ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4542, 11 October 1875, Page 3

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.

The large increase that had been made in the forces owing to the Spanish war pressed very heavily on the innkeepers, on whom the soldiers were for the most part quartered. Provisions too had gone up in price, and the innkeepers began to dispute the meaning of the clauses in the Mutiny Bill relating to the quartering of soldiers. Sir William Yonge, the Secretary of War, in bringing in amended clauses so as to remove all uncertainty said; “It has been, till very lately, thought that the owners of inns and other places where soldiers are allowed to be quartered, were obliged to furnish the soldiers with diet and small beer for themselves, and with hay and straw for their horses if demanded ; and the owners of inns and other such places have till of late generally done so without charging more for it in their accounts than the paymaster was by Act of Parliament required and limited to pay ; but of late years a different way of thinking has begun to prevail, and the owners of inns have begun to refuse to supply the soldiers at the rates allowed by the Government, pretending that they are not obliged, unless they approve of the prices allowed.” The rates allowed certainly were not excessive—for a foot soldier id. a day, and for a trooper’s horse 6d. It was generally admitted, however, that in ordinary times the allowance was enough. Mr. Brarastone, who spoke against the amended clause said: “There has never been, that I know of, such a scarcity in England as to make it impossible for a man to subsist upon 4d. a day, if he contented himself with the coarsest sort of provisions.” Ho went on to say, that out of his 6d. a day pay, the soldier might have more to spend on himself, if part of it were not stopped, that “ he might appear clean shaved and well powdered at a review. For my part, I think a man without any powder in his hair, and even with a long beard, may look as like a soldier and do his business as well as a man with a smock face and powdered locks.” Mr. Sandys said that one of the innkeepers’ grievances lay in this—- “ that in times of plenty the soldier will furnish himself because he can, perhaps, do it at 2d. a day,' but in times of scarcity he will oblige his landlord to furnish him because ho cannot do it, perhaps, under Bd. a day. The soldiers, as can be seen from this, could either buy their own food or force their landlord to supply it at a fixed price. In times of plenty it was they, therefore, who made the gain, and in times of dearth it was he who bore the loss. If the soldiers were discontented with the food given them “ they grew mischievous we read “they cut the linen, mangle the plates and dishes, and play many other tricks by which the landlord suffers. They do not always behave in the most civil manner to travellers, even of the first rank, for lately at North Allerton they seised on and carried off a reverend prelate's dinner, upon a pretence that the landlord had not provided sufficiently for them.” Among other questions that had arisen was one as to the allowance of beer to which a soldier was entitled. The Secretary-at-War said : “ I shall take this opportunity of proposing on my part that every man may have a daily allowance of three quarts. One quart to each meal may be allowed, in my opinion, to be sufficient, and sure no gentleman can imagine by this limitation much superfluity is indulged.” Mr. Carew objected ; “Three quarts a day are surely more than the demands of nature make necessary, and I know not why the Legislature should promote or confirm in the soldiery a vice to which they are already too much inclined, the habit of tippling.” Sir John Barnard took the same view : “ If we consider the demands of nature, more than two quarts of liquor cannot be required ; if we examine the expense of the inn-holder, ho ought not to supply soldiers with a greater quantity for nothing. It is to bo remembered that small beer, like other liquor, is charged with an excise in public-houses, and that two quarts will probably cost the landlord a penny.” Sir William Yonge, in reply, said: “If those gentlemen whose close attention to the interest of the inn-holder has, perhaps, abstracted them, in some degree, from any regard to the interests of the soldier will consent to allow him five pints a day, I shall contend no longer,

though I cannot agree that it is a sufficient provision.” Lord Baltimore opposed the reduction : “ I believe every gentleman who examines the expenses of his family will find that each of his servants consumes daily at least three quarts of small beer, and surely it is not required that a soldier should live in a perpetual state of war with his constitution, and a constant inability to with the calls of nature.” Mr. Campbell said : “ The representatives of a mighty nation, beset with enemies and encumbered with seem to forget their importance and their dignity by wrangling from day to day upon a pint of small beer.” In the end an alteration was made to five pints instead of three quarts, and the Bill thus amended was passed and ordered to the Lords. However close was the attention paid to the interests of the inn-holders, there was no attempt to flatter them. One of the members, who spoke most strongly for them, classed them with the common soldiers, and said “ that the same want of education which makes them ignorant may make them petulant, and at once incline them to wrangle and deprive them of the means of deciding their controversies. It will, therefore, I hope, be thought necessary,” he went on to say, “ to descend to their understandings, and to give them laws in terms of which they will know the meaning.” How many members at the present day, we should like to know, would dare to advise the House to descend to the understanding of a licensed victualler.