noble Earl who moved the previous question, and by the other noble Earl who supported him in opinion, afforded matter of equal surprise and alarm. Their Lordships say, the only security the people of England have against being governed by a standing army, is the Bill of Rights: that the Bill of Rights only applies in such instances, and to such particular purposes. What, then, said his Lordship, is the glorious Revolution, the only sure foundation of all our liberties, the Bill of Rights, the compact entered into between the contracting parties at that glorious period, as well as the acknowledged sense in which this modern Magna Charter has been received for nearly a century, to be at once done away by distinctions, divisions, and explanations, directly repugnant to the intentions of its original framers, to the spirit, to the letter, nay, to both the legal and constitutional construction? I was willing to make every reasonable allowance; to grant something for expediency, more for necessity; in short, I was willing to accede to the propriety of anything, or everything, which might be urged in justification of the measure; but that it was legal, or constitutional, is a proposition I can never assent to; that is a doctrine, which, as an Englishman, I will never endure. Though a young man, I am old enough to remember the conduct of a great Minister, a steady friend to his country—I mean that of the Earl of Chatham—upon a similar occasion. His Lordship ventured to call it a similar occasion; yet he believed no noble Lord in the House, however sanguine for the present system of measures, would assert that the present urgency came up to the one he was going to mention. It was in the very heat of the war, when we required the men necessary to recruit our navy and army on an average from fifteen