for obliging our publick houses to give free lodging to the foldiers for a few nights in their march, and for the first night after their arrival at the place where they were appointed to refide, a pretence was from thence taken to infift, that foldiers were always to be a load upon our publick houfes, and to be intitled to have always a free lodging even in the places appointed for their refidence. Perhaps the words of this first law were left a little doubtful, on purpose to draw this inference from them: but this was not enough; for, in order to give foldiers a lefs doubtful title to this free lodging for ever, the words of the law were afterwards altered, and the Juftices were required to fet and appoint fuch reafonable rates for all neceffary provifions for fuch officers and foldiers, for one or more nights, in the feveral places which they shall come to in their march, or which shall be appointed for their refidence and quarters.

Thus, Sir, you fee what an incroaching thing an army is; and I wish it did not incroach upon us in any more dangerous refpect. This of free lodging for foldiers is now become a continual and fettled tax upon the publick houses, in all places where foldiers are ufually appointed to refide. Every fuch houfe has generally one foldier at leaft quartered upon it and if the landlord does not give his gueft fuch a lodging as pleafes him, he must pay him fuch a fum weekly as he fhall demand, for his furnishing himfelf with a lodging. Here in Weftminfter it is by custom fettled at 9 d. a-week, that is, 39 s. per annum, for a common foldier; and confequently, the officers, if they should infift on it, might furely demand a great deal more. Is not this, Sir, taxing the fubject? is it not increafing the pay of the foldier, without any proper legal authority for either? This tax, Sir, is the more grievous, because of its being raised upon a part of the people only; and it is the more dangerous, because a minifter may raise it in what places, and in what proportions he pleafes; and confequently may make it a handle for oppreffing thofe counties, cities and boroughs, that do not fend him up fach members to this houfe, as he fhall please

to direct. But this handle is not, it feems, fufficient; therefore 'fome new ftrength must be added to it; and for this a pretence is taken from fome claufes in our late mutiny-acts, which I think can admit of no fuch meaning. The innkeeper, or victualler, must now, it is faid, furnish the foldiers quartered upon him, not only with lodging, but alfo with board, both according to the liking of the foldier; and yet he is to have no more for both than a groat a-day, even in times of the greateft fcarcity. The foldier may infift upon what fort of victuals, and what quantity he pleases; but let him eat of what he will, or how much he will, the poor landlord muft not charge above a groat a-day. In times of plenty, the foldier will furnish himself, because he can perhaps do it at 2 d. a-day; but in times of fcarcity, he will oblige his landlord to furnish him, because he cannot do it perhaps under 8 d. a-day. Is this juft, Sir? is it equitable? is it poffible to fuppofe that an act of parliament should establish fuch an impofition?

I do not know, Sir, nor do I much regard, what opinion the lawyers may have given; because they generally give their opinion according as the cafe is ftated to them; and therefore, when the cafe is falfely ftated, their opinion muft be wrong. This seems to be the cafe at prefent. The queftion is not, What an innkeeper or vi&tualler may demand, if he does furnish the foldiers quartered upon him with provifions? for it is plain he cannot demand, at least he cannot recover, more than a groat a-day; because the paymaster can top no more of a foldier's pay on that account: and how the victualler can otherwife recover it, I believe no lawyer, nor even a conjurer can tell. The only queftion therefore is, Whether an innkeeper or victualler be obliged to furnish the foldiers quartered upon them with provifions? And this, I think, admits of as little doubt as the other. He certainly is not obliged to do fo, by any exprefs words in the mutiny-bill paffed laft year. By a claufe in that bill, as well as many former, the innkeeper is obliged to receive the foldiers quartered upon him: he muft let them into his house; he must not shut

h's

his doors against them: but this is all he is obliged to do by that law; even his furnishing them with beds is by that law left, as it fhould be, depending upon his courtefy; and hitherto it has produced no difpute, nor have the foldiers been left unaccommodated, except in a few very extraordinary cafes, which can afford no foundation for any alteration in the law.

Both the inftances that have been mentioned, are of this kind. The difpute at Wakefield I am far from being surprised at; I am furprised, Sir, there were not fuch difputes laft winter all over the whole kingdom. It was cruel to oblige innkeepers to furnish hay and ftraw to the foldiers horfes at the rate of 6 d. per diem, when hay and straw bore fuch monftrous prices; nay when their own cattle were perhaps dying for want. The Juftices were in the right to allow 8 d. Can it be faid, that a trooper or dragoon could not afford 8 d. for his horfe, at a time when there was such a scarcity of all forts of fodder? Why may not a trooper or dragoon live upon 4 d. as well as a footfoldier? Suppofe he allowed 8 d. for his horfe, he had 4 d. a-day for himself; and with that, or with the worse fare for himfelf, he should have been content; efpecially as he knew the fcarcity of fodder could not be of a very long continuance.

