under confideration, fome parts of the kingdom, fuch as the towns upon the east of Scotland, might be Jiable to the depredations of any privateer. The accommodation above the peace establishment, which he stated at 3700 men, would only allow for the furplus of 1700, which were furely not fufficient to excite alarm. The new fyftem was, he contended, greatly fuperior in point of economy to the old; the new expences included a part of the expences formerly placed to the account of ordnance, a part likewife went to the governors of forts and garrifons. With refpect to the appointment of a barrackmafter previous to building the barracks, it was neceffary to have a mafter to treat for the ground, and oversee the progrefs of erection,, He ftated further, that much trouble and little emolument was attached to thofe offices, and that, therefore, gentlemen were continually refigning them. The erection of barracks was, he thought, further juftifiable from the prevalence of fedition, which rendered it necellary to remove the foldiery from the danger of contamination: it would at once increase the comforts and the obedience of the foldiery. After an elaborate vindication of the expreffon alluded to in the fpeech of the preceding fpeaker, Mr. Windham, as might be expected, gave a direct negative to the

motion.

Mr. M. A. Taylor obferved that it had been infinuated, that feditious papers had been thrown into the quarters of the foldiers, in order to corrupt them; and therefore barracks were neceffary. But why might not these papers be thrown into the barracks? and why were not perfons thus acting fubjected to the punishments provided by law?

Could barracks, however, fecure the foldiery from thofe pernicious attacks? Did they never go abroad, and share with their fellowcitizens the bleffings and contagion of fociety?-Automaton troops of fuch difcipline might do for drill, but the beft fupport of government, and the braveft defenders of the rights, liberties, religion, and property, of the kingdom, were thofe who had an intereft in all, and partook of the comforts they afford. Having formerly declared his fentiments refpecting the expediency and advantages of uniting the characters of the foldier and citizen, he would at prefent decline that, fubject; but he was certain, had Lord North, in the American war, propofed fuch a fyftem, the prefent minifter would have been one of the moft ftrenuous opponents of a meafure which he would not have hesitated to deem eminently weak and extravagant. He proceeded to notice the vaft extenfion of patronage, and pointedly ridiculed the appointment of a barrack-mafter at Lincoln, who, though he could not plead having feen military service, and though thefe offices were held forth by the fecretary at war as rewards for men who deferved well from their country, yet certainly poffeffed uncommon abilities, and was at once a good faddler, a good fportfman, a good dancing-mafter, and, at the fame time, mafter of the ceremonies at the Lincoln affembly!

The improbability of placing the foldiery in fuch a fituation as to prevent their liftening to the voice of fedition, without fhutting them out from the principles of rational liberty, was forcibly stated by Mr. Fox. God forbid that they should be taught difobedience! But was it not a plain propofition, that indif

criminate

criminate obedience was not the duty of an Englishman, whether foldier or citizen? If one fyftem was more corrupt and inimical to freedom than another, it was the system of bar acks. The cantonment in barracks of the army of France was, he pointedly obferved, one principal caufe of the revolution. To speak in terms of reprobation of thofe who held doctrines hoftile to the conftitution, was a farce, while minifters were continually paffing acts fubverfive of its acknowledged principles. Their manifeft breach of the appropriation act must be fresh in every one's recollection. These deviations were juftified on the plea of neceffity: fome deviation from ftrict form was confeffed; but nothing, it was faid, had been done fubftantially prejudicial. This was the language of him who had a fanctified horror at every thing which wore the femblance of reform,-of him who trembled at the bare idea of making one step to wards innovation, yet he was the perfon who came forward to fay that forms might be difpenfed with. But what was this form to be difpenfed with? Was it not to difpenfe with a fundamental principle of the conftitution? Was the house not called upon to difpenfe with that controul which it ought to have over the public treafure, and to fanction expences to which it had never agreed? The conftitution afferted that money was not to be levied without the confent of parfiament. Had not that been done in the prefent inftance? When the question of barracks was under the contemplation of government, fhould it not have been folemnly fubmitted to parliament, and maturely confidered, and not brought before them for approbation after

all the expence had been incurred? Mr. Fox proceeded to notice an inconfiftency which had appeared in the doctrines laid down that evening. Barracks were faid to have been erected upon the fpur of the occafion: this was the excufe for their erection; but yet it is affert-" ed that it has been long a matter of experience, that the military could not be properly accommo dated in any other way. The plan, he contended, had been long in agitation, houg minifters had not thought proper to bring it regu larly before the house. It was the umphantly faid that our ancestors gave their occafional content to fuch a meafure; but was there any refemblance between fmall cantonments partially taking place, and the feclufion of the whole army from the reft of their countrymen? -When this fubject had been brought before the house fome time ago, minifters got rid of it by the order of the day. Could this be called a folemn decifion of parliament? That decifion gave no countenance whatever to the un authorised expenditure of the public money. Many of the barrackmafters were, he contended, felected merely for election purposes. Should the appointment of a committee of inquiry be refifted, however, Mr. Fox faid, though he might expofe himself to invidious obfervations, he would fay that we had but the mockery of a conftitution. If, indeed, minifters difregarded all fundamental principles-if the houfe quietly tolerated their exceffes-if the power of raifing and applying money was exercifed, not by the houfe of commons, but by minifters, what was the conftitution but a farce and mockery? The maintaining of a ftanding army in the country, and

diffolving the connection between the citizen and foldier, was, he obferved, a matter of the greateft de licacy and intricacy; and it would have been decent, even for the fake of form, for minifters to have given the houfe an opportunity of exercifing its deliberative functions, before a measure was carried into execution, fo hoftile to the general freedom and happiness of the na

tion.

