BOOK affirmed, "that the Scottish nation was very XX. happy under its own laws, and that the altera1794. tions proposed would be a violation of the arti Debates on the landing of foreign kingdom. cles of the union. The reform really wanting, he said, was to assimilate the English law of sedition in a certain degree to that of Scotland. Notwithstanding the menacing language he had recently heard in that house this he dared to say, because he dared to think it." On the division the motion was negatived by a majority of 77 to 24 voices. Early in the session Mr. Dundas had brought a message from his majesty, stating, that a corps troops in the of Hessians employed in his service having been brought to the coast on the Isle of Wight to prevent sickness on board the transports, his majesty had given orders they should be quartered in the island. This corps constituted a part of the army destined to co-operate with the French royalists in La Vendée, under the command of the earl of Moira, the object of whose important expedition was defeated by the mismanagement and procrastination of the cabinet. The house thanked his majesty for the communication: but as it seemed that the ministers of the crown meant to pass silently over this transaction, which, though circumstances might render it proper, was in a constitutional view alarming, Mr. Grey, on the 10th of February, called the XX. 1794. attention of the house to the subject in a speech BOOK replete with historic, parliamentary, and constitutional information, clearly proving that the measure in question was contrary both to the letter and the spirit of the constitution, as established at the Revolution; and that, whenever such a measure became necessary, ministers should either obtain the previous consent of parliament, or resort to a bill of indemnity. Mr. Grey concluded by moving, "that to employ foreigners in any situation of military trust, or to bring foreign troops into this kingdom without the consent of parliament first had and obtained, is contrary to law." The motion was strongly supported by Mr. Whitbread, lord John Cavendish, and Mr. Francis; the latter of whom forcibly asked, “If it was lawful to bring in 4,000 Hessians to-day, why not 10,000 Austrians to-morrow, and 20,000 Russians the day following?" Mr. Fox hoped that Englishmen would look to the consequences of this doctrine, and said, that were he to chuse whether the king should possess the power of introducing foreign troops into the kingdom in time of peace or in time of war, he should much prefer the former, as the exercise of so alarming and exorbitant a prerogative would be more likely to rouze the nation to a general opposition and resistance. Mr. Pitt maintained that his majesty did most un XX. 1794. BOOK questionably possess the prerogative in question, and the remedy for any supposed danger was for the house to withhold the supplies for the pay ment of troops. Mr. Serjeant Adair, one of the most respectable of the party styled Alarmists, admitted that the king had no power to introduce foreign troops into the kingdom; he was a friend to the principle, but not to the form of the motion: he therefore moved the previous question, which was carried by 134 against 35 voices. The more the great constitutional axiom moved by Mr. Grey was considered, the more reason there was to be dissatisfied at the manner in which it was evaded; especially when the first minister of the crown, by his daring avowal of the prerogative in question, seemed to aim at the establishment of it to all future times, in consequence of the precedent now made. Mr. Grey, therefore, on the 14th of March, again brought the subject before the house in a somewhat different form. He controverted in 'the strongest terms, the opinion given in the former debate by the chancellor of the Exchequer, which, coming from such authority, he regarded as of the utmost importance. Mr. Grey said, that he was far from calling in question the propriety or necessity of landing the Hessians; but he could never suffer it to be advanced, as a principle of XX. the constitution, that the king had a right to in- BOOK troduce foreign troops into the kingdom as a regular branch of the royal prerogative. On 1794. the contrary, the letter, spirit, and practice of the constitution, all militated against it. He referred to the Act of Settlement, by which no foreigner could possibly hold any office of civil or military trust in this kingdom. But was not every officer of an army of foreigners in a place of military trust? These foreigners were not even under any military law in this country; for as to them, the Mutiny Act had no force or operation. From the instant they landed here they were, ipso facto, discharged; they could not, by the law of this country, exist for a moment as an army, and if they deserted or disobeyed there was no statute on which they could be tried, Mr. Grey also referred to the famous case of the Dutch Guards in the reign of king William, and to the peremptory refusal of the house of commons to admit of their remaining in England, notwithstanding the great constitutional services they had performed. And he protested that he had no other view in the measure he meant to propose than the guarding against the establishment of a dangerous doctrine, and a dangerous precedent. He concluded with moving for a bill of indemnity, in which he was seconded by Mr. Francis. BOOK A second vehement debate ensued, in the course of which Mr. Sheridan, with his accustom1794. ed and characteristic animation, declared, that to look into books in order to demonstrate the illegality of so monstrous a claim was a mere waste of time. Common sense was sufficient to shew that it could not exist. If at any future interval, when the vigilance of that house slumbered, advantage was taken to land an army of foreigners in the kingdom for unlawful or injurious purposes, would it be pretended that the responsibility of ministers was a sufficient security against the danger? While the house were voting impeachments they might meet the advanced guard of the enemy in the lobby. Mr. Fox affirmed, that if the introduction of foreign troops into this country was legal, to talk of liberty was absurd, to speak of a free constitution was weakness. And Mr. William Smith remarked, that no constitution could contain a principle which was felo de se, which struck at its vital part, and endangered its very existence. Mr. Pitt persisted obstinately in his opinion, or at least his assertion, that it was legal and constitutional to introduce foreign troops into the kingdom without the previous consent of parliament; and said, he was yet ignorant what positive law it contravened, what precedents it violated, or what course of practice |