was against them—was tacitly deserted—when Ministers and their avowed supporters were obliged to have recourse to such flimsy aids, of keeping up a conversation when the point in debate had been virtually, nay, actually deserted, His Grace observed, that several noble Lords had taken it for granted that hiring foreigners was frequently practised since the Revolution; nay, sometimes they had been brought into the kingdom without the previous consent of Parliament. How far this general assertion might apply, he would not pretend to determine; but this he would venture to assert, that foreigners were never, upon any pretence, brought into this kingdom without the consent of Parliament, either by treaty or address. It has been said, early in the debate, that the Hessians had been brought over in 1745, without any previous Parliamentary communication; but nothing could be more erroneous; for though they were not called over by an express act of Parliament, either then or in 1756, both Houses consented to it by an address to the Throne, in one instance; and where that sanction was wanting, by some existing treaty ratified by Parliament. As to taking foreign troops into British pay, and afterwards prevailing on Parliament to ratify such engagements, that did not come up to the present point. But even allowing that to be the case, some of the noble Lords, and many of the descendants of others of them, differed widely upon the subject in the year 1742, when a body of Hanoverians was taken into British pay, and afterwards the Minister came to Parliament to make good the engagement. On that occasion there was a very remarkable and spirited protest entered on the journals.

[Here his Grace, after reading part of the Protest, read several of the names; among which were those of the Keeper of the Privy Seal, Talbot, and several others.]

His Grace went fully into the question, and closed his observations with this argument: The noble Lords on the other side insist that it is competent to the King to raise and keep an army in time of war or rebellion, in any part of his dominions, previous to the consent of Parliament; that the paragraph in the Bill of Rights makes no distinction between an army of natives and foreigners; and that there is at present a rebellion in America. Now, I will draw my conclusion as an inevitable consequence from these premises: that the King of Great Britain may now, or at any future time, introduce into this kingdom directly, either in time of war, or when there is a rebellion in any part of this vast empire, any number of foreign mercenaries he pleases, without consent of Parliament.

Lord-Chancellor Bathurst, deserting what he called the quibbles of Westminster-Hall, and the subtle distinctions of lawyers, allowed that the fortresses of Gibraltar and Port-Mahon were fairly within the spirit and meaning of the paragraph of the Act of Settlement; and that in the same sense, too, he understood it applied to foreigners; but to neither in the manner now contended for by the noble Lord who supported the motion; for if those fortresses came within the description of “within the kingdom,” so did America—consequently, America being now in rebellion, the operation of the Bill of Rights law must cease till peace be restored; and, on that ground, the measure of sending the Hanoverian troops to Gibraltar and Minorca was perfectly justifiable. His Lordship declared that, with the rest of the Cabinet Ministers, he had assisted in advising the measure.

Earl Gower made the same declaration, and entered into the consideration of American affairs. He said it was strongly insisted on the other side that we should never be able to coerce America. He was sure we should: that was a fair argument. The noble Duke who spoke last but one, had read a long list of names, supposing that the sons and descendants of the noble Lords who signed that protest ought to inherit the same political sentiments with their titles and fortunes; but he perceived the noble Duke’s father’s name was not among the protestors, and that his principles, of course, were very different from his son’s: and that was another fair argument. His Lordship defended the whole of the measures ingrafted on the King’s Speech.

The Earl of Shelburne (Lord Wycombe) said: The Bill of Rights is declaratory. It supposes a law which can be found in no written book or statute whatever. It can only be looked for by recurring to its principle. The only principle that can be suggested is, the danger to be apprehended by keeping a standing force without the consent of Parliament. To do this within the limits of the kingdom, and in time of peace, is more dangerous, and carries with it less colour of necessity. To do the same in Ireland, Gibraltar, or any of the dependencies of the kingdom, may be less dangerous; but will any man say there is no danger? If there be danger, the difference of the degree can make no change in the principle, nor in the law founded on it. It may be asked, why was it not declared in this extent in the Bill of Rights? The letter of the law and the history of it give the answer. The Parliament was satisfied that King James had raised or kept a force within the kingdom in time of peace; and their declaration of the law was naturally commensurate to his violation of it. It must be a strange interpretation of that declaration, to infer from it that a conduct on the part of the Crown, which, under such aggravating circumstances, was highly dangerous as well as illegal, could, in a case where the danger differs only in the degree, be perfectly legal and innocent.

The previous question was then put, “Whether the said question shall be now put?”

It was resolved in the negative: Contents, 31; Proxy, 1. Non-contents, 53; Proxies, 22.

Ordered, That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to desire “that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to give orders that there be laid before this House a copy of a Paper intituled ‘A Petition of the Congress of several Provinces in North-America to his Majesty,’ presented to the Earl of Dartmouth in December last.”

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, November 1,1775.

Lord Barrington laid before the House the Army Estimates,

Colonel Barré desired to know the number, state and disposition of the troops in America, according to the last returns.

Lord Barrington could not satisfy the honourable 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.

Colonel 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 the 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 wants, I can give it partly on my legs, in which way it will not be a precedent; and if I am not so correct, from the papers which I have accidentally about me, as might be expected, against to-morrow I will procure those which shall be more accurate.

Colonel Barré. The noble Lord gives me the strongest ground that the thing I demand will be of no evil consequence. Without entering into the matter of precedent, why not give the House an information which can do no harm, but may do much good? In these matters accuracy is to be wished for; and I see no reason, if the noble Lord lets us into the facts in general, why he should refuse the return itself, which is asked for in the motion. 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 publick debt. The information should be general. The Ministers and officers 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