Mr. Pitt denied that the fhutting up foldiers in barracks fecluded them from the fociety of their fellow citizens; it only prevented them from fociety at a time when the illdifpofed of the community might inftil into them fentiments of a tendency pernicious and hoftile to the conftitution. He contended, that the fyftem at prefent purfued had been fanctioned by the legiflature, and that, inftead of intro. ducing a new fyftem, minifters merely carried on an old one to a greater extent. If the principle, as had been stated, was repugnant to parliament, the country, and the conititution, would they not have taken steps to ftop it!!! and confequently, if they did not, their conduct was to be conftrued into a tacit and implied approbation. The manner and procefs of erecting barracks could not furnish any argument with refpect to their novelty. There did not appear the leaft want of wisdom in the fyftem, or mifmanagement in the execution with what propriety, then, could the house inftitute an inquiry? The affertion, that government had no right to employ money in extraordinary fervices, was unfounded. The measure, he contended, was only a prudent and neceffary extenfion of an old inftitution. The fubftantial question for confideration was, whether the 1796.

houfe would have foregone the expence incurred if the estimate had been laid before them, and whether they would then refufe their affent to extraordinaries so beneficially employed?

The fyftem in queftion was oppofed by Mr. W. Smith, as novel to the conftitution, highly expenfive, and only fit for the moft abfolute and deipotic governments. It was further objected to with une common humour by Mr. Courtenay, who thought the fecretary at war had not been treated with fuf. ficient candour and fairnefs. From an uncommon fpecies of ingenuous modefty (not always to be found in minifters) a moft confiderable and ample fund to fupply the expence of erecting barracks in every part of the kingdom, had been hitherto concealed. A new and most j die cious order had just been fued from the war office, that all the dung of the dragoon horfes, which, fr time immemorial, had been a perquifite to the foldiers, was now to be fold, and the produce remitted to the war-office, to be lodged in his majesty's exchequer, and employed for the fervice of the ftate. In his ufual ftrain of irony, Mr. Courtenay continued to entertain the houfe, obferving, that the hon. fecretary, like Virgil, as defcribed by Mr. Addifon, could fcatter his dung with a grace and majefty;' and the royal domains principally derived their rich and flou rithing crops from the manure he bestowed upon them. He, with great irony, continued to compliment the fecretary at war for acting upon thofe enlightened motives which lord Chatham, Montefquieu, and Blackftone, had thought might be attended with the most dangerous confequences to a free country. He had no doubt, from the F

joy

joy expreffed by minifters in having the half pay lift relieved by the opportunity of providing for feveral meritorious officers, that out of the fifty-fix places to be bestowed, fifty at leaft had been given to gallant and veteran officers; and he should therefore move for a lift of the barrack-mafters, to prove to the country their patriotifm in having no regard to election jobs and improper influence.

Mr. Grey, after reftating his afsertions on a former night, which he contended were not difproved, wished to know what were to be looked upon as permanent barracks for a peace establishment? If the new barracks were to hold 34,000 troops, and the old 20,000, this would be 54,000 on a peace eftablishment. If the barracks were not to be filled with troops, how could it be proved that the cheapeft way of quartering men was by keeping up barracks for many more than were wanted? With respect to the expence of barracks, he noticed two accounts, one of 243,000, the other of .314,000, and wished to know, whether thefe were diftinct, or the leffer contained in the greater fum? whether the total was expended in the laft five years, or all in 1795? Mr.

Steele, in reply, recapitulated the ftatement made, and faid, that when the intended plan was completed, there would not be barracks for more than 25,000 men. He vindicated minifters from having mifapplica the vote of credit, and faid, they had only acted like former minifters in fimilar fituations. This juftification upon precedent was ridiculed by Mr. Grey, who, with Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan, contended that there was a palpable inconfiftency on the face of the accounts. In that upon the table, it was stated that 314,000 had been paid to the barrack-mafter general, and expended in the erection of temporary barracks, on a warrant dated July 1795; while the account given in by minifters laft year, the title of which was "An account of money iffued to the barrack-mafter general for the erection of temporary barracks, up to December 31ft, 1795," amounted only to £.243,000. A difference of £73,000 therefore remained to be accounted for. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Steele in reply faid, they believed almost all, if not the whole, was expended in 1795. On a divifion of the houfe, the ayes were 24, noes 98.

A

Ta very early period in the feffion (Nov. 18th), the minifter gave notice of his intention

of laying before the commons the ufual motions with refpect to the national expenditure and fupplies.

The

The budget, however, (as it is termed in the technical language of the houfe) was not opened till Dec. 7, when Mr. Pitt obferved that he was fully aware of the difficulties of calling the attention of the house to a view of the expences of the year at fo early a period, when many of them must be judged of by eftimate, and of courfe must be taken upon confidence. He called upon the committee, however, to recollect the prospect of peace held out to them by his majesty's speech; adding, that it was probable a fpeedy termination to the war would be materially affifted by fhewing ourfelves prepared for either alternative. He therefore thought it

beft to open the general state of receipt and expenditure; and he did this with the more confidence, in the perfuafion that the account would be a triumph of the finances of Great Britain, and fully demonftrate her equal to every emer gency! He was the more induced to this, from obferving the totally exhaufted ffate of the enemy, while Great Britain could confidently look forward to providing the means for carrying on the war during years if neceffary, without bur thening the people or injuring trade!!! The whole of the fupply wanted, Mr. Pitt ftated as follows:

Chelfea, &c. &c.

6,194,452 145

1,744,471 8 360,616 8

Vote of credit

2,500,000

3,500,000

200,000

2,333,000 350,000

£.27,662,083 12

6

£2,000,000

750,000

Growing