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 so, since he
justified his conduct in omitting to procure that previous consent by
the necessity of the case, by the plea that, as Parliament was in
vacation, the time which would have been consumed in waiting for its
sanction would have neutralized the