200 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1794, 



try ii^to the power of strangers. 

 Tlje royal prerogative ought not to 

 be invaded ; but wherever it mili- 

 tated against the spiritof theconsti- 

 tution, this claimed a prior consi- 

 deration, and parliaments could not 

 be too vigilant in checking the 

 jninisterial abuse of the preroga- 

 tive. In consequence of these 

 premises, it was moved by Mr. 

 Grey, — That to employ foreign- 

 ers in any situation of military 

 trust, or to bring foreign troops 

 into the kingdom, without the 

 consent of parliament, was con- 

 trary' to law. This motion was 

 supported by Lord John Caven- 

 dish, Major Maitland, Mr. Whit- 

 bread, and Mr. Francis. 



In support of ministry, Mr. 

 Wyndhnm contended that, vv'ithout 

 involving itself into endless debates 

 concerning rights and illegalities, 

 the House should invoptifate wh.e- 

 ther ministers had acted proj>erly 

 in advising the king to introduce 

 'a body of foreign troops into the 

 kingdom. The only rule of decision 

 'was to consult circumstances, and 

 examine without prejudice, whether 

 the exigency of aiTiiirs did not sanc- 

 tion sucli a measure. 



In addition to these reasontnjrs 

 it was ;:bserted by Mr. Wallace, t'nat 

 'no positive proot had b.^en adduced 

 that the introduction of foreign 

 troops into the realm, when at 

 wiir, was repugnant to any actual 

 law ■ or usage. Certainly the 

 crov."n had not abused the preroga- 

 tive in the present case ; and no 

 parliamentary sanction h^d yet been 

 b;cld requisite in the like cases. 

 It did not become parliament to 

 betray perpetual suspicions of the 

 executive power. This could only 

 produce ill blocd bctrreen the King 

 and people, whose interests should 



never be represented as different 

 from those t)f the sovereign, with- 

 out the most obvious and compul- 

 siveiiecessity. 



These arguments were enforced 

 by Mr. Pitt, who further observed, 

 that whether the foreign troops in 

 question had been sent for and 

 landed in this country, with the 

 design of employing them with 

 others on some expedition abroad, 

 or whether they intended to remain 

 in the kingdom for its defence, 

 a communication fi"om the Throne, 

 and a consequent address of thanks 

 from parliament, took away all 

 sinister interpretation, and implied 

 a regular consent. This was ou 

 both sides a transaction perfectly 

 confcrmnble to former precedents. 

 Were the royal prerogative in 

 cases of a similar nature to . exceed 

 its just bounds, the law had pro- 

 vided an adequate remedy, by em- 

 povv'ering the parliament to refuse 

 pecuniary supplies, and thus to 

 stop at bnce the progress of any 

 evil designs. 



The debate on this miportant 

 subject was closed by Mr. Fox, 

 who strenuously opposed the en- 

 trance of an armed force into the 

 kingdom, either in peace or war, 

 without a positive consent of pai- 

 liamcnt ; .-.uch a prerogative in the 

 crown was in direct opposition to 

 the Bill of Rights, solemnly esta- 

 bhshcd at the revolution, with the 

 clearest intent of depriving the 

 crown of all possible power to gur 

 vern by a military force. The 

 mutiny bill was framed on tlie 

 same plan. The discussinns th:it 

 took place during the American 

 war, wh,--n it was thought ej:pe- 

 dient to reinforce the garrisons of 

 Gibraltar and Minorca with Hano- 

 verian troops, shewed in what 



a hscht 



A 



