52] 
critical times as the present, and the 
lesser expence at which they were 
kept together, withmuch more com- 
fort and convenience to themselves, 
and utility to the public, than by the 
former method: of quartering them, 
were, he presumed, sufficient argu- 
ments in favour of barracks ; nor 
would he omit the propriety of re- 
moving soldiers from the danger of 
being contaminated by the seditious 
disposition of the lower classes. 
It was observed, in answer, by 
Mr. Taylor, that a total separation 
of the soldiery from the commonalty, 
were it practicable, would obliterate 
that union of character which ren- 
dered military men citizens as well 
as soldiers, and endeared both classes 
to each other: when consciously 
united inone commom interest, their 
reciprocal attachment would pro- 
duce the most signal advantages, 
through the spirit and confidence 
they would act with, andthe conti- 
nual proofs of: good will that would 
mutually arise between them. 
Mr. Fox argued, with uncommon 
strength, against the System of bar- 
racks, as tending directly to incul- 
cate the blindest and most abject 
obedience in thesoldiery. He ex- 
plicitly asserted, that unconditional 
obedience was neither the duty of 
an English citizen, or an English 
soldier: the constitution of England 
rested on the mixture of citizens 
atid Soldiers in all the habits and oc~ 
currences of life ; to part them from 
each other, in the manner proposed, 
by lodging the troops in barracks, 
would be to divide them into dis- 
tinct people, who, from various 
causes, would quickly beeome ini- 
mical to each other. True it was 
that barracks had been erected in 
England before this time, but they 
were few and inconsiderable; not 
1 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1796. 
constructed, as now, with the mani- 
fest intention of secluding the whole 
army from the nation, and cutting 
off, as much as in ministers lay, all 
intercourse between soldiers and ci- 
tizens. To dissolve a connection, 
so indispensible in a land: of liberty 
for its preservation, was a deed wholly 
unjustifiable, and shewed, without 
the necessity of any farther argument, 
the real designs in agitation. 
These assertions were, by Mr. 
Pitt, represented as totally unfound- 
ed. The system of barracks was 
neither new mor unconstitutional ; 
it was of long standing, and only 
of late enlarged, on the mere prin- 
eiple of placing the troops upona 
more convenient and useful footing. 
Parliament had given it a decided 
sanction 3 it had been carried on 
with all due diligence and economy, 
and could produce nothing that did 
not appear beneficial : soldiers would 
be better quartered, at a smaller 
expence, and kept in more order 
without confining them from society 
in any cases but those of confusion 
and tumult. 
Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. Courte- 
hay, spoke in very adverse terms of 
the case in question : the former re- 
probated the system of barracks, as 
incompatible with the genius and 
constitution of the people of this 
country, and fit only to prove that 
it was despotically governed. The 
latter, in a strain of humour and 
pleasantry, exposed all those cir- 
cumstances relating to the business, 
which could render it odious under 
the appearance of ridicule. 
Mr. Grey censured the system 
with great severity. He demanded 
whether an addition of thirty-four 
thousand men was to be made to 
the peace establishment in future, 
as the old barracks would contain — 
twenty 
