Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

crown, when acting illegally; but where a number of persons were implicated; for instance, if these troops were resisted by those on whom they were billeted, in consequence of their being an illegal force, a circumstance which might lead to consequences the most disagreeable and dangerous, then a bill of indemnity was necessary to avert the evil. So far such a bill, in his mind, would have been a more salutary measure, than the previous question, which had been moved by his honourable and learned friend:

Mr. Fox entreated gentlemen to act with great caution and deliberation on a quession as momentous as ever arrested the attention of a British parliament, and to resist, with a manly firmness, the strange and incoherent doctrines advanced by his majesty's ministers. It had been asserted, that these foreign forces had been introduced here for the purpose of foreign service; but he cared not what was the cause, where the consequences to the bill of rights were so fatal. Subsequent events might reveal the mystery. But again he would wish to impress on the House the consequences which might attend this unwarrantable exercise of the prerogative, if these troops were to become the instruments in the hands of a wicked prince, or a venal minister. The divine prerogative of the crown was language which he did not expect to have heard in the course of that night's debate. During the arbitrary reign of James, it was true that it was considered blasphemous to attempt defining that prerogative, to which he set no bounds; but he conceived at this time that words more suitable to the tongues of British freemen, were those that defined and supported the divine rights of the Commons. They were assured by his majesty's ministers, as an excuse for the landing of these troops, that they were not to remain long in the country. But this was not the question. Would the minister say that the introduction of these troops was legal or consistent with the spirit of the constitution? Who were to tell an army of Austrians, of Hessians, of Hanoverians, or of Dutch, that their further continuance in England was contrary to law? He would appeal, he said, to the right honourable gentleman's own good sense on the occasion, whether or not it would be either wise or prudent to neglect ascertaining our rights, till we were surrounded by an army of foreign mercenaries till the critical period arrived, when the members of that House would be questioned on their ingress and egress respecting their political sentiments-till they were surrounded by perhaps 30,000 usurpers, who, under the pretext of defending their liberties, would sacrifice and violate the few remains of the constitution. Let gentlemen recollect the danger of an imperious military government-let them recollect, that a

[ocr errors]

powerful army was an engine of the most alarming nature let them remember, that such a weapon had more than once overthrown the liberties of Europe-that if we yielded in the first instance, we betrayed the confidence reposed in us by our fellow-citizens-that he who dared present our bill of rights as a remonstrance to an army of foreigners, would find it a useless piece of parchment-and that our wisest conduct would be a steady adherence to the maxims of prudence of our ancestors, who had uniformly resisted, upon this point, every act of innovation. By pursuing a contrary conduct, we should hazard the liberties of the people and the privileges of parliament, and he entreated those who heard him not to desert either, through private friendship or personal interest. If there existed a party in this country who manifested a wish to lower the monarchical branch of the constitution, that party would be defeated by not rendering that power odious by a wicked and dangerous extension of the prerogative of the crown. Let the Commons prove true to the people, and the people would remain obedient to the commons. We had no invasion to fear but an invasion of the constitution; and the parliament, which was its natural watchman, would regard with a jealous eye any measures calculated to destroy the balance of power in the three estates, by an unconstitutional extension of the prerogatives of the crown. At a moment when the eyes of the world were turned towards the constitution of England, he implored the House not to suffer its admiration to cease by defacing this noble structure. Ireland, he said, was a free and imperial kingdom; though she might suffer foreigners at home, yet if they once crossed the channel and arrived in this country, they must be recognized as an illegal army, and government could not, without the consent of parliament, suffer them to remain in this kingdom. It was therefore incompatible with Magna Charta to oppose the motion of his honourable friend; and, consistently with the arguments he had had the honour of submitting to the House, he must oppose the previous question.

The previous question being put, the House divided:

Tellers.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. Grey's motion was consequently negatived.

March 14.

This important subject was again brought before the House by Mr. Grey in a somewhat different form. He controverted, in the strongest terms, the opinion given in the course of the former debate by Mr. Pitt, 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 the constitution, that the king had a right to introduce foreign troops into the kingdom as a regular branch of the royal prerogative. On the contrary, the letter, spirit, and practice of the constitution all militated against it. He concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to indemnify such persons as have advised his majesty to order a certain corps of Hessian troops to be disembarked and stationed, for the present, on the Isle of Wight, at Portsmouth, and the places adjacent." The motion gave rise to another interesting debate. The prerogative of the crown to introduce foreign troops without the consent of parliament was defended by Mr. Grenville, Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Yorke, the attorney general, and Mr. Pitt. Mr. Grey's motion was supported by Mr. Francis, Mr. Serjeant Adair, Mr. Sheridan, the Earl of Wycombe, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. William Adam, and Mr. Fox.

