CHAP. XI.

Officers' Billets.

239

62. Officers are entitled to proper accommodation, and are not compellable' to pay anything for lodging in the Officers' bilplace where they are billeted. "An officer or soldier lets. cannot," wrote Sir P. Yorke, "demand what room in the house he thinks fit, which seems to me an oppression and contrary to the intention of the Act."

liable to

Property of

63. Any damage done by the Officer or Soldier in his quarters he is personally responsible for, and all the Public not Public incur by way of responsibility are the statutory damage. payments granted by Parliament. As tenants under the provisions of the Mutiny Act, their property and any belonging to the Crown in their charge would, I apprehend, be free from liability for rent or to be taken in execution by the sheriff.3

person billiable to dis

leted not

tress.

system.

64. The half-billet system, originally introduced into Ireland, is an accommodation in substitution for Barracks, where the troops are acting in a disturbed part of the Half-billet country. Houses are hired at a rent equivalent to 3d. per man per week, and a higher rent for officers. In March, 1843, the system was introduced into England.*

Scotland and

65. Until recent years, the law of billeting in Scotland and in Ireland was that which was in force prior to the Law as to Union of these several kingdoms, respectively, with biti England; and, to preserve some record of it, Notes Ireland. have been placed in the Appendix, relating to the law of Scotland and of Ireland on billets.5

Mutiny Act, 1868, sec. 92; Bk. D, p. 223.

2 Appendix LXVI. (3).

3 Bk. 721, p. 9. Appendix LXVI. (4).

1843, March 8; Ordnance Circular No. 99, and War Office Circular, July, 1843; Report on Civil Administration of the Army, 1837, p. 31.

5 Appendix, Notes K and L.

Establishment of two military departments.

may

CHAPTER XII.

THE BARRACK ESTABLISHMENT.

1. THE years 1792 and 1793 are important in tracing the A.D. 1792-3. progress of the Army as an Established Institution of the country, which, from the latter of these years, it be called. Two Military departments were raised without the previous sanction of Parliament, and provided for out of the Army Extraordinaries. Both were independent departments, but over one at least the Secretary at War held a nominal control. No very definite rules appear to have been laid down for the guidance of the Chiefs of either department, and little surprise need be felt that great confusion arose as to the nature of their duty or the measure of their responsibility.

master

Commander

2. The first of these departments in order of date was the The Barrack- Barrackmaster-General's Department, as that officer General and was appointed by Letter of Service of June, 1792; and in-Chief. the other of these departments was the Commanderin-Chief's office, which dates from 1793. The present chapter will contain the history of the first of these, as illustrative of a principle which is often the subject of controversy, viz., the expediency of adopting the Foreign or Colonial System of Military Finance—that of an Executive officer of the Army, liable to the Mutiny Act, being entrusted with the Expenditure of the Public Treasure without sitting in Parliament or an effective and real financial control by a responsible Minister.

3. Prior to the Institution of the Barrack Department, the Ordnance Department, from the earliest period in our History, had the charge of the erection of barracks. The Department Master-General and Board were men-at the time

Ordnance

superseded. they were set aside of established reputation and

CHAP. XII.

Excessive Expenditure.

241

parliamentary experience. They had under them Engineer officers and Civil servants, thoroughly efficient. The purchase of lands and the erection of works had for years past been their business, and no charge of inefficiency or neglect was then urged against them. Had the Constitutional course been adopted, the Ordnance Department would have prepared an estimate for the expenditure needed for the erection of Barracks all of the board officers being responsible for it to Parliament, that estimate would have been submitted to the Treasury, and thereby the First and other Lords would have been made responsible to the Country; and, lastly, the works would have been carried out by an experienced class of officials, having a just sense of their responsibility to the public for the discharge of duties to which they had devoted their lives.

diture in

4. The Expenditure of the Barrackmaster-General exceeded by eight or nine millions sterling the amount which Large expenwas involved in the Ordnance Scheme of 1786, and volved. therefore there was every good reason for proceeding in a matter of such a vast outlay through the channel pointed out by the Constitution and for dealing with Parliament in a spirit of candour. Such a course as this was not, however, Parliament taken. The Ministry did not apply to Parliament not consulted. for its support, but dealt with the matter wholly under the Authority of the Crown.

5. In North America, the Army in active operations was

Ministry.

provided with barracks and quarters by a Barrack- Course taken master-General acting as a Military officer under the by Mr. Pitt's immediate orders of the Commander-in-Chief. All these expenses were borne out of the Extraordinaries of the Army, and the Ministry appear to have resolved upon the adoption of this expedient of War in America for establishing barracks in Great Britain in time of peace. Taking two persons of subordinate importance-the Secretary at War, for Finance, and a Military officer for Administration-diluting responsibility in the inferiority of their agents-they proceeded to inaugurate the Barrack Establishment on the probable assumption (of which the truth furnishes the apology) that the Commons never would

1 See Chap. I., par. 25.

VOL. I.

R

have given their sanction to the scheme had it been deliberately laid before them.

Barracks

built by the War Office out of extraordinaries.

6. As this expenditure was made out of the extraordinaries of the Army, it did not come before the House until a considerable sum had been spent on account, and the credit of the Crown had been pledged to the various contractors employed in building; but an Independent Member -not waiting for the votes in supply-brought the subject before Parliament in February, 1793, by submitting, for the adoption of the House of Commons, a resolution against barracks based on the constitutional view laid down in Blackstone's work.

Debate in House of Commons,

66

7. Both Mr. Fox and Mr. Grey spoke strongly' in favour of the resolution. "Was there not," said Mr. Fox, as much reason to be afraid of barracks now as in the 1793. 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. 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 as 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."

Mr. Pitt's ex

2

8. Mr. Pitt's explanation was that-"The circumstances of the country were such as made it necessary to adopt planations. that mode of lodging the troops in a greater extent than formerly, and it had always been adopted as circumstances required. But even if it had been a measure entirely new, he

130 Parl. Hist., p. 490.

2 Ib., pp. 494, 495.

CHAP. XII. Debate on Barrack Expenditure.

243

should not have been deterred by any fear of innovation from doing that which he considered as essential to the safety of the country. He denied, however, that it was an innovation. The principle was so little new and so little dangerous that in all places where troops were in general stationary, barracks had been long since erected. . The circumstances of the country, coupled with the general state of affairs, rendered it advisable to provide barracks in other parts of the kingdom. A spirit had appeared in some of the manufacturing towns which made it necessary that troops should be kept near them. In these towns, then, to dispose of the troops in barracks, was a plan far better than to distribute them among the mass of the people, where jealousy might rankle into hatred, and produce tumult and disturbance. It would also operate as a preventive of the seduction of the Army, who were by certain persons considered as the chief obstacle to the execution of their designs." The motion was negatived without a division.

A.D. 1796. Debate on

General

Smith's mo

9. The subject was not, however, permitted to pass without further challenge,' and General Smith, in April, 1796, moved in the Commons-"That it be referred to a Committee to examine into the expenditure of public money, in the construction and furnishing of barracks tion for insince the year 1790; as also to investigate by what authority such an expense, amounting to upwards of 1,000,000%. sterling, has been incurred."

quiry.

"Economy of

ments.

10. The motion was opposed by Mr. Windham," "as, on the fullest investigation, he was confident that nothing would appear but economy and good management." the arrangeSpeaking in favour of the resolution, Mr. Fox objected that Parliament had not been fairly treated: "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? The plan has avowedly been long in agitation, but

Parliament

unfairly

used.