204 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1794. 



answering precisely tliis descrip- 

 tion, the ministry stood acquitted 

 in their use of the ro);'l preroga- 

 tive on this occasion. It was not 

 pretended that the King's preroga- 

 tive extended to the introduction 

 of a foreign mihtary either to 

 suppress domestic insurreclions, 

 to serve as garrisons, or to be sta- 

 tioned permanently in any part of 

 the reahn, unless by formal con- 

 sent of Parliament ; ' but no law 

 forbade their transient admission on 

 the terms above specified. 



It was acknowledged by Lord 

 Auckland, that he did not con- 

 sider tlie landing of the Hessians as 

 strictly conformable to law, nor 

 yet as an illegal act on, the part of 

 ministry. The silence of the law, 

 in some cases, was an admonition to 

 Parhament to pass them over un- 

 observed, unless it were evident 

 that to be silent, would amount 

 to a breach of the duty they owed 

 to their country. But without 

 ■well-founded apprehensions that 

 an ill use was intended of the pre- 

 rogatives vested in the crown, 

 they should be left untouched, as 

 necessary for the quiet and good 

 ci"der of the community. 



Lord Romney took notice on 

 this occasion, that nineteen years 

 before, when he was a member of 

 the other House, it was not even 

 pretended that to introduce fo- 

 reign troops into the British domi^ 

 rions, was not contrary to law ; the 

 or-ly point then agitated was, howto 

 word the bill oi indemnity granted 

 to the ministers who had taken that - 

 step, so as to remo' e all doubt as to 

 the unlawfulness of the measure^ in 

 wliichall men were agreed. 



This subject vvas considered by 

 Lord Grenvillc, as altogether of an 

 abstract nature, and highly impro- 



per at present for debate. The 

 Hessian troops were in a situation 

 that required them to be landed 

 for the benefit of air and refresh- 

 ment : this surely was no straining 

 ■of the prerogative. The crown, 

 it was true, could not, without con- 

 ^ suiting Parliament, maintain a 

 standing array of natives, much 

 less of foreigners ; but in the pre- 

 sent case, notliing had been done 

 to tlirow the least blame on mi- 

 nistry. It was ungenerous to look 

 upon the exercise of the royal pre- 

 roi|;ative as necessarily attended 

 with abuse. It might sometimes 

 appear inconsistent with liberty ; 

 but while under constitutional re- 

 strictions, w?:S experimentally found 

 of essential utility. The responsibi- 

 lity of ministers had been held not 

 in a dangerous light : but it an- 

 swered two equally beneficial ends; 

 they were not only answerable 

 for doing wrong, but also for omit- 

 ting to do what was right. In a 

 case hke the present, for instance, 

 were they to introduce a foreign 

 force without necessity, or to ne- 

 glect their aid when wanted here, 

 they would be alike culpable. 

 Hence it fairly appeared, tliat to 

 press a bill of indemnity upon mi- 

 nisters for what they had done re- 

 specting the Hessians, would pre- 

 vent all future ministers, as well as 

 the present, from resorting to the 

 measure of calling in the assistance 

 of foreigners when it might be 

 most wanted, and while they were 

 also nearest at hand to aft'ord re- 

 lief. B.^tter therefore to leave a 

 doubtful business undecided, than 

 by circumscribing the motives of 

 ministers, to expose government to 

 a probable faih re in its opera- 

 tions against the enemies of tin's 

 country, 