Mr. Fox said, it was not his intention to enter into any argument, after the able discussion the question had received from his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Serjeant Adair); nor, indeed, was there any occasion, for none of the arguments which he had advanced had been in the least refuted. His honourable and learned friend had considered the subject in a plain and manly point of view; and from what he had heard advanced by him, and from his own opinion on this important subject, he concluded, 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. If the House did not come to some resolution on the illegality of the measure, all the libels of those who said we had no constitution would be converted into melancholy truths; and even Mr. Paine himself had not written a word of falsehood; but the question had been that night too well argued for him, or any unprejudiced man, to entertain a doubt upon the subject. Ought such a question to be agitated in a free parliament? Ought such assertions as had been advanced, to find their way into that House? Or ought we to remain a moment in doubt, whether such a dangerous and arbitrary

power should be vested in the hands of the executive magistrate? If there was, or if there ought to be, such power in his majesty's ministers, all he would say was, that every idea he had formed of the British constitution was vanished; and as long as he remained in that House, and had the liberty of speech, he would remind the House of its situation; and again and again remind the country also, that it was not the intention of our ancestors that his majesty's ministers should possess this authority. The attorney-general had, although he opposed the motion, again declined to state his own opinion on the general question; but it was not very difficult to guess what his opinion must be; for if it had been conformable to that of the minister, it would not have been withheld. Indeed, he was surprised to see the learned gentleman so soon forget those sentiments he had advanced on a former night: the learned gentleman seemed to feel the difficulty of his situation, and Mr. Fox said he was afraid he could not help him out of that difficulty.

As to the illegality of introducing these troops, he hoped there would be but one opinion. He trusted that the House would execrate the idea of the crown having this power; and he hoped it would be equally execrated throughout the country. The objection made that night to the motion was, that, because bills of indemnity were unusual, they ought not to be granted. On a former night the motion was refused, because it was unnecessary. Indeed, there were different opinions in the House on this clear and constitutional principle; some said they ought not to interfere because the measure was illegal; others justified the proceeding; whilst others refused to give any vote on account of the illegality. With regard to precedents, they had been so fully debated, that he would not trouble the House on that head. He said it would be criminal to sit silent now, and not at least establish a precedent for our posterity, since it was the silence of other parliaments on similar questions, that gave us the smallest cause to doubt of the illegality of such a prerogative as was now maintained. Had this occurred to those great men who framed that act, or had they the smallest doubt that the legality would be disputed, they would have guarded against the cunning of the artful servants of the crown. One honourable gentleman had alluded to the case of a sick Hessian, and had asked, if one sick Hessian was landed on our coast, would we require a bill of indemnity? And this case, he said, applied in the present instance. But how could any gentleman use such an absurd argument? Was that the case, or was it not? When this message was sent down by the crown, it was asked, how 'many foreigners were to be introduced? His majesty's mi

nister answered he could not declare. It was next demanded, how long they were to remain in this country? On that head we were left equally uninformed. But now it turned out, that this country was to be the rendezvous of this foreign army, and here they were to remain till a descent on France should be practicable. He declared he should be very happy if the House would agree to the motion, and give his honourable friend leave to bring in a bill; for the legality of the power would then be fully discussed, and the people of this country would know whether or not they were free, and whether their constitution was worth protecting.

It had been said that every prerogative was carefully watched, and that ministers were responsible for any abuse. He did not suppose a minister would engage in a measure decidedly illegal, unless he had some grounds to justify that illegality; but if their intentions were pure, if they were upright, what objection could they have to this bill of indemnity? He could not dive into the hearts of men, but he knew ministers were naturally attached to prerogative, and often increased it to answer some favourite object. He alluded to the argument that had taken place in 1767 respecting the corn embargo, and quoted the authority of Lord Mansfield, to shew the propriety of ministers having recourse to indemnity, when even necessity should urge them to act illegally. Nothing could be more dangerous than this prerogative, unless, indeed, the refusal of the crown to assemble parliament. If a minister could introduce foreign troops when the parliament was sitting, he might as well attempt it when it was not sitting. In such a case, every subject was bound to rise in arms to oppose him, and bring him to a proper sense of his duty.

He trusted that gentlemen would not return to their constituents, and tell them that the minister had the power to introduce foreigners at his discretion. That they would not say, "We have reposed in him, with regard to mercenary Hessians, that power which we are jealous of giving with respect to our own militia. We have permitted him to send from the country our own regular troops, and have suffered him to substitute in their place Prussians, Hessians, Austrians, or Russians. We have surrendered those rights which our fathers struggled to procure; we have reposed in him that unlimited confidence which his predecessors were never suffered to enjoy. We gave our liberties to be protected by strangers, who are ignorant of their value; we have thus sported with your freedom, and abandoned your dearest rights to the discretion of ministers." No, said Mr. Fox, let us not betray the trust reposed in us: let the crown lawyers come

« VorigeDoorgaan »