Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

mouths at the beginning of the war, in judgment of the House on such occasions, particular, the right hon. gentleman had it could not be said to come sub silentio insisted, that it was the salvation of the on the nation. It had been brought beconstitution which prompted him to un- fore the House in 1793,* and as it had then dertake the war. He was one of those come distinctly to be considered, he had who was friendly to the war upon that a right to plead the event of that discusprinciple, and he had not altered his sion, as a virtual recognition of the prinopinion. He wished gentlemen, however, ciple of the measure. Much had been inwould have some regard to consistency curred on the spur of occasion: and, in of character; and that, while they sup- short, if the utmost exertions had been ported the constitution with one hand, made to lay the estimate before the House they would not attack it with the other. originally, it would have been a vague In former times, the kings of this country conjecture, merely to satisfy form. The attempted to levy money without consent hon. general had stated, that three or of parliament: the minister of the present four years ago there were no such things day ventured to apply the public revenues as barracks. Did he, indeed, know so to purposes for which it was not intended, little of the matter? Was it necessary to in defiance of the law. The general con- state that barracks capable of containing cluded with moving, "That it be referred 20,000 men had been erected many years to a committee to examine into the Ex- since, and were still in use? Such being penditure of Public Money, in the con- incontrovertibly the fact, the principle struction and furnishing of Barracks since was established. An objection, he was the year 1790; as also to investigate by aware was ready in the mouths of gentlewhat authority such an expense, amount- men, viz. that there was the less necesing to upwards of one million sterling, sity for erecting new barracks. But has been incurred, and to report to this there were two objections to the old House, together with the opinion of the barracks: first, they were calculated for committee, upon these subjects the reception of infantry only; and, seMr. Windham (secretary at war) said, condly, they were placed in situations not that the hon. general was struck, in the fit for the commodious arrangement of first place, with the magnitude of the troops throughout the kingdom; and as it expense was evident. That, however, had been found, in many instances, notconproved but little for in every country venient to station soldiers in them, it had like this, the public service must necessa- been necessary to quarter them in inns. rily be carried on at a great expense. With respect to the practice of billeting The proper state of the question would soldiers on inn-keepers, it was an old be, not whether there was a great ex- abuse; it was a practice strange and unpense, but whether there was a comparative known in any other country in the world; proportion between the magnitude of the the soldiers of the state were not provided expenditure and the importance of the at the expense of the state, but at the object? With regard to the objection, cost of a particular class of inhabitants. that the money had been incurred without What better reason could be stated for being submitted to the judgment of par- laying this burden upon inn-keepers than liament, unless that became a question of upon attornies, shopkeepers, or any other mere form (and he was ready to allow class of people? Formerly, when the that there had been a departure from practice commenced, the soldiers pay form), another question would arise, was greater, in proportion to the value of built upon the spirit and meaning of our the commodities, and perhaps he might constitution, and upon true wisdom: was then have been able to pay for his fare as the money incurred bona fide for the pub-well as any other guest; but, in progress lic service? No public inconvenience had of time, when there was no proportion arisen from the mode of expenditure, and between the pay of a soldier and his exthere was no reason to think that the pub-penses at an ino, this institution became lic judgment had been misled. Could gentlemen pretend that the expenses were incurred without the knowledge of the House? Certainly not. The question, though it had not come before the House in a regular form, had been discussed in other forms; and having the approving

oppressive to the inn-keeper; so much so, that it was found absolutely necessary to pass an act last year for their relief. If any body objected, that inn-keepers made

Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor's Motion respecting Barracks. See Vol. 30, p. 473.

troops? It would be better, in different views of advantage, to submit to a large first expense for building barracks of substantial quality, even though part of them might remain empty in time of peace. On a general principle of defence, it might be necessary to quarter troops where there were no inns; without which precaution several parts of the kingdom, such as towns upon the east of Scotland, might be liable to the depredation of any pri vateer that should land. These barracks were not, however, capable of maintain

