'202 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1794. 



con5icera]>Tf prejiidice. It afFordcd 

 the disconten^d a handle to ta>5. 

 '^^rem 'vrixh iniqiiitotts intentions ; 

 ■and it WS& net ■vritliout difBculty 

 i that their friends could find mo- 

 itJTes to exctilpate them. — The 

 1 fake prJcEc of obstinate persevc- 

 Tauce in mcjisure-s once adopted, ra- 

 - tlier tlian candidly and magiiani- 

 ■jnowsly . ov,'n an eiroiv has of- 

 •■tpw been accDmpsuicd by" many 

 tt-viik,, both to individuals and na- 

 Ktiohs. Thit false pride is noticed 

 rfcy iorctgners ss a vice peculiarly 

 -raddent to the English. 



This WTtg'hty subject was re- 

 twimcd in the House of Ci>mmon3 

 .©n the ?4th of March, llie pre- 

 rogative of the crov>'n to introduce 

 •lbr«gR troops %vith»nt the permis- 

 ••«on of Fiirliament, vrm defended iu 

 -a long speech by Mr. Grenvillc, 

 vw-'ho int.istcd on the pointy that he 

 icould not find any law clearly ap- 

 rposite to the present case. Mr. 

 -^Grey, Mx. Adair, Mr. Sheridan, 

 •a«id Mr. Srcith,, spoke oil the side 

 ;©f opposition. 



iVIr. Fox declared, in strong 

 ienns, hi? reprobation of the pre- 

 •Togative in. question. Were the 

 'crown legally entitled to such a 

 tclaim, the constitution was a nullity ; 

 and those who had so boldly of late 

 yepre?ented it in this light, would 

 be faund to have spoken a fatal 

 truth. Responsibility was the 

 shield with which nninisterscovered 

 thcn>selves when meditating un- 

 constitutional designs ; but if such 

 a protection were allowed, there 

 was no measure, however injurious 

 to this country, which they would 

 not he able to carrv. But ministers 

 should not be suffered to proceed 

 in their iniquitous career : they 

 should be stopt in the outset ; 

 merely to vrarp them of their mis- 



condiict, ^7a3 no rcmedt j zr.d 

 tamely to wait for new proofs of 

 their guilt, especially \r> matters ol 

 the highest importance, might only 

 tend to pface them beyocfi the 

 reach of punisbroent. Slence 

 in such cases was qjaminal in the 

 representatives of » free people, 

 who ougsit to be duly apprized of 

 the degree of authority Icklgcd in 

 the Sove-t'ign by the legislature. 

 But the acts and regulations fo 

 >.>ften rr.'fen-cd to, were intel- 

 ligible to every liberal capacity ; 

 "iwjne bnt jnimU inclined to cavil, 

 wauld raise 7;fly doHbts of their 

 meaning.. If minis'«Tf„ did nut 

 harbour intentions tint cctiM nrrt 

 bear inspection, why should they be 

 averse to challenge as tlicir dvie ats^ 

 act of indemnity* whidi would 

 remove at once all suspicion, and 

 tranquillize the public, not slightly 

 agitated by their bringiug forwas-d 

 a prerogative, which if acqtiie&ced 

 in, was evidently pregnant with tl^e 

 worst evilt th.it could befall the 

 British cun'=tiiulion. The late 

 Lord Mansfield, a name of the 

 highest respectability, strenuously 

 vecom:nerKied to mim'sters who,, 

 pressed by necessity, had taken 

 measLMis tfie legality of which wa» 

 dnubtfit), always to secure them^ 

 selves by a bill of indemnity. The 

 point ir. agitation was of such im- 

 portance, liiat ministers could not 

 too speedily clear their character 

 of all sinister imputation.^. Nor 

 ought parliameiit to defer a mo- 

 ment longer iho decision of a ques- 

 tion that involved such essential in- 

 terests. Jf it passed undecided, the 

 public would 'loi :iblv imaTJii-j that, 

 by th«r not contesting its legality, 

 tlie House tacitly allowed tlie pre- 

 rogative to be legal, or, what woul^ 

 tie jccorc igr.omiuiou-ij ihat )t had 



wanted 



