HISTORY OF EUROPE. 203 



■wauted spirit to contest it. Which- 

 ever of these opinions went forth, 

 .neither of them would do credit 

 to the coffimons of Great Britain. 



;JMr. Pitt spoke next to this 

 knotty question. The House, he 

 observed, had, on the preceding- 

 debate on this- subject, cxphcitly 

 declared the act under considera- 

 tion not illegal. But wei'e a bill of 

 indemnity to pass, would not this 

 . be recalling tlicir declaration ? 

 The business had undergone a so- 

 lemn and mature deliberation, and 

 no more could with propriety be 

 said relating to it. It had long 

 been the wisdcnn of Parliament to 

 avoid precise decisions on points 

 of a disputable nature, and to act 

 ■ in the mean time with a view to 

 seasons and circumstances, which 

 were a surer guide. Nothing but 

 unavoidable necessity should force 

 men to decide in a case where the 

 issue must be mortifying to one of 

 the parties concerned. It had 

 been asserted that the prerogative 

 in debate had never yet been 

 ■laid properly befoi-e Parliament ; 

 .but this assertion was erroneous. 

 No war had occurred within a cen- 

 tury, that had not brought it into 

 discussion. But Parliament had 

 constantly declined a positive deci- 

 sion, doubtless for reasons which, 

 when coolly examined, would to 

 the impartial appear justly founded. 

 No spccilic law could be cited, 

 prohibiting the crown to intro- 

 duce foreign troops into the king- 

 dom v.-jthout consent of parlia- 

 ment. Precedents were manifestly 

 in favour of this prerogative. Mi- 

 nisters were described as too proud 

 to court a bill of indemnity ; but 

 such a bill was no disgrace, when 

 required for the legalizing of a 

 transiiction, evidently beueficiid to 



the community : — and such a bSl 

 he shortly proposed to claim. But 

 it were unbecoming to solicit such, 

 a bill, merely to avoid altercation 

 or to obtain popularity. 



After a few words in reply from 

 Mr. Grcy,expressingthe necessity of 

 coining to an immediate decision 

 on this matter, the motion was 

 negatived by 170 agaia!,t 4'1. 



This subject was also brought 

 before the house of Ix)rds on 

 the 21st of Februai7, by the 

 Earl of Albemarle. He took 3. 

 retrospective view of all that had 

 passed for a long course of years 

 respecting the subject in debate, in 

 order to shew what solicitude it 

 had at all times occasioned. He- 

 particularized the bill of indemnity 

 insisted on by the House of Com- 

 mons against the ministry, which 

 had garrisoned Gibraltar and Mi- ' 

 norca with foreign troops. Tlie 

 previous landing of these in Eng- 

 land, in the way to tlieir destina- 

 tion, occasioned a formal assevera-* 

 tion in that House, that the 

 crown had no right to take such a 

 step without the formal consent of 

 Parhament. In consequence of 

 these premises, he moved that a 

 bill of indemnity should be brought 

 in, for the conduct of ministers on 

 this occasion. 



It was contended, on the other 

 hand, by Lord Spencer, that when 

 a foreign force was only landed in 

 the kingdom, on its passage to ano- 

 ther place of destination, when its 

 residence was to be of short con- 

 tinuance, and an immediate conv- 

 munication of the measure was 

 made to Parliament, there was na 

 law prohibiting the crown to in- 

 troduce foreign troops under such 

 cirxurastanccs. The quartering of 

 •the Hessians in the Isle of Wi^ht, 



