have lost their liberty by employing foreign troops, and recur to those weak, silly arguments which have always been used as the reason for first introducing them? How different is the spirit which prevails now, to that which inspired our ancestors after the Revolution? That the House may judge on this point, I desire the Message from King William, of the 18th of March, 1698, and the Answer of the Commons of England, may be read.

The same was read accordingly.*

Here you find a King, to whom the very Parliament he addressed owed the freedom of their resolves, supplicating, with a degree of eagerness, humility, and affection, that might have melted a Roman father, in behalf of troops who had been active in his service; who had been the companions of all his glory, and all his toils, whose numbers could be no object of jealousy; but those real patriots knew the nature of courtly precedents, and they saw the consequences of this. They refused the common formality of appointing a day to take his Majesty’s message into consideration; they waived those trifling respects, when the Constitution of their country was at stake; they instantly named a committee to draw up an answer, and the House most solemnly and truly declared, as you have heard, “that they could not consent to his Majesty’s request, without doing violence to that Constitution his Majesty came over to preserve.” While I commend this glorious spirit in our forefathers, I hope there is no person who hears me, that can believe it springs from any of those ignoble prejudices, which sometimes prevail against the inhabitants of other countries. Singly and individually, I believe a Frenchman as good as an Englishman, and a Spaniard equal to either, if they are protected by a free Government. All I maintain is, that their misfortune having placed them under despotick Governments, they are more fit to destroy, and not so fit to preserve, the privileges of freemen; that the happy predilection every man feels for his native soil is a principle established by God, and ought to be strictly attended to by statesmen in the formation of armies, and that no intelligent statesman ever despised this natural affection, or would wish to have recourse to foreigners in the wanton degree the instance before us exhibits. It is said, we have plenty of money, but are scarce of men. If money is so plenty, it were well to consider from whence this superabundance comes, before we kill the hen that lays the golden egg. It is strange, in one breath to declare our plenty, and in the nest to plead our poverty, as a reason for altering our ancient system of Colony government, to get money to support us! As to the scarcity of men, I maintain, if any country wants men for its necessary purposes, there are some defects in the system of Government. Every country, under a good Government, will breed up to the numbers wanted, and the means of subsistence. If population falls off, there is some radical defect. I perceive some gentlemen seem to laugh at this doctrine—I laugh at their ignorance. Will any man allege there is no radical defect in our Government, where by impolitick impositions in your revenue laws, one thousand men are annually lost to the kingdom, and four thousand are tempted to work against its interest; three thousand are annually lost in jail, or as fugitives driven abroad by the severity of your laws respecting private debts; one thousand by criminal punishments; one thousand soldiers die annually out of the course of nature, by the manner of shifting our troops from station to station, to pick up the diseases of all climates; some millions are lost, to national defence, by the oppressive laws about religion in Ireland? Is it possible to consider these facts, and assert there is no defect in the Government under which they happen? The introduction of foreigners by bills of naturalization, or stretches of prerogative, to remedy such waste, can only render the disease more incurable. Administration place this war to the account of the dignity of the nation; for they acknowledge no other profit, or advantage, can be reaped from it in the end. But is there any step that can reduce the reputation of this country so low as that of depending on the Electorate of Hanover for the interior govenment of its own subjects? What a confession at the outset in this business, that Great Britain is unequal to the contest! How are the mighty fallen since the peace of 1763! What a spectacle for Europe! Can it be supposed that the force of the empire is really so diminished, or must we impute it to the injustice of the cause, and the madness of our rulers, who, without exterior cause, have rent the empire asunder in so deplorable a degree? So far I have reasoned on the bad policy of this measure, supposing it had been permitted by the law of the Constitution. I shall now consider it upon the spirit, and then upon the letter of the law.

The spirit of the Constitution is fully declared by the Bill of Rights, and annually by the Mutiny Bill: “That the raising, or keeping up a standing army, within the kingdom, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law.” Is there any man so narrowed in his ideas of Government as to think, in a sentence declaratory of the first essential principles of the Constitution, that the words “within the kingdom,” meant merely the territory of England? The Bill of Rights is not an enacting law, but declaratory of the old rights of the subject by the common law: in this case we must look for the principle that governs the rule; wherever this principle extends, the law applies. The principle is plain, that the King may never be able to assemble any military forces for unjustifiable purposes, so as to overawe the Parliament to enact, or the people to acquiesce, in measures which may be destructive of their freedom. Let us try the construction contended for by the friends of Administration by this rule: to what purpose prohibit the King from exercising this power in England, if he can raise or introduce into Ireland or Guernsey, or the Plantations, whatever number of armed men he pleases? The reasoning is so weak and absurd, that I am well informed the first law officer of the kingdom has abandoned it in another assembly; besides, if this doctrine takes place, what security have the people in the Colonies for any of their privileges, if his Majesty can order what number of forces he pleases into the different Colonies without the consent of Parliament? How does this accord with the doctrine of virtual representation? If their members here have no vote in the most material of all other concerns in a free state, the power of the sword, the feeble protection from withholding their pay and subsistence is of little avail: the Elector of Hanover may pay them; men in arms will ever find money for themselves. Nor can there be any reason alleged for resigning this power to the Crown: foreigners never can be employed without leaving sufficient time for calling the Parliament; whenever it is necessary to employ them, the occasion must be so momentous as to demand the advice of the great council of the nation. To allege, as in the present case, that the members of this House would rather submit that the Crown should possess the power of butchering half the inhabitants of the empire, than be disturbed in their diversion of killing a partridge, is the severest satire that could be

* Journals of the House, 18th March, 1698.

The Earl of Ranelagh acquainted the House that he had, in command from his Majesty, a Message to deliver to this House, signed by his Majesty, and all of his own handwriting: which the said Earl delivered in to Mr. Speaker, who read the same to the House, and is as followeth, viz:

“WILLIAM R.

“His Majesty is pleased to let the House know that the necessary preparations are made for transporting the guards, who came with him into England; and that he intends to send them away immediately, unless, out of consideration to him, the Bouse be disposed to find a way for continuing them longer in his service, which his Majesty would take very kindly.”

Upon which, a question being proposed that a day be appointed to consider of his Majesty’s said Message, the question was put, that that question be now put; and it passed in the negative.

20th of MARCH, 1698. The Lord Norris reported from the Committee appointed on Saturday last to draw up an humble Address to be presented to his Majesty, that they had drawn up an Address accordingly, which he read in his place, and afterwards delivered in at the Clerk’s table, where the same was read, and is as followeth:

“MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN: We, your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, do, with unfeigned zeal to your Majesty’s person and Government, (which God long preserve,) most humbly represent:

“That the passage of the late act for disbanding the Army gave great satisfaction to your subjects; and the punctual execution thereof will prevent all occasion of distrust or jealousy between your Majesty and your people.

“It is, sir, to your loyal Commons an unspeakable grief, that anything should be asked by your Majesty’s message to which they cannot consent, without doing violence to that Constitution your Majesty came over to restore and preserve, and did at that time, in your gracious declaration, promise that all those foreign forces which came over with you should be sent back. In duty, therefore, to your Majesty, and to discharge the trust reposed in us, we crave leave to lay before you, that nothing conduceth more to the happiness and welfare of this kingdom than an entire confidence between your Majesty and your people; which can no way be so firmly established as by entrusting your sacred person with your own subjects, who have so eminently signalized themselves on all occasions during the late long and expensive war.”