pronounced upon us. It may be true of the majority. But in that case I ask, if there can be so strong a proof of a declining empire? I ask, if such dispositions prevail, if the people of America have not just grounds of jealousy against submitting the protection of their dearest rights to such guardians? I maintain there was full and sufficient time, without retarding the measures, to call the Parliament; the transports, with the Hanoverians, are not even yet sailed from Stade. The manner of mentioning the fact in the King’s Speech (more as a piece of news than as a measure on which we could deliberate) sufficiently shows that the prerogative of sending foreign troops to every part of his Majesty’s dominions beyond the kingdom of Great Britain, is claimed by his Majesty’s Ministers as an undoubted power in the Crown. And though the Bill of Indemnity now introduced shows they are under much difficulty in maintaining this doctrine by argument, yet every man of sense must see this business is merely to amuse the country gentlemen, that they might retire with decency on this day; for I defy them, under all the shifts of Parliamentary doublings, to negative this motion, consistent with their former principles.

Another objection to this measure occurs very strongly to me. His Majesty has declared, that any treaty which may be made for the employment of foreign assistance, shall be laid before the House. Now I maintain, some treaty for mutual contract (which is here the same thing) must have been made with the Elector of Hanover, and registered in his council, for the employing those troops. They are corps as distinct from the troops of this country as the Russians. His Majesty and the Elector of Hanover are, in their political capacity, as distinct as the Empress and the King of Great Britain. Does any one suppose so perfect a despotism prevails in Hanover, that the Elector has ordered the troops of that State without some formal capitulation? If there has been a capitulation, we have a right to see it. The Ministers have engaged his Majesty’s word, that every treaty for that purpose shall be laid on the table, and in case it is withheld, or denied, they are responsible for the breach of so sacred a declaration. But after sporting with the Royal proclamation, under all the seals and solemnities of the State, in the Quebeck Bill; after despising charters of Government granted by his Majesty’s predecessors, and acquiesced under for hundreds of years, as the proper executive form of binding the nation, I am not surprised they mock and ridicule a speech to Parliament of their own drawing.

I come now to consider the letter of the law. The Act of Settlement, 12 William III, c. 2, enacts, “that no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereto belonging, (although he be naturalized, or made a denizen,) except such as are born of English parents, shall be capable to enjoy any office or place of trust, civil or military.” Now, I ask if possession of the fortress of Gibraltar or Port-Mahon is not a great military trust? I ask if the King could commit this trust to the officers of Spain or France? I desire to know where the distinction in point of law is to be found, which renders it more legal to commit those great national bulwarks to Hanoverians than Spaniards? The Ministry, under the Duke of Newcastle, by advice of the late Duke of Cumberland, had made the same mistake as to the prerogative of the Crown in a capitulation they had made with Colonel, now General Prevost, for employing foreigners in America, without the previous consent of Parliament. I heard Mr. Pitt, in his place, tell the then Ministers, if they should dare to employ such troops, he should consider the Act of Settlement as broken, and that he would impeach the advisers of such illegal measures; this was at the commencement of a war with France, yet no apprehension of danger could induce that great man to yield any constitutional point to the expediency of the moment, which might establish a precedent that might ruin his country. These Ministers, though in possession of full as great a majority as generally follow the voice of the noble Lord in my eye, were too wise to persevere. They brought in the Act of the 29 Geo. II, c. 5, to enable his Majesty to grant commissions to foreign Protestants in America, only with the several limitations in the bill, which every officer knows. If his Majesty had possessed the power of employing foreign troops, where was the necessity of such a bill? The distinction that is taken by the noble Lord in the War Department, is trifling to the last degree. He says the difference is obvious, because in the one case they hold commissions from the King; in the other from the Elector of Hanover. Are they less to be feared because they do not hold their commissions from the State? Are they not equally under the order of his Majesty, when they enter his dominions? The law does not say they shall not hold any commissions, but any office, “or place of trust,” civil or military. Our ancestors did not guard against the shadow, and submit to the pressure of the substance. What further confirms me in this opinion is, the words of the Mutiny Bill. It declares, as a principle in the Constitution, “that no man can be forejudged of life or limb, or suffer any punishment, but by the judgment of his peers.” It makes the exception as to the army to be employed under that bill. Gibraltar and Minorca are expressly mentioned as places within the purview of the act. Every one is now convinced, from the case of Fabrigas, after all the chicane to avoid the decision, that subjects in Gibraltar or Minorca are equally liable to the protection of the common law against oppressions, as in other parts of his Majesty’s dominions. The Mutiny Act declares, as the only authority under which Courts-Martial can be held, “That his Majesty may grant his warrant to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, or other chief Governour or Governours there for the time being, or the Governour or Governours of Minorca, Gibraltar, and any of his Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas respectively, or the person or persons there commanding, in chief, his Majesty’s forces, from time to time, to appoint Courts-Martial in the kingdom of Ireland, and other places and dominions respectively: in which Courts-Martial, all the offences above-mentioned, and all other offences hereinafter specified, shall be tried and proceeded against in such manner as by this act shall be hereafter directed.” The subsequent part of the act declares, “That every member, assisting at such trial, before any proceedings can be had thereupon, shall swear that he will administer justice according to the rules and articles for the better government of his Majesty’s forces, and according to the act of Parliament now in force for the punishment of mutiny and desertion, and other crimes therein mentioned.” All these regulations it is impossible for any Hanoverian officer to comply with. Men who will not carry their ideas on the spot; who will not attend to the precision of criminal proceedings by the English law, which leaves nothing to discretion, find no difficulty in anything. “Do the best you can,” solves every difficulty, and forms every instruction from them. But to men of more accurate discernment, I will ask a few questions: Can any Court-Martial be held in Minorca, or Gibraltar, without warrant from the Governour? Can his warrant order any Court-Martial, otherwise than as described by the Mutiny Bill? Can German officers, without knowing our language, swear they will administer justice according to a law they do not understand? In case the sentence is death, who is to approve such sentence, or who is to sign the warrant to execute? If it is alleged the Hanoverians carry their own military law with them into our dominions, I shall put a case: Suppose a Hanoverian, punished by Hanoverian law in Minorca, should bring his action for damages against the Governour, or, in case of punishment by death, an indictment is found, would such a plea in justification, that it was done according to the law of Hanover, be allowed? I maintain that it would not. I assert the moment any man enters into the dominions of the Crown of Britain, he owes a local allegiance, and is liable to the punishments and the protection of the laws of this realm only, and that no foreign potentate hath, or can exercise, any jurisdiction, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, within the same. If these positions are true, I demand, then, under what law are the Hanoveri-ans to be tried? If they can neither be tried by our martial law, or their own, I ask, in what state of security are those garrisons left, when entrusted to men under no regular martial discipline? All these things prove not only the necessity of the previous consent of Parliament, before foreign troops can be introduced into the King’s dominions, but the necessity of an act of Parliament to accommodate the law to their situation. Some men, from approving the measure, may think this opposition springs from captious motives: I think I have said enough, and quoted respectable authority sufficient, to vindicate the movers from such