travellers pay, the expense was still of oppressive operation, and borne either by inn-keepers or travellers, or by both. Another objection was, that when the troops were in motion in all parts of the country, they were obliged to follow the course of the inns in travelling with great inconvenience, especially as the number of capital inns in the country had for some time past been considerably on the decrease, which consequently made the grievance more intolerable to those that remained. In fact, all circumstances combined to render the erecting of newing an extraordinary increase above the barracks indispensably necessary.-Hav- peace establishment; the cavalry on the ing thus stated the progress and reasons last peace establishment, he believed, of the measure, the next question was, amounted to 3,700 men; the barracks whether the expenditure had been con- erected for cavalry would contain 5,400 ducted wastefully or unprofitably? On the men; and he would put it to the House, fullest investigation into that part of the whether the surplus for the accommodation subject, he was confident that nothing of 1,700 men afforded any cause for genewould appear but economy and good ral alarm. The hon. general complained management. The hon. general had of the new patronage created by the notalked of expenses permanently entailed mination of barrack-masters. If barracks upon the people. He denied that the existed, there must necessarily be somegreat expense was permanent: the erec- body to take care of them; there must, tion of barracks made one original ex- of course, be patronage, and that patronpense. With respect to the annual ex- age must be vested somewhere. Allowpenses for barrack masters, that was per- ing the institution to be generally good, manent; if barracks were erected, no should gentlemen, from any horror of doubt there must be persons to take care patronage give it up. The former sysof them: so much for permanent expense. tem had been full of waste and misOn the other hand, there was a perma- management; in the present, he denent saving; for if the old system were fied gentlemen to show a trace of either. continued, the annual expense to the Gentlemen enjoyed their laugh, because public would be larger than under the es- a barrack-master was appointed before tablishment of barracks. He was certain the barrack was built. Was there any that barracks would be found considerably thing either wonderful or ridiculous in cheaper in time of war, and he believed this? As gentlemen seemed eager for they would also be cheaper in peace. the enjoyment of a jest, it would be a pity From the circumstance of the erection of to interrupt their gratification. There barracks, the hon. general had inferred, were, it was true, three barracks planned that the whole war establishment was to at Lincoln, Shrewsbury, and Saxmundbe kept up in time of peace. He did not ham; and there were barrack-masters apthen wish to say what peace establishment pointed; these erections were found not it might be necessary to keep up; it how-to be necessary, and were abandoned. ever by no means followed, that it would be necessary to fill those barracks because they were in existence. When the desired event of peace should take place, would the House act so unwisely as to reckon on the continuance of it with such an extent of credulity as to decide in that moment that it would not be necessary to be prepared against the possibility of the return of war? Did the hon. general himself think that the country ought to be left subject to the same inconveniences as they were at the beginning of the present war, for want of quarters for new-raised

Gentlemen, however, must know, that it was proper to have a superintending barrack master to treat for the ground, and oversee the progress of erection: nobody could be a better judge; and if the intention of erecting buildings should be abandoned, and the barrack-masters dismissed, ought they not to receive a part of their salary for the time they were appointed? In answer to what the hon. gentleman had stated respecting a compensation given to barrack-masters for losing their places, the only answer he could give was, that no such compensation had been given.-He

came at length to the constitutional part | duty, but of prudence. This struck him of the question, which he considered as to be an unqualified recommendation of intimately connected with the subject of direct civil resistance; and seemed to the debates that had taken place in the threaten a dissolution of the governbeginning of the session. If they thought ment. In that situation he said, that gothat that there were men who night and vernment must exercise a vigour beyond day were preaching up bad doctrines in the law; and in doing so, he said no more this country, was it unconstitutional in the than what was conveyed in the maxim, government to withdraw the soldiery from Silent leges inter arma. When a rebellion being infected by them? Some persons existed in the country in 1745, was not were such advocates for free discussion, that done which was beyond the vigour of that they would allow any doctrine to be the law? The government was then taught, trusting only to the antidote which driven into a situation in which it was a argument could bestow. To their mode question of arms only, and not a question of reasoning he could not surrender his of law or constitution. No general rule own judgment. If, therefore, there were of law could apply to such a case; it such men abroad, he would adopt the me- would make a law for itself: bat so long thod of cure prescribed in a French co- as the constitution should exist, it was the medy-" If I cannot make him dumb, I sacred duty of the soldier to stand up in will make you deaf." Upon that principle defence of law and the constitution, and the removal of the troops from the danger to oppose any rebel or democratic traitor of being tampered with had proceeded. who should resist the authority of governHe was desirous that the soldiers should ment. Such was the duty of a soldier; be considered as citizens; and in order and the man who maintained the contrary, that they might be so considered, he would maintained a doctrine as remote from the withdraw them from bad lessons and dan- law and the constitution, as it was from gerous counsel: he would, in that case, the feelings of the country: and if he act by them, as he would by his own fa- had not been sure that the occasion did mily, his own children. Putting the poi- not admit of the animadversion, it might sonous infusion of sedition however out have become a question whether the indiof the question, the good discipline of the vidual who had maintained such a doctrine army made the measure advisable. The should not be proceeded against as a institution of barracks would tend to the traitor. Having stated thus much on the comfort as well as to the obedience of the general question, and in vindication of soldiers. In public-houses they were his former assertions, he should conclude under a continual temptation to contract with giving a direct negative to the moexpenses which they could not support, tion. and vicious habits which could neither benefit themselves nor the community: this they must either do or live in miserable dependence upon the bounty of the innkeeper. For soldiers to live in a publichouse was, therefore, morally and politically exceptionable. He came next to answer the observations made by the hon. general, respecting an expression which he had used early in the session, that, in certain circumstances, it would be justifiable as it might be necessary to have recourse to a vigour beyond the law.* The expression he had certainly used; and when he recollected the situation in which he stood when he employed it, he saw no reason to shrink from the sentiment which it conveyed. It was on a memorable occasion that the expression fell from him, when it was affirmed that resistance to government was no longer a question of

