ground being stated for the war. If the nature of the reparation which we desired was specified, the object was then precise, and, when it was obtained, war was at an end. But if his motion was not adopted, and if gentlemen went away with a doubt of the object which was aimed at by the war, it could not then be known to what length, or under what pretences the war might be protracted. In the course of the debate, one of these pretences was, that the conduct of the court of Berlin with respect to Poland had not been attempted to be vindicated. If Brissot was to be the object of so much invective, was the court of Berlin to be exempted from censure? The more elevated the situation from which crimes proceeded, the more were they to be reprobated, the more pernicious was their example, and the more extensive the mischief with which they were attended. That a high situation should procure oblivion or impunity for crimes, was a maxim which no just, generous, or magnanimous mind would readily admit. He was not acquainted with M. Brissot, whom a right honourable gentleman had stiled the prince of pick-pockets, but he always understood that any objections stated to his character arose only from his public conduct. With respect to M. Chauvelin, he would likewise suggest to that right hon. gentleman to be cautious in admitting accounts, as ground for his invective, which came from persons heated with the most violent personal enmity and political animosity. Mr. Fox said, he had now finished his task-and could with confidence say liberavi animam meam. He had done all that he could do. He had been told that the part he had taken was not popular. No man was more desirous of popularity than he was; no man would make more just sacrifices to obtain it. If the part which a regard to the interests of the country obliged him to take was not popular, it was not his duty to be influenced by that consideration. We had now got into a war; and how best to put an end to that war was the object which demanded their attention. It was their business, treading the old constitutional ground, to come forward boldly with their opinions, in proportion to the importance of the crisis and the dangers of the country, and not to be deterred by the suggestions of timidity, or by menaces of unpopularity. It gave him satisfaction that no one had ventured to come forward to give a negative to his motion, even amidst the general exultation which prevailed among the members of that House, with respect to a war; but that it was to be got rid of by the previous question. He feared-he by no means wished that this exultation in its event would have a termination similar to that which had been so emphatically described by Tacitus, "Spe læta, tractatu dura, eventu tristia.” Mr. Jenkinson having moved the previous question on Mr. Fox's motion, the House divided: THE MR. TAYLOR'S MOTION RESPECTING BARRACKS. February 22. HE erection of barracks, which had taken place in several parts of the kingdom, though it was not altogether a new, measure, was considered by those who remained of, and adhered to, the old whig party, as an unconstitutional expedient, and tending to the establishment of a standing army. Accordingly this day, Mr. M. A. Taylor brought the subject forward, and after adducing a variety of authorities, he concluded with moving, “That the uniform and persevering opposition given by our ancestors to every attempt to erect barracks in this country, was founded upon a just understanding of the true principles of our free and excellent constitution; and that this opposition has been justified and supported by high political and legal authority, whose recorded opinion is, That in time of peace the soldier should live intermixed with the people, that no separate camp, no barracks, no inland fortresses, should be allowed; and that a circulation should be thus kept up between the army and the people, and the citizen and the soldier be intimately connected together. *"" The motion was opposed by Sir George Yonge, Mr. Minchin, Sir George Howard, Lord Mulgrave, Mr. Burdon, and Mr. Pitt; and supported by Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, Mr. Courtenay, and Major Maitland. General Sir George Howard reprobated the bringing forward of questions, day by day, reflecting on the conduct of ministers, at a time like the present. Let them, he said, be supported now, and when the proper time came, let them be impeached if they had acted wrong. Mr. Fox said, that all his respect for the honourable general, could not prevent him from saying, that the advice he had just given, if the House were to follow it, would prove a complete suspension of the most valuable functions of that constitution which he was so anxious to defend. If, when the country was brought into danger, they were to say, that they * Blackstone's Commentaries, b. i. e. xiii. p. 414. VOL. V. E would agitate no questions but what ministers chose to agitate, that they were in no instance to examine their conduct, but to commit the whole management of public affairs implicitly into their hands, they would betray the trust which their constituents had reposed in them, they would relinquish the most imperious of their duties, namely, that of watching, and, when necessary, controuling the servants of the executive power, and the practice of our government would be any thing but what it had formerly been, and what he hoped it would long continue. His honourable friend was not to be blamed for the motion he had made. It arose out of the conduct of ministers; and to that conduct, not to the mover of it, was it to be imputed. He had as high an opinion of the integrity, the honour, and principles of the officers of the British army, as the honourable general; but he would not pay them a compliment at the expence of the constitution; he would not sacrifice to them that jealousy, which it was the duty of the House of Commons to entertain of every set of men so immediately connected with the crown. To the crown they must look for promotion; by the crown they might be dismissed from their profession without any cause assigned; and to the crown they must be attached in different degrees from men on whom similar motives did not operate. This attachment arose from the situation in which they were placed, it applied to them collectively as a body, and was no disparagement whatever to any of them as individuals. To the crown it was said lawyers must look for promotion; the crown could give and take away silk