Читать книгу William Cobbett - Edward E. Smith - Страница 10

[APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III.]

Extracts from

“The Soldiers’ Friend; or, Considerations on the late pretended Augmentation of the Subsistence of the private Soldiers.

“[Motto] ‘Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.’—Goldsmith.

“Written by a Subaltern. Price Twopence, or one hundred copies, 10s. 6d. 1793.

“Amongst the many curious manœuvres of the present administration, I do not recollect one that marks more strongly its character than the late alteration in the pay and establishment of the army. The augmentation (as they would insinuate it is) of the pay of the British soldiers is represented as arising from a consideration of the wretchedness of their situation; and the pretended reduction of the foot forces is held out to the public as an act of œconomy. The people, I am much afraid, are satisfied with this. … The situation of the privates in our marching regiments of foot was really so miserable, that every one endued with the least compassion, must rejoice to find that a morsel of bread has been by any means added to that scanty meal; and the enormous load of taxes, that press out the very vitals of the people, ensures a favourable reception to every reduction, or pretended reduction, of public expense, let it be ever so trifling or absurd. …

“I propose to make a few observations on the alteration that has taken place in the soldiers’ pay; in doing which, although I shall be very concise, I have the vanity to think I shall discover a little better information on the subject than the Secretary at War did at his opening of it in the House of Commons; when he observed (after having stated the saving that would arise from the reduction in the infantry) that ‘against this saving he had to mention an increase that had been made to the pay of the private soldiers to the amount of 23,000l. The situation of the privates had long been admitted to have been extremely hard. It had in former years been the regulation that a soldier should receive three shillings a week for his subsistence. It has of late years so happened that he had not had for that purpose above eighteenpence or two shillings. This was evidently too little for the bare purpose of existence. By the late regulation his pay was to be made adequate to the subsistence the common soldier formerly enjoyed, an object which he was confident would meet with the warm approbation of every man.’ …

“As the Secretary observed, ‘the situation of the privates had long been admitted to have been extremely hard;‘ but people had not the least notion that it ’had so happened of late years, that the soldier had only eighteenpence or two shillings a week for his subsistence.’ Men of humanity thought the soldier’s situation hard, but every one thought that he received three shillings a week for his subsistence; and why any man unacquainted with the abuses of the army should think otherwise I cannot imagine, seeing that there is an Act of Parliament, a law of the land, that declares it shall be so.”

[After reciting the regulations that existed, and which were yearly renewed in each Mutiny Act, he proceeds:—]

“It has so happened! and for years too! astonishing! It has so happened that an Act of Parliament has been most notoriously and shamefully disobeyed for years, to the extreme misery of thousands of deluded wretches (our countrymen), and to the great detriment of the nation at large; it has so happened that not one of the offenders has been brought to justice for this disobedience, even now it is fully discovered; and it has so happened that the hand of power has made another dive into the national purse, in order—not to add to what the soldier ought to have received; not to satisfy his hunger and thirst; but to gratify the whim or the avarice of his capricious and plundering superiors.”

[After a good deal more, to the same effect, the writer reverts to the new demand upon the national purse by the Secretary at War:—]

“This is certainly the most curious mode of rectifying abuses that ever was heard of; and it points out in the clearest light the close connexion that exists between the ruling Faction in this country and the military officers; and this connexion ever must exist while we suffer ourselves to be governed by a Faction. If any other body of men had thus impudently set the laws of the land at defiance—if a gang of robbers, ornamented with red coats and cockades, had plundered their fellow-citizens, what would have been the consequence? They would have been brought to justice, hanging or transportation would have been their fate; but, it seems, the Army is become a Sanctuary from the power of the law. Nor shall we be at all surprised at this, if we consider that a standing army is the great instrument of oppression, and that a very numerous one may in a little time be necessary. I am not, therefore, blaming the ministry for this proceeding. I really think they have acted with a great deal of prudence in procuring the 23,000l. for their supporters; but (as it was all amongst friends) I think the business might have been opened in a more unequivocal manner; as thus, in the language of truth:—

“ ‘The situation of the privates has long been admitted to be extremely hard. It is a law (which in former years was obeyed) that a soldier shall receive three shillings a week for his subsistence. It has so happened that of late years the officers have thought proper to despise this law, and to give the soldier only eighteenpence or two shillings. This is evidently too little for the bare purpose of existence; and though he has subsisted on it of late years, and might with our good will have done so to the day of judgment, as there now is a necessity to humour the wretch a little, for reasons best known to ourselves; we have, by a late regulation, made his pay adequate to what he always ought to have enjoyed: an object that we are confident must meet the warm approbation of our majority in this House. The public burden will, indeed, be increased by this, but it is certainly much better to tax the people to their last farthing than to wound the honour of our trusty and well-beloved, the officers of the army, by any odious and ungentlemanlike investigation of their conduct.’

“It particularly becomes you, the British Soldier, to look upon this matter in its proper light. The pretended addition to your subsistence is, in fact, no addition at all; you will now receive no more than you always ought to have received. … If you should have the fortune to become a non-commissioned officer, and were to deduct but a penny from a man unlawfully, you know the consequences would be breaking and flogging, and refunding the money so deducted; but here you see your officers have been guilty of the practice for years, and now it is found out not a hair of one of their heads is touched; they are even permitted to remain in the practice, and a sum of money is taken from the public to coax you with, now it seems likely that you may be wanted. …

“Soldiers are taught to believe everything they receive a gift from the Crown. Cast this notion from you immediately, and know that there is not a farthing you receive but comes out of the public purse. What you call your King’s Bounty, or Queen’s Bounty, is no bounty from either of them: it is 12s. 2d. a year of the public money, which no one can withhold from you; it is allowed you by an Act of Parliament, while you are taught to look upon it as a present from the King or Queen!—I feel an indignation at this I cannot describe—I would have you consider the nature of your situation, I would have you know that you are not the servant of one man only; a British soldier never can be that. You are a servant of the whole nation, of your countrymen, who pay you, and from whom you can have no separate interests. I would have you look upon nothing that you receive as Favour or a Bounty from Kings, Queens, or Princes; you receive the wages of your servitude; it is your property, confirmed to you by Acts of the Legislature of your country, which property your rapacious officers ought never to seize on, without meeting with a punishment due to their infamy.”

“Finis.”

FOOTNOTES

[1] This was The Society of Free Debate, one of several which had just been set on foot. For some interesting particulars of these societies vide “Memoirs of John Thelwall” (London, 1837).

[2] Public Advertiser, April 10, 1792.

[3] Scots Magazine, Jan., 1792.

[4] “I have placed myself in London, sir, and have continued here ever since the 26th December last, for no other purpose than the prosecution of this affair” (Letter of 23rd February).

“I must beg leave, sir, once more to request that you will be pleased to lay my representation of this matter [locale of the court-martial] before the King, and that as soon as possible” (4th March).

“If my accusation is without foundation, the authors of cruelty have not yet devised the tortures I ought to endure” (11th March).

The letter of the 16th March expresses the astonishment of the writer that the greatest part of the charges were to be left out!—which throws much light on the subject.

[5] This accounts for the paragraph in the London Chronicle; a thing which is inexplicable till one comes to this sentence.

[6] Not to interrupt the thread of the narrative, we will append to this Chapter one or two extracts from the “Soldiers’ Friend”—a course which will at one and the same time tell the whole story of the grievance, and introduce us to the first essay of Cobbett’s pen.

[7] “Memoirs of John Thelwall,” i. 89.