and threatened her with the fleet of England, if she made any such attempt. He was zealous in vindication of the character and reputation of King William III, whom he called our immortal deliverer, which had been assassinated in print, and the work encouraged, [alluding to Sir J. Dalrymplc’s book.]

Mr. Serjeant Adair supported the motion. He said he should not enter at large into the subject of American affairs, but confine himself strictly to the question before the House. He first observed on the arguments that had been used on the other side of the question, particularly by Lord Harrington. He said, the noble Lord had affirmed that there was no statute law which limited the number of forces, or the power of the Crown in that respect, before the Revolution; yet he admitted that Charles II.’s keeping a standing army without consent of Parliament was contrary to law; it must, therefore, be contrary to the ancient principles of the Constitution, which, the Serjeant contended, equally applied to the present case.

With regard to the instances mentioned, of keeping troops in Calais, Dunkirk, and Tangier, without authority of Parliament, he said that the ill consequences of the two latter instances had already been sufficiently pointed out, (by Mr. Townshend,) and the noble Lord himself had, with great candour, given an answer in the very next sentence, by observing that the same King who kept troops in those two garrisons, kept them also in England, without consent of Parliament; so that no inference could be drawn as to the legality of the one, more than of the other, which the noble Lord had admitted to be illegal. As to Calais, it was the last remnant of those extensive territories formerly held in France by our Kings, who claimed also the Crown of that kingdom; and no consent of the Parliament of England could be necessary to enable the King to keep troops in his French dominions.

He then argued., from the principles of the Constitution, that the King never had a power to keep up a standing army of mercenary soldiers in any part of the dominions of the Crown of England, in time of peace, without authority of Parliament, nor to introduce foreign troops at any time, without Parliamentary consent. The ancient armies of the Crown were composed of those who served by virtue of their tenure, for a limited time, and for particular services; which the King was entitled to, in common with other inferior Lords, in right of property and tenure. That, from the abolition of those military tenures, the Crown had no constitutional military force whatever, anywhere, except what should be granted by Parliament. That the Bill of Rights, being declaratory of the ancient laws and Constitution, should be construed as extensively as the principles from whence it was derived; and not narrowed or confined to the mere words of the declaration, which had a reference to the mischief recited in the preamble, but should be applied to all mischiefs that came within the same principles. That it had been held, in another House, by the Lord Chancellor, that this clause of the Bill of Rights, by the spirit and fair construction of it, applied to all the dominions of the Crown. That this construction was confirmed by the Mutiny Act; which, after reciting the very words of the Bill of Rights, goes on to say, that it is necessary that a body of forces should be kept up for the safety of the kingdom, and for the defence of the possessions of the Crown of Great Britain, &c. From whence he inferred, that it was the opinion of the Legislature, that forces could not be kept up for any of these purposes without consent of Parliament. That it was no answer to say, that, in fact, the number of troops mentioned in that act are only those kept up in Great Britain, exclusive of those employed in the garrisons abroad; because estimates were every year laid before Parliament, and supplies granted, for the express purpose of supporting the troops kept in those garrisons, as well as in Great Britain, and therefore the one had the consent of Parliament as well as the other.

He argued further, that the employing foreign officers was unlawful, from the Act of Settlement, by which no person born out of the dominions of Great Britain, though naturalized, could enjoy any office or place of trust, civil or military; and that the command of a body of troops at Gibraltar or Minorca was certainly an office or place of military trust. That this extended not only to the Kingdom of Great Britain, but to all its dominions, (he said,) was still further confirmed by the Act of 29 George II., chapter 5, by which the King was enabled to grant military commissions to foreign Protestants in America, which would have been altogether unnecessary if the King, by his own authority, could have employed foreigners in any part of his dominions. And he pointed out to the attention of the House, the precautions taken in that act, by limiting the number of such foreign officers, obliging them to take the oaths, and declaring that the Colonel should be a natural born subject; none of which were or could be taken in the present instance of the Hanoverian troops, without the authority of Parliament. After enlarging upon these topicks, he stated to the House the doubts and difficulties that must arise, by what law those foreign troops should be governed, or their discipline maintained. For, notwithstanding all that had been said of their own martial law, he insisted that no man could be put to death in the dominions of this country by any other authority than the Mutiny Act. or the law of the land. He put it to the Crown lawyers to say, by what law disputes arising between the British troops, or inhabitants, and the Hanoverians, were to be decided.

He contended that the proposition contained in the motion was not only strictly warranted by the principles of law and the Constitution, but that it was highly necessary that the House should come to such a declaration, to avert the danger arising from the precedent; more especially after the approbation expressed in their address. It had, indeed, been alleged that the approbation went no further than the gracious motives which had induced his Majesty to the measure in question. That he had always looked upon this distinction as illusory and absurd; but, at all events, the only way to demonstrate that the approbation went only to the motives, and not to the measure itself, was to come to the resolution now proposed to the House.

He concluded with saying that he thought the expediency of the measure would come more properly before the House when they proceeded on the Bill of Indemnity, which had been read. That, however, the evidence of history, and the experience of all nations, evinced the extreme danger of calling in the assistance of foreign troops; and that the Saxons, who had been called into this Island to support the British Government, had themselves most effectually conquered and overturned it. But of all foreign troops, (said he,) the most dangerous are those who are the subjects of the King and not of the Crown and Parliament. Should any future Prince of the illustrious House that now sits upon the throne, perfectly unlike his present Majesty, assisted by Ministers not very unlike the advisers of this measure; should, I say, such a Prince, deluded by such advisers, entertain the mad and nefarious design of overturning the Con-titution of this country, of destroying that liberty which was the glory and strength of his Government, and reducing his kingdom to the same abject state with those of most of his neighbours, what means could be so proper to effectuate so wicked a purpose as filling all parts of our dominions beyond sea with foreign mercenaries, and putting our strongest garrisons, and half our empire, into the hands of officers and soldiers the devoted subjects of the King, but totally independent on the Crown or Parliament of the kingdom?

Mr. Hans Stanley explained, that foreign soldiers serving in England were under the laws of England; and, in respect of the expediency of the measure relative to the want of men, he observed, that we had more men than the King of Prussia, who kept two hundred thousand men on foot, and as many as the House of Austria; but, as our men were employed in arts and manufactures, it was more expedient to take foreign troops into our pay, which had been the uniform practice of the kingdom from the battle of New-castle-wpon-Tyne to this day, of which very many instances were to be met with in Rymer and Froisard.

Mr. Gordon asserted, that the measure was certainly illegal; that a recruiting Sergeant could not inlist a single foreigner, much less could you march five battalions to Gibraltar; but condemned the motion, for, being an abstract poposition without any connected question, it might carry too severe a censure upon an act which, he was convinced, was well meant, and very expedient. He trusted that its illegality might be established by an alteration in the preamble of the Bill of Indemnity; and therefore moved the previous question.

The Solicitor-General [Mr. Wedderburn] entered very