gowns, but the crown could neither give nor take away the fair emoluments of a man's abilities in his profession. The silk gown would bring but few, if any clients, and as few would the loss of it take from the barrister of reputation. The honourable general had said, that he had served nine campaigns abroad, and (what the honourable general would not say) with great honour to himself and advantage to his country. Now, after all his campaigns, and the very considerable emoluments with which they had been rewarded, would the honourable general say that his majesty might not dismiss him from all those emoluments, for no reason but because he happened to differ in political opinion from his ministers, were such a difference ever to take place? If he could not say so, then it was clear that they were held at the pleasure of the king and his ministers, and that such being the situation of all military officers, they were fit and necessary objects of the jealousy and vigilance of the House of Commons; as were, indeed, in a greater or less degree, all persons whatever employed by the crown. Late events had added much to his jealousy in this respect. They had seen officers dismissed without any reason assigned or assignable, except theoretical opinions, which they were supposed to entertain. These officers had been allowed to receive the price of their commissions. But, was it nothing to be turned out of their profession, on which they had founded all the hopes of their future fortune? Besides, they might not have been allowed to sell, if his majesty's ministers had thought fit so to advise him, and therefore all the officers of the army knew, that they were so far completely at the mercy of the crown, and that men who had shed their blood in the service of their country might be deprived, not only of their rank and their hopes, but of the money with which they had originally purchased their commissions. While ministers and their friends were praising the constitution, and deprecating innovation, they themselves were introducing a system for the disposition of a standing army, which had been always held incompatible with the safety of public liberty, and always opposed. Was the argument of innovation always to lead one way? When any reform of the abuses of the constitution was suggested, was it to be ever reprobated? When to repair any breach that time had made in the fabric, when to reform any existing abuse in the practice of the constitution was proposed, their answer was, "What! will you meddle with the constitution at such a season as this; will you endanger the whole for the sake of a part, that may safely wait for a remedy till a more convenient opportunity?" When they themselves proposed not reform, but innovation, the answer was the same, "Consider the occasion; will you oppose a measure which the time loudly calls for ?" There was not now, it was said, the same reason for being afraid of a standing army, as when William III., a foreigner, was on the throne an absurd argument in his opinion; but admitting it to have any weight, were we to give up the principles of our constitution, and a most leading one was the jealousy of a standing army, because the king was a native? On his majesty's accession, it had, indeed, been insinuated, that the constitution, at least in practice, was to be very different from what it had formerly been; a doctrine for which he could never see any reason, and which he hoped never to hear revived. Was there not as much reason to be afraid of barracks now as in the year 1740? Was there more cause for jealousy of a standing army, when we were menaced from abroad, and dreaded the invasion of a pretender to the throne? Yet, at that period, the two leading men, Mr. Pulteney and Mr. Pelham, one of whom supported, and the other opposed Sir Robert Walpole, both united in reprobating the - system of erecting barracks, as unconstitutional and inimical to the rights of the people. And they said well; for the mixing the soldiers with the people, by which they imbibed the same principles and the same sentiments, was the best security of the constitution against the danger of a standing army. But, it was said the soldiers could not mix with the better sort of people to learn their political opinions. It was quite sufficient if they were on a par in their opinions of the constitution with men in the same ranks of society from which they had been originally taken. But, supposing that there were any force in this argument, would confining them apart in barracks give them access to better conversation and better opinions? It was entirely new to say, that the military was necessary to the execution of the civil power. The constitution acknowledged no such auxiliary. For the exercise of the civil power the means were always in force; an: ne very preamble to the annual mutiny bill, which some people considered as bombastic, expressly stated, that a standing army, in time of peace, without the consent of parliament, was against law. If magistrates neglected to call in the military when their assistance was necessary, they did not do their duty. If there were places where the existing police was insufficient, let means be tried to remedy the defect, but let it not be pleaded as a reason for keeping up a military force; for of all sorts of police, a military police was the most repugnant to the spirit and the letter of our government, and ought to be the last that ever parliament should adopt. It was not true that the building of barracks was acceptable to all the country. There were places where it was considered, not as a benefit, but a grievance. It might be that publicans were glad to be relieved from having troops quartered upon them, but that proved nothing: and if they were all of the same opinion, they ought not to be allowed to sell their permanent security for a temporary convenience. There were various instances of something like a design on the part of ministers to teach the army to look solely to the crown, without regard to the House of Commons. One of these was the increase of the soldiers' pay last year, without first consulting parliament, and before parliament had met; an increase which the king had no authority to give till voted by the House of Commons. The king had the sole command of the army. Why? Because it was given him by the House of Commons: but it was their exclusive privilege to say whether or not there should be any army, what its number, and what its pay. He was still old fashioned |