1766. | 
BRITISH PARLIAMENT, 
eS houfe of commons having adjourn- 
ed till Monday, the 4th of April, on 
that day they again affembled, but nothing 
of importance occurred. The following day 
the legacy bill was read a third time. It 
was oppofed by Mr. Fox, by general 
Smith, Mr. Grey, and aiderman Newn- 
ham; but was fupported by the chancellor 
of the exchequer, and the bill was paffed. 
On the 8th of April, a motion was 
made by general Smith, “ That it thould 
be referred to a committee, to examine 
mto the monies expended in creéting of 
barracks, fince the year 1790; and to re- 
port to the houfe their opinion on the 
fame.” He obferved, that, in the uncon- 
ftitutional meafure of erecting barracks 
throughout the kingdom, enormous fums 
had been expended, without the authority 
of parliament. The officers of this new 
eftablifhmsent, he faid, cof more than half 
the faving of Mr. Burke’s reform bill. 
“The accounts already laid upon the table, 
for buildings and furniture, amounted to 
1,415,000l, befides which, there were ex- 
pences, now incurring, which could not be 
iefs than 300,000]. There were forty -fix 
barrack-mafters, a barrack -mafter-gene- 
ral, and ninetcen officers underhim. Se- 
veral barrack-matters were appointed for 
places, before even a line had been drawn 
for the fite of the intended barracks ; 
and the annual falaries, aid travelling ex- 
pences, of the whole number, would 
“amount to 14,000l.a year. If the mini- 
fter could at pleafure difpofe of nearly two 
millions fterling for fuch purpofes, what 
_was become of the rights of the people ? 
It was one of the privileges and duties of 
the houfe of commons, to take care of the 
public expenditure ; but this money had 
_ been expended without their confent, and 
_ for a very unconftitutiona! and dangerous 
purpofe. 
The fecretary at war vindicated the 
erection of barracks on feveral grounds ; 
firit, that it would be found a faving to 
erect permanent barracks, in erder to pre- 
vent the neceffity of having recourfe to 
temporary ones, in cafe of war breaking 
Out again; fecondly, that this was abfo- 
lutely neceffary along the fea-coafts, in 
order to fecure us againft an invation ; 
thirdly, to eafe publicans of the inconve- 
nience of lodging the military ; and fourth- 
ly and laftly, to keep the minds of the 
foldiers pure and undebauched from the fe- 
ditious and treafonable doétrines, to which 
they were expofed by living in public- 
houfes. Having {poken at cenfiderable 
Britifh Parliament. 
: 239 
length, he concluded by giving his diffent 
to the mowuon. 
Mr. Fox fupported general Smith’s mo~ 
tion ; and particularly obje€ted to the idea 
of fhutring the {eldiers up in barracks, le& 
they fhould imbibe what were called fedi- 
tious doctrines. He did not approve of 
endeavouring to make Englifh foldiers 
deaf and dumb ; and the fecretary at war 
fhould remember, that he could not efta- 
bligh a partial deafnefs among the foldiery, 
becaufe he could not prevent them from 
hearing feditious converfation, without at 
the fame time excluding them from any 
intercourfe with their fellow-citizens ? 
Now, as it was not poffible to colleé& a fet 
of men literally deaf, for foldiers, becaufe 
they would be unfit for fervice ; he would 
recommend them to employ forcigners, 
who might be trained to obedience by their 
own officers, and who, not underftanding 
the language, could not be corrupted. But 
he by no means agreed that it was the duty 
of foldiers to obey implicitly every com- 
mand which they received: he contended 
that if their commands were illegal, they 
were not bound to obey them. Nor did 
he agree with the gentlemen on the ether 
fide, that barracks were calculated to keep 
folciers frow the attempts of thofe who 
wifhed to feduce their principles—if there 
were any who entertaimed fuch a with. It 
had been the cuftom to draw examples from 
the French revolution: he defired to afk, 
whether in France, before the revolution, 
the whole of the foldiery were not kept in 
barracks ? and whether it was found from 
that circumutance more difficult to bring 
them over to the fide of the people? On 
the contrary, they were the mof aétive 
agents of the revolction, 
Mr. Pitt oppofed the motion ¢ and faid, 
that it cught not to be fuppofed, that, in 
confequence of the foidiers being quartered 
in barracks, they were to_be eur off from 
all intercourfe with fociety. Becaufe it was 
wifhed to prevent the foldiers from being 
conitantly expofed to the artful infinuations 
of men, who lot no opportunity of attempt=. 
ing to corrupt their principles, it was nota 
neceflary inference, that he wished therm 
to be cut off from all focial intercourfe witk 
their friends, their relatives, and their 
countryman ! Ele wifhed them to have all 
the advantages and comfort refulting from 
a harmlefs communication with fociety, at 
the fame time that he defired to prevent 
principles contrary to their duty and alje- 
giance, from being inftilled into. their 
minds ; and this was the only feclufion 
they fuifered in barracks. 
it appeared to be thought, he faid, by 
aS gentlemen 