See p. 386 of the present Volume.

Mr. M. A. Taylor said, the right hon. gentleman had concluded his speech with a string of truisms to which every one must subscribe, and, consistently with the usual fertility of his imagination, had created a number of phantoms, every one of which militated against his own arguments. The right hon. gentleman, in the flourish of his peroration, had pompously pronounced, that if the people rebelled against the lawful government of the country, in such case the troops were justifiable in acting against their fellow citizens. Was there any man who doubted the fact? Why, therefore, dwell upon it with such apparent warmth, if it were not to divert the mind of the House from the real object of the general's motion? The right hon. gentleman next asserted, that the principle of cantoning the military in barracks, was not a new one, as it had been recognized by parliament. Where had the right hon. gentleman

learned this doctrine? He did not formerly profess it. So far from parliament having recognized the principle of building barracks, they were first clandestinely erected, and be believed that as he was the only person in that House who had a residence near Sheffield, where they began to be so clandestinely erected, he was the first person who brought on a discussion about them. The right hon. gentleman had insinuated that seditious persons were employed to seduce the army from their allegiance. Barracks were, therefore, to be their safeguard. But did soldiers never go out when they were cantoned in barracks? Did they never live with their families-never mingle with the world as citizens? He hoped this was not the case. Automaton troops might do for drill; but the best defenders of the rights, liberties, religion, and property of the kingdom, were those men who had an interest in all, and partook of the comforts they afforded. Our ancestors were particularly careful to guard against the erection of inland fortresses; and if they were so jealous in such cases, be saw no reason why we should not be so likewise. He would therefore give his hearty assent to the motion.

They ought not, says he, to be taught disobedience. God forbid that they should! But is it not a plain proposition, that indiscriminate obedience is not the duty of an Englishman, whether he be a soldier or any other citizen? Where commands are illegal, it is his duty to resist them. The right hon. gentleman, surely, does not intend to say, that his troops should be altogether deaf. If he does, it will be in vain for him to look for an army in this country, possessed of this physical advantage. He must call in foreign mercenaries. Ignorant of any language but their own, they would be sufficiently deaf for all the purposes of despotism. It would be enough that they should understand their officers, and might easily be brought, as in former times has been attempted, to act against this House and the general liberties of the country.-Exclusively of what I have already urged, I differ from the right hon. gentleman upon the point of prudence and policy. If one system be more corrupt and inimical to freedom than another, it is the system of barracks. What was actually the case in France? Was not the mode in which their army was cantoned out in barracks a principal opeMr. Fox said:-I am happy, Sir, that rative cause in producing the revolution? the right hon. gentleman opposite has It is beyond all belief astonishing, that thought proper to deliver his sentiments while we declaim so violently upon the in so full and explicit a manner. The state to which France has been reduced, right hon. gentleman has also brought we should at the same time be pursuing forward a general question, connected those very measures which are likely to with the subject of debate, but at the bring us to a similar situation. The right same time not altogether necessary in its hon. gentleman speaks of those who decision; namely, the connexion which preach up doctrines hostile to the conought to subsist between the military stitution: but permit me to say, that it is and the rest of their countrymen. "Be-not Mr. Paine, nor much more ingenious cause," says he there are bad men and men, who by any thing they say can inbad principles abroad in the country, the jure the constitution. Those are its real military must be secluded from the so- enemies who are constantly making pracciety of their fellow-subjects." He then tical comments upon such authors. most aptly introduces the language of Those who, with me, admire our constituthe Mock Doctor, and says, "If I cannot tion, are of opinion, that if strictly admake others dumb, I can make them hered to, it has sufficient energy to dedeaf. I will place them entirely out of fend and preserve itself. Paine says, that reach, where no such doctrine shall as- our constitution is a mere farce, a sail their ears." What, Sir, is the full mockery; that there is no real check upon meaning and extent of this doctrine? the exercise of the powers of governCan the right hon. gentleman make his ment. Do not ministers practically say troops partially deaf? Can he prevent the same? Do they not, day after day, them from listening to the voice of se- and year after year, pass acts in direct dition, without, at the same time, shutting violation of the acknowledged principles them up from the knowledge of those of the constitution? Their manifest general principles of rational liberty, breach of the appropriation act, must be whose animating influence ought ever to fresh in our recollection. These deviainspire the soldiers of a free country?tions they pretend to justify on the plea

