BARRACK AGREEMENT BILL. (Hansard, 18 July 1820)

§ Mr. Lockhart

said, on the first introduction of this bill into the House, he was inclined to consider it favourably. But, comparing the calculations of the hon. member for London with the statements of the right hon. gentleman, and considering the expense of building a wall, including eight acres of land, as injuriously and unnecessarily enhancing the cost, he could not give the measure his support, but must strenuously oppose it. He had, however, various other reasons for opposing this bill. In the present dense state of the population, when the activity of the public mind was increased through the medium of the press, and when the extension of education had opened inlets to general knowledge, and the pressure of taxation had created discontent, he thought it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the metropolis, that an armed force of some kind should 544 be kept on foot. He did not, however, consider the army as the force to which they ought exclusively to look up for protection. When he found that this contract was for a period of 30 years, and after that when it was stated that the barracks would be held in perpetuity, he inferred that the system was to be perpetual, and that it was to be continued to the exclusion of all other systems. There were, however, other systems more constitutional in their nature, and more accordant with the rights and privileges of the people, than the keeping up of a large military force. When he spoke of the army, let him not be understood as wishing to underrate their merits: he held their character in the highest estimation, and he thought they deserved the gratitude of the country. They had received high honours and rewards, and he was sure, constituted as they now were, they would never raise their arms against the constitution; but when the army was composed of different men, as it must be long before the expiration of this contract, when it was formed of individuals who could only have a recollection of the glories that had been conferred on, and the victories that had been achieved by, their predecessors, would it not be a question whether such an army might not be dangerous to the monarchy and the liberties of the people? When the army was composed in this manner, it would be fit to employ another force for the defence of the metropolis. Armed bands of the inhabitants of cities and towns, comprising persons of honour, character, and property, ought then to be formed for the general protection. Though on many occasions he had approved of the use of a military force, he did not think that they should be employed in all cases: they ought not to be called in but upon urgent occasions, on the principle of nisi dignus vindice nodus. For what purpose were these eight acres of ground to be enclosed? It evidently must be for the purpose of concealing their exercises from the public. He was no friend to such seclusions, for he had always remarked that persons who thus lived apart from society were more irritable in their temper than others who enjoyed a free intercourse with their fellow-citizens. Those who were in favour of the employment of soldiers in the metropolis lost sight of the principle adopted in almost all other cases: there was not a republic or a city 545 abroad that had not its guard drawn from the inhabitants. He would not deal in the general invectives that had been levelled at the use of the military: he only objected to their exclusive employment. He would not, to show the danger of confiding too much in them, appeal to the experience of history; but he would call on the House to look to modern times, and they would see the destinies of one of the chief nations of Europe changed three times, either by the defection or active interference of the military. Kings could no more depend on them than the people: the whole of the recent revolution in Spain had been effected by the soldiery: and as the history of the past was the history of the future, they would do well to attend to it. Let not gentlemen suppose that the Moncks, La Fayettes, the Buonapartes, and Quirogas, of former days, were extinct in our own: they would see characters of the same description rise up again whenever circumstances of a similar nature occurred.