The affair at Ledbury too, Sir, was a cafe of a very extraordinary nature. The people there did not like at that time to have any foldiers among them, or at least not fo many of them; because they thought themselves oppreffed, and knew that the foldiers were fent there, to prevent their taking their own way for freeing themfelves from that oppreffion. I do not fay it was wrong to fend foldiers there, or to fend fuch a number of them; because, whether the people were oppreffed or no, they had taken a very wrong method to free themselves from that oppreffion. They had chofen a riotous and tumultuous way of doing it; and a Gentleman in the neighbourhood, who had acted the part of a bold and worthy magiftrate, had not only been infulted by the mob, but was in danger of being murdered by them. The people in that neighbourhood had behaved in a most riotous and obftinate man

ner upon that occafion; but furely the obftinacy of the people in a particular corner, and upon a particular occafion, is not to be pleaded as a reafon for oppreffing the whole kingdom.

The few difputes that have happened, Sir, in fuch a long courfe of years, between the foldiers and the people where they are quartered, is a much ftronger reafon for continuing the law as it is: the harmony between the foldiers and people may hitherto be faid to have been general. But do not let us depend, Sir, upon the continuance of this harmony, if we should begin to keep up a greater number of troops, or even if we should continue to keep up the fame number for many years to come. The people must always fuffer many hardships by the quartering of foldiers, and these hardships must increase or diminish in proportion as we increase or diminish our standing army. The people have for many years expected a diminution of our army, and confequently a diminution of the hardships they fuffer from thence. They have every year hoped it would be the last, and that the next year would put an end to most of the hardfhips they fuffered on account of our army. However sharp-fighted our minifters and parliament-men have been, in feeing thofe dangers which have all along been pretended as the reason for keeping up fuch a numerous ftanding army, the people could perceive none of thefe dangers; or at least they supposed, that fuch tremendous profpects would not regularly prefent themfelves to view every fucceeding winter: and this confirmed them in their annual hopes, that next feffion of parliament would reduce the army, and that our regular troops would at last come really to be, what they are every year fuppofed to be by parliament, nothing but guards and garrifons; which would of courfe free all those who do not live in the purlieus of a garrifon, or the sunshine of a court, from the burden of quartering foldiers.

But, Sir, the people have been fo long difappointed in thefe expectations, that it is to be feared, they will foon grow defperate. They will defpair of ever seeing themselves relieved from the hard

fhips they grone under, with respect to the army. The fufpicion will become general, that fuch a numerous army is not kept up to protect us against foreign dangers, or because it is neceffary for the juft ends of government, but because it is neceffary for fupporting and enforcing the weak or oppreffive measures of an adminiftration. In this cafe, every corner of the kingdom will become a Ledbury: the foldiers will become every where hateful to the people, and the people will become defpicable in the eyes of the foldiers. There will then be no courtefy, no harmony between the foldiers and the perfons upon whom they are quartered. The latter will furnish nothing to their unwelcome guests, but what they are in the utmost strictness of law obliged to furnish; and every fol

dier will exact with the utmolt rigour

whatever he thinks himself intitled to by law. This will of course occafion many broils between the people and the foldiers, and may at laft occafion an infurreEtion; which will probably end in a total reduction of the army, or in the establishment of a military government.

This confequence, I fay, Sir, is to be apprehended even from the army you have now on foot, and from the laws you have now in force, with regard to the quartering of foldiers; but if by new laws you increase the demands of the foldier upon his quarters, and at the same time oblige the perfons upon whom he is quartered to anfwer thofe demands, the approach of this fatal confequence will be very much accelerated. I fay, Sir, if by any new law you increase the demands of the foldier; for, whatever Gentlemen may think, the foldier's demands upon his quarters will be very much increased by what is now propofed. At prefent he does not think, that his landlord is obliged to furnish him with diet and small beer at the rate of a groat a-day, and therefore he defires no better fare than may be furnished at that price; but if you oblige the landlord to furnish the foldier with diet and Imall beer for a groat a-day, the foldier will infift upon much better provifions, and perhaps a greater quantity too, than what he now chearfully accepts of. The immediate confequence of this will be,

that a great many of our innkeepers and other publick houfes will give over that bufinefs, and betake themselves to fome other way of living. This will increase the burden upon those that continue in the bufinefs, which will foon make many of them follow the fame course, so that at last you may not have, in many places, a fufficient number of publick houles, for receiving a party of foldiers upon their march: and the confequence of this is, that they must either lie in the fields, or be quartered upon private houses. The former they would not fubmit to, the latter I dread to think of, and therefore I am against the clause proposed.