66

the expense is nothing, for that all state expenses must be great; but I have always understood, that in proportion to the magnitude of the expense, is the propriety of instituting an inquiry. The expense in the present instance is unquestionably great; and how is it attempted to be justified? We are told that the different circumstances occasioning it were unforeseen. This, indeed, if any, is the only excuse which can be made: but mark the inconsistency, observe the application of this excuse to the manner in which the subject has been treated this evening. We are told that barracks were erected, and expense incurred upon the spur of the occasion. This is the excuse: but not satisfied with this, the right hon. gentleman, in the same breath, enters into an elaborate justification of the propriety of keeping them up as a permanent source of expense. He informs us, that necessity produced all this of a sudden, and at the same time assures us that it has been long a matter of experience, that the military could not be properly accommodated in any other

manner.

of necessity. If this plea is at any time
to be received with jealousy, it must be
in the present instance; and it is indeed
curious to observe the language by which
this measure is attempted to be defended.
In the mode of granting the money, says
the right hon. gentleman, there may pos-
sibly have occurred some deviation from
strict form, but nothing has been done
substantially prejudicial. What! is it
from him that such language was to be
expected? From him who has a sanctified
horror at every thing which bears the
semblance of reform? From him who on
the subject of a reform in the representa-
tion, trembled at the bare idea of taking
one step towards innovation? Is he the
person who comes forward and tells us
that forms may be dispensed with ?-But
let us see what is actually the form, as it
is called, which we are desired thus to
dispense with. Are we not rather de-
sired to dispense with a fundamental prin-
ciple of the constitution? Are we not de-
sired to dispense with the exercise of that
control which we ought to have over the
public purse, and called upon to sanction
those expenses which never obtained our
consent? The constitution says, that
money shall not be raised without the
consent of parliament. Has that not
been done in the present instance? When
the question of barracks was under the
contemplation of government, should it
not have been brought before parliament,
and not merely be laid before them for
their approbation, after the expense has
been incurred? In the common affairs of
life, if a servant came to his master and
says he wanted 1,000l. for any particular
purpose, the master would naturally de-
liberate on the propriety of the proposed
measure; but, were his steward to inform
he had actually expended a few thousand
pounds in such and such a way, the mas-
ter would startle at this being done with
out his previous consent; and were the
steward to justify his conduct, by saying
he considered that to be a mere matter
of form, the master would no doubt give
his servant to understand, that such forms
were not to be dispensed with. The
steward might then be induced to justify
himself on the score of necessity. Cases
might certainly occur where such a plea|sional consent to such a measure.
might be admissible, but they must be
cases neither of any great magnitude, nor
where the same purpose could be equally
well effected in a more satisfactory man-
ner. We are told that the magnitude of

The plan has avowedly been long in agitation, but ministers have never thought proper to bring it regularly before the House. They have, on the contrary, incurred all the expense, and gone on in the prosecution of an extensive system, not only without the authority, but in absolute defiance of parliament. When I talk of erecting barracks on a system, the right hon. gentleman may perhaps not choose to understand me. I remember a dispute I had with him upon the laws of nations. Those laws he treated with very little ceremony, and seemed to be of a similar opinion with citizen Genet, who thought that without any great loss, they might all be thrown into the sea. If this system is to be defended, and defended in such a manner as I have heard this night, we may dispose, in the same manner, of all the laws of England. We may, when we please, throw into the sea, the commentaries of Mr. Justice Blackstone, and the brilliant speeches on this subject delivered by the late lord Chatham. We are triumphantly told, that our ancestors gave their occa

What!

can the right hon. gentleman say, there is any resemblance between small cantonments partially taking place, and the whole army of this country being constantly secluded from the rest of the in

« PreviousContinue »