reproach. Numbers in this House, conceiving themselves happy under various lucrative employments and bounties from the Crown, do not perceive the progressive steps the prerogative is making. Besides the daily increase of influence by additional places and pensions, when I consider the weight thrown into that preponderating scale by the Royal Marriage Bill; the violent attempt to raise money on the subject by proclamation, in the case of the 4½ per cent. which was at last condemned in the courts of law, notwithstanding every obstruction that could be devised; the great, inordinate and iniquitous power given to the Crown by a violation of all the rights of the members of the East-India Company; the further breaches in the old form of Government, by the unusual powers yielded to his Majesty by the Quebeck Act and Boston Port Bill; I say, when I consider these strides, since the short period of his Majesty’s accession; the great increase of our peace establishment in the fleet and army, I cannot help expressing the alarms I feel, that a despotick Government is actually intended; that the proceedings in America are only the forerunner of what is preparing for ourselves at home; and that nothing can ensure the success of those schemes so effectually, as establishing the principle which is now contended for, that the King may overawe us “with foreign troops, if we are not disposed to receive the chains that his Ministers are forging for us.

Before I sit down, I beg leave to say a word or two on the subject of the different addresses to the Crown, which have been so often mentioned in this House, and given to the publick with such affected parade in the Gazette, even descending to the meanest Scotch Burgh, while petitions from the first Counties in England have been denied that honour; making the Gazette, which should be a paper of authentick intelligence, a vehicle of false information, more shameless than that of Bruxelles during the last war. First, it is asserted, to inflame the nation, that the Provincials had exercised great cruelties, and had scalped our soldiers. This I assert to be a notorious falsehood; that one man who was killed was afterwards scalped at Concord, I believe to be true; but the treatment given to the King’s troops in general, who were then made prisoners, was humane and generous. Another false fact, asserted in the Gazette, was, that Mr. Sayer had been taken up for high-treason. The story of a scheme to seize his Majesty’s person when going to the Parliament House, was circulated with the utmost industry; but when the warrant was produced before a Judge, not remarkable for leaning to the cause of liberty, it appeared the commitment was for treasonable practices; and the whole story appeared so futile and ridiculous, that this Magistrate showed his utmost contempt of the whole proceeding. Yet these truths never reach the country: men read of the cruelty of the Americans abroad, and the indignant treason of their abetters at home; what good subject, under such belief, would not offer his life and fortune in defence of his Majesty’s person? If I could have believed any design against his Majesty, I should have been among the foremost to offer my life in his service. Knowing the whole to be a wicked contrivance of the Ministers to deceive the King and delude his people, my indignation turns against the contrivers of such shameful plots. What can be said in vindication of such proceedings? Is the protection of the personal liberty of the subject no part of the business of this House? The President Montesquieu says, that the spirit of liberty sees with the eye of a jealous mother the injury that is done to every individual. What man is safe under such machinations? The Ministerial paragraphs in the newspapers had long teemed with accounts of intercepted letters. At length a contrivance is devised to search the private papers of a suspected individual. Will the advisers of those measures tell us what they have now found, or formerly possessed? Will they produce some of this intercepted correspondence, that the world may judge between us? Let us see upon what ground bail was denied to this oppressed gentleman. Why he was sent close prisoner to the Tower. Why his counsel was denied admittance. If there are no grounds for such cruel severity, mankind must perceive the motive for propagating such falsities. The tide of addressing may turn, when the people see how grossly they have been imposed on by false accounts and false intelligence from every quarter; when they find that all true information has been purposely denied at home and abroad. I say, when the people become sensible of those truths, their vengeance may recoil with redoubled fury. Richard Cromwell and James the Second had their coffers filled with addresses three or four months before they were dispossessed of all authority. These should be examples what little reliance can be placed on empty words. The good sense of this country is often deceived at first, but they generally return to the principles of freedom at last. The American contest is complicated in its nature; it demands much information, and a process of reasoning, on the great principles of society, to understand the subject. Every art is used to mislead and misrepresent, by men reaping the harvest of our troubles. When the nation shall feel the great loss, and the ruinous expense attending the measures of Administration; when America is” lost, I am in no doubt they will investigate the subject, and call those to severe account who are leading them hoodwinked in this wild career, which cannot be justified on any of those principles of liberty, or sound policy, by which the fame of this country has been renowned among the nations of the earth; by which it has hitherto invigorated every part of its dominions throughout the globe; by which it has raised, and by which alone it can maintain this mighty empire.

Mr. Walter Stanhope, in support of the motion, recapitulated what he called the errors and blunders of Administration; and prophesied the worst consequences if the affairs of this country were permitted to remain much longer in the hands of the present Ministers.

Lord Barrington. Upon this question, I shall, from the attention which I have given the subject, from being in office, endeavour to show the House wherein I think the present motion is against truth; and that there is nothing illegal in the present case. The Bill of Rights declares, that to introduce foreign troops within the kingdom in time of peace, and without the consent of Parliament, is illegal; and that declaration I take to be founded upon the common law of the land; but I think it has, as the bill expresses it, reference only to the kingdom itself, and not to the dependencies of it, of which our history will give us the clearest proof. Go so far back as the case of Calais: there was a garrison kept in that fortress regularly, without any consent of Parliament, or without its ever coming before Parliament. Then there were Dunkirk and Tangier, the garrisons of which were kept up without having the least recourse to Parliament; nor was it ever dreamed of, that the sovereigns of this country were acting illegally in keeping up such garrisons. As to the expediency of the measure, it is justifiable, because foreign troops are easier and readier to be had, and, at the same time, cheaper than our own troops. I know from the experience of last year’s recruiting, that it would have been difficult to have procured new levies in that time. He declared the measure to be legal, and said he should pity and contemn the Minister who should ask for a bill of indemnity. For his part he wanted none, though he had had a principal share in advising the measure.

Mr. T. Townshend. The dangers that must arise from the introduction of foreign troops into the dependencies of the realm, if not illegal, might be very great; for it might easily be in the power of an ill-designing Prince to fill all the exterior parts of the dominions with foreign mercenaries, and take opportunities to make them the means of overturning the Constitution. No man should forget the natural tendency of standing foreign troops; they cannot esteem your laws; they know not your Constitution; they cannot respect it. Recollect the case of the Hanoverian soldier at Maidstone, where the commanding officer told the civil officer, “Release the man, or I have eight thousand men here, and I will beat down your jail, and take him by force.” Sir, that will be the language of commanders of foreign troops. They know not the laws, they cannot respect them. Disputes will arise in quarters, and they must he terminated in this manner. But let us turn our eyes to the other countries of Europe, and see what miserable work the soldiery have made. Sir, they have overturned Europe from its basis. Look at Sweden, where the King, merely by the means of an army, has cut the throat of Swedish liberty, and rules by the sword; and I might here observe, that this Administration in England was accessary to the mischief, or at least attempted to prevent a reparation. I do not assert this on my own knowledge; but I have been told it on pretty good authority, that when the Empress of Russia was about to stir in favour of the old Government of Sweden, we interposed,