The discussion brought to light strange divisions and weakness in the ministry.  The ministerial lawyers differed on the grounds on which they relied, the Attorney-general, Thurlow, denying that the expression “this kingdom” in the Bill of Rights included the foreign dependencies of the crown[54] (a narrowing of its force which the Chancellor, Lord Bathurst, wholly repudiated), while the argument on which he himself insisted most strongly, that the existence of rebellion in America put end to all conditions which supposed the kingdom to be at peace, could not obtain the support of any one of his colleagues.  But a plea urged by an independent member, Lord Denbigh, was regarded by some of the speakers with greater favor; his contention being that neither the Bill of Rights nor the Act of Settlement had been violated, since both those great statutes must be interpreted with reference to the time at which they were framed, and to the recent acts of James II. and William III., the recurrence of which they had been designed to prevent, acts to which the present proceeding bore no resemblance.

A stronger justification, however, might have been found in very recent precedents.  In 1745 the ministers had brought over six thousand Dutch troops to re-enforce the army of the Duke of Cumberland, and their act had been subsequently approved by Parliament.  And in 1756, at the commencement of the seven years’ war, when the loss of Minorca had led to such a distrust of our fleets that a French invasion was very generally apprehended, both Houses presented addresses to George II., begging him to bring over some Hanoverian regiments; and, in the course of the next year, other addresses to thank him for compliance with their entreaty.

Looking at the strict law of the question, few lawyers doubt that the expression “this kingdom” in the Bill of Rights includes the entire dominions of the crown, or that that great statute was undoubtedly intended to protect the privileges of all their inhabitants, whether within the four seas or in foreign settlements.  But it also seems that the clause against raising and keeping on foot a standing army without the consent of Parliament was not more violated by keeping a mixed garrison in Gibraltar and Port Mahon than garrisons consisting of native soldiers only; and undoubtedly the keeping of an armed force in both these fortresses had been sanctioned by Parliament.  Nor could the colonel of a foreign regiment in garrison under the command of a British governor be fairly said to be in an office of great military trust.  So far, therefore, the charge against the ministry may be thought to have failed.  But the accusation of having transgressed the clause which prohibits “the introduction of foreign troops into this kingdom without the previous consent of Parliament on any pretence whatever,” must, on the other hand, be regarded as proved.  And, indeed, Lord North himself may be taken to have shown some consciousness that it was