On the report of the address in the commons, the opposition took occasion to go over nearly the whole of the ground again. The main stand which they took, however, in this debate, was the measure of entrusting Gibraltar and Minorca, the keys of the Mediterranean, to Hanoverian troops. This they maintained was repugnant to the Bill of Rights, and an alarming precedent of foreigners introduced, and armies raised by a British monarch without the consent of parliament. It was, in fact, loudly denounced as illegal, and in the highest degree unconstitutional. In answering this objection, Lord Thurlow reminded the house that the clause in the Bill of Rights embraced no part of the king’s dominions beyond the limits of Great Britain; that it did not extend to the colonies; and that not a man had been brought, or was to be brought into the kingdom without the consent of parliament. Wedderburne urged similar arguments, and he, with others, represented the urgent necessity of the case, and the danger of delay. A precedent was also quoted for bringing troops into England at a critical period, inasmuch as Dutch troops had been brought over from Holland by George II. in 1745, during the rebellion in Scotland. In the midst of the storm by which he was assailed, Lord North acknowledged himself the adviser of this measure, and treated the opposition with much levity,—but he was obliged to yield to the representations of some of his friends, and to state in conclusion, that though he still considered he was right, yet as other gentlemen, for whom he had ever had the greatest deference, seemed to be of another opinion, he had no objection, notwithstanding any votes now given, that the question should be brought again, in a regular and parliamentary manner, before the house, when he would abide by their determination; and if the measure was found unconstitutional, he would rest a defence on the ground of necessity alone, and receive, as was usual in such cases, the protection of an act of indemnity. This was good parliamentary generalship. Many who would have voted against him, now veered round to his side, and upon a division, the address was passed as reported by a majority of one hundred and seventy-six against seventy-two.
On the 1st of November a similar conflict occurred in the house of lords. The Duke of Manchester moved in that house, “That bringing into any part of the dominion of Great Britain the electoral troops of his majesty, or any other foreign troops, without the previous consent of parliament is dangerous and unconstitutional.” This motion was supported by arguments that the clause in the Bill of Rights ought to extend to the colonies; that the Hanoverian troops would not be under the control of our military law, etc.; that it was not by any means advisable to put them in possession of Gibraltar and Minorca; and that the king had no right to maintain even in a colony, or conquest, or in any part of the British dominions, any other troops than were consented to by parliament. To these arguments it was replied, that the clause in the Bill of Rights specified “within the kingdom,” and also “in time of peace;” that the foreign troops were not “within the kingdom,” and that it was a time of war, and not of peace: that the expression, “within the kingdom,” did not include our colonies; and that should that latitude be given the expression, the rebellious state of America would justify the employment of British troops even upon the principles of the Bill of Rights. It was also argued that the king had at all times during actual war or rebellion, been competent to raise and keep up an army; that in such a case the Bill of Rights had made no distinction between an army of natives and an army of foreigners; that foreigners, since the revolution of 1688, had not only been hired, but even brought into the kingdom; and that there was an existing and paramount necessity at this time for the employment of such troops. Ministers prevailed: the previous question was moved and carried by a majority of 75 against 32. Two days after, a similar resolution was made in the commons by Sir James Lowther, and was there disposed of in a similar manner. About the same time the Bill of Indemnity passed the lower house, but in the upper house it was rejected, on the grounds that it was alike unnecessary and dishonourable to the administration.
CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.
During the debate which followed the motion of the Duke of Manchester in the house of lords, the Duke of Grafton had denounced the introduction of foreign troops into Gibraltar and Minorca, as inconsistent with the tenor of Magna Charta. This, coupled with his former declarations as to the conduct and the measures of his colleagues, had the effect of obtaining his dismissal from office. The privy seal, which his grace had held, was given to the Earl of Dartmouth, and, to the surprise of all men, Lord George Sackville, who had been subjected by the sentence of a court-martial to much obloquy, and had recently taken a decided part in all the coercive measures, was made secretary for the American department. At the same time the Earl of Rochford retired, and was succeeded as secretary for the southern department by Lord Weymouth. But what created most astonishment was, that the young and profligate Lord Lyttleton, who had distinguished himself by the severity of his attacks upon the administration at the opening of this session, and who had been connected with Chatham and Temple, was called to the privy-council, and appointed to the sinecure office of chief-justice in eyre beyond Trent. Thus “bought,” he agreed to defend the very measures he had so energetically attacked.
THE MILITIA BILL.
In conformity with a passage in the speech from the throne, Lord North, on the 30th of October, brought in a bill for enabling the king to assemble the militia in cases of actual rebellion. On the second reading, this bill was warmly opposed, on the supposition that it gave the monarch such prodigious additional power, as to render him totally independent of the people. It was said to be, in fact, “empowering the crown to draw the militia out whenever it thought fit, as a pretence could never be wanted for the purpose, while there was a black Caribb remaining in St. Vincent’s, a runaway negro in the mountains of Jamaica, or a Hindoo rajah left on the coast of Coromandel.” In the end, however, the second reading of the Militia Bill was carried by the large majority of two hundred and fifty-nine against fifty. On the third reading several amendments were moved, but were all rejected, and it was finally carried with a rider, proposed by Sir George Saville, limiting the duration of the bill to seven years. In the month of December a bill was brought into the house of commons by Lord Mountstuart for establishing a militia in Scotland; but the house was so thin at the time, that it was scarcely discussed. The bill was reproduced in the course of the session, and was eagerly patronized by the Scotch members; but it met with a strong opposition from the English country gentlemen, and was finally rejected by a majority of one hundred and twelve against ninety-five. By its opposers the bill was considered both as unnecessary, and as a dangerous innovation; but the opposition, it would appear, chiefly arose from national prejudices: Scotsmen might, it was said, as they were subservient to ministers, if they obtained a militia, employ it against the liberties and constitution of England. Lord North supported the bill; but he found himself in the unusual predicament of voting in the minority.
GEORGE III. 1775-1776