A fecond Speech by L. Valerius Flaccus. Mr Prefident,

When opened this affair to you, and gave my reasons for the took the liberty to offer, I told you, that the cafe had been lately rendered doubtful, by fome people's refufing to furnish the foldiers quartered upon them, with diet and small beer, or indeed with any thing else; and that upon this a law-fuit was intended to be commenced, in order to have this question determined. If there had been any express words in the law for obliging innkeepers and others to furnish the foldiers quartered upon them with diet and fmall beer at the rate of a groat aday, no fuch doubt could ever have arifen; no man would have been so mad as to have refufed it, when the exprefs words of the law appeared against him: nor would there have been any neceffity to have troubled you with a new clause upon this occafion. But will the Hon. Gent. fay, that nothing is ever comprehended within the meaning and intention of a law, tho' not declared in exprefs words? This is the very cafe now before us. The queftion that has arifen, is not upon the exprefs words, but upon the meaning and intention of the law; and if there was ever any obligation created or established by inference from the meaning and intention of a law, I think there is, from the meaning and intention of this law, a plain obligation laid upon innkeepers and others, to furnish the foldiers quartered upon them, with a convenient lodging, at

leaft

leaft with as convenient a lodging as they can afford, and with neceffary provifions, that is to fay, diet and fmall beer, at fuch a rate as fhall be appointed by the Juftices, not exceeding a groat a-day.

This, Sir, is my opinion; and in this opinion I am fupported, not only by the opinion of feveral eminent lawyers, but alfo by as plain inferences as were ever in this world drawn from any law. This I think will appear evident, if we will but ferioufly confider the two claufes, in the laft mutiny-act, which relate to this queftion. The first fays, That foldiers quartered as aforefaid, fhall be received by the owners af inns, and other boufes in which they are allowed to be quartered by that act; and fball pay fuch reasonable prices as fhall be appointed from time to time by the Juftices. And then, by the fame claufe, the Juftices are impowered and required to fet and appoint reasonable rates for all neceffary provifions for fuch foldiers. Now, Sir, if the law did not intend to oblige the innkeeper to furnish the soldiers with neceffary provifions, for what end was the Juftice obliged to interfere? If the innkeeper was to agree to furnish the foldier with neceffary provifions, he would not certainly agree, unless the foldier on his part agreed to pay him fuch prices as he infifted on; and if they two agreed together, what had the Justice to do in the affair, or why fhould the law oblige him to interpofe? Nay, his interpofition would fignify nothing; for if the innkeeper agreed to take lefs than the rate appointed by the Juftices, they could not prevent his taking lefs; and if the foldier agreed to pay more, they could not prevent his paying it. Therefore, from the law's requiring the Juftices to interpose, I think it is evident, that it meant to oblige the innkeeper to furnish the foldiers quartered upon him, with neceffary provifions; because, otherwife, the greateft part of this claufe would be most impertinent and useless.

The other claufe, Sir, which relates to this queftion, is that which is intended for fecuring the innkeeper's payment. And here I must observe, that one of the chief defigns of this law, as appears from the very title, is, to provide effectually for paying the quarters of the army. And how does

it provide? By enacting, That the pay, mafter, when he receives the foldiers pay, ball give notice to all innkeepers and others to bring in their accounts; and that he shall accept of, and immediately pay thofe accounts, before any part of the fubfiftence be diftributed to the foldiers: but with this provifo, That fuch accounts fhall not exceed 4 d. per diem for a foot-foldier's diet and small beer. Can we fuppofe, that a law, chiefly intended for fecuring the payment of the army's quarters, would have had fuch a provifo, if it had intended, either that the innkeeper fhould have liberty to charge more, or that the Juftices fhould have a power to appoint a higher rate for that article? To fuppofe so, is, I think, fuppofing the law-makers to have been guilty of a very great abfurdity. But the contrary is, in my opinion, very evident. They wifely confidered the utmost a foldier could allow for diet and small beer; and they reftrained both the innkeeper and Juftice from exceeding that fum. The innkeeper must therefore take care to provide fuch diet and small beer for his foldier, as may be afforded for that price; and this the foldier must be satisfied with, because he can pay for no better.

Thus, Sir, as to the question's being without any doubt, I agree with the Hon. Gent. that spoke laft; and yet he and I differ very widely in our opinion. He thinks it is the negative fide of the queftion that is certain and without any doubt, and I think it is the affirmative. I think, that by a plain inference from, tho' not by any exprefs words in the law, the innkeeper is certainly obliged to furnish the foldier quartered upon him with diet and fmall beer at a groat a-day: and he thinks that, neither from the words nor the meaning of the law, the innkeeper can be obliged to furnish the foldier with diet and fmall beer, at that or any other price; but that, if he does furnish him, he can recover no more than a groat a-day. I fhall not therefore fay it is a doubt, because that word feems to offend; but it is a difference in opinion that makes the clause I have offered neceffary: and as we have now the opportunity before us, I think we ought to determine that difference, and prevent the expence of a law-fuit, both to the pu

blick, and to the private persons that may be concerned. As we are now apprifed of this difference in opinion, about the meaning of fome of the claufes in the former law, I think it would be a neglect of duty in us, to revive that law, without determining that difference: for, I am fure, we ought not, knowing, to make a law that muft create a law-fuit; and there is nothing more apt to occafion difputes, and even broils, between the foldiers, and the people upon whom they are quartered, than their differing in opinion about their refpective rights.

I am fo well convinced, Sir, of the inconveniencies and dangers that may enfue from leaving this difference in opinion fubfifting, that I fhould rather chufe to have it exprefsly declared, that innkeepers fhall not be obliged to furnish the foldiers quartered upon them with diet and finall beer, than to have it remain in the uncertainty it is at prefent. But if you should determine the question in this way, I am perfuaded no innkeeper, victualler, or other perfon upon whom foldiers are ufually quartered, would furnish them with provifions at the rates which they are able to pay. The Juftices appointing a certain rate for provifions, would in that cafe fignify nothing; because, if the innkeeper did not like the rate appointed by the Justices, he would furnish no provifions; the foldier must provide for himself: and this might be rendered impoffible, by a combination among the tradesmen and inhabitants of a country town; which combination would very probably be entered into in all country towns, and even in cities, that do not like to have any foldiers among them. There is therefore, I think, a neceffity for obliging fome fort of people or other to furnish the foldiers with neceffary provifions; and none are fo proper to be laid under this obligation, as the perfons upon whom they are quartered.

Then, Sir, with regard to what the foldier is to pay for diet and small beer, you may fettle it at what you will, or not settle it at all if you please; but I am very fure, a foldier cannot pay above a groat a-day for diet and small beer, because the fubfiftence-money actually paid him by the government, never, or but very feldom, VOL. IV.

exceeds that fum. A common foldier has indeed fixpence a-day allowed him ; but then, the deductions made for cloathing, for ftockings, fhoes, fhaving, and other incidents, reduces his pay to very little above a groat a-day for his fubfiftence. This therefore is the highest he can give for diet and fmall beer; and as a housekeeper may always provide for a single man lodged in his houfe, at a cheaper rate than fuch fingle man can provide for himself, I am convinced, there is not at present a place in England, where a housekeeper may not furnish a foldier lodged in his houfe, with diet and fmall beer, at less than a groat a-day. In times of fcarcity, 'tis true, it may be difficult to furnish him with diet and fmall beer at a groat a-day; but, at fuch times, the foldier muft take up with the worfe fare; and, as they very feldom happen, they cannot be made a foundation for any established regulation. A famine may indeed arife in the land; fuch a fcarcity of provifions of all kinds may happen, as to render it impoffible for a foldier to fubfift upon a groat a-day: but, if any fuch calamity fhould happen in the country, and fhould continue for any time, it would be abfolutely neceffary for the government, to make a temporary addition to the foldiers pay; for it is not to be expected, that a body of men with arms in their hands, will allow themselves to ftarve. You must enable them to purchase a fubfiftence: if you do not, they will take it by force. You must provide for them by law: if you do not, they will provide for themselves againft law. If you oblige the owners of houfes where foldiers are quartered, to furnish them with diet and fmall beer at a groat a-day, it may, in a time of fcarcity, in fome places, be a lofs to the owners of fuch houses; but that lofs, I hope, will never be general, or of any long continuance; and confequently can never be fo great as to come within the notice of the law, for de minimis non curat lex.

I fhall grant, Sir, that if fuch a fcarcity as this were to be of any long continuance, and no additional pay given to the foldiers, in order to enable and oblige them to make an additional allowance to their landlords for diet and small beer, it would force ma

C

ny