Course:History 344 Nasty Families/Cultural Topics/Billeting

Billeting is the typically unwilling quartering of soldiers upon civilians by means of a written order from the ruling governmental body. Billeting is an especially relevant topic for the first half of the 1600s because of the wars, both foreign and civil, that England was engaged in during the reign of Charles I. There are two circumstances when the billeting of soldiers is necessary: during a foreign war and during a civil war. When it was a war being fought on foreign soil, billeting of soldiers usually occurred in the coastal areas where the soldiers could easily be moved in and out of the country. During a civil war, billeting affected everyone because the whole country was at war. Thus billeting was a constant worry for the people of England because there were both foreign and civil wars they were involved in during Charles’s reign. However, billeting was not only the worry of the laypeople in England. The fact that billeting is referenced in state papers and Privy Council records continuously from 1625 to the end of Charles’s reign in 1649 indicates that billeting was a problem that the governmental bodies devoted a hefty amount of time to. Official complaints about billeting were first voiced in the 1628 Parliamentary session. These complaints, along with other grievances, were eventually formed into the Petition of Right. Other petitions were presented into the 1640s are significant because they were not presented by individuals complaining about the tolls of billeting, but by entire communities which shows that billeting was a wide-spread concern. Billeting, therefore, affected both governmental bodies and the people that were made to house the soldiers, which explains why billeting was such a hot topic in parliament during this time.

During the 1628 Parliament, Sir Walter Erle described to the assembled houses problems he claimed were the result of billeting soldiers: “They disturb markets and fairs, rob men on the highway, ravish women, [break] houses in the night and enforcing men to ransom themselves, [and] killing men that have assisted constables that have come to keep the peace.” This is not to say the soldiers were the perfect houseguests [BN understatement?]. They were more than capable of disorderly conduct and behaviour. However, these claims presented by Erle were unsupported by actual incidents of offenses. Furthermore, Erle was trying to convince Parliament that billeting was an unnecessary evil, which means that he would have been trying to portray billeting in the worse light possible in order to convince people to discontinue the practice. In reality, many of the problems associated with billeting had more to do with finances. Many saw the main problem billeting presented as not reimbursing the community for housing soldiers. Theoretically, the billeting costs were initially taken on by the community who would later send an account of the expenses incurred to the Exchequer which would reimburse them. In practice, many times people were not reimbursed which made many feel like billeting was essentially another forced loan they were made to pay.

Billeting could also be used as a form of punishment. In one instance, The Earl of Nottingham commanded the constable of Kingston-upon-Thames to billet soldiers on people who had refused to pay the rates levied by deputy lieutenants for the payments of soldiers. This forced loan to pay for billeting troops was relatively common along the south coast because this area was so profitable, so taxation would return a higher amount here than in other regions. So, those who had not contributed to the fund were made to take on extra unwanted responsibilities as punishment for failure to comply. In addition, it was not only the presence of the soldiers that bothered the people. It was also the amount of work required of the family. Many of the complaints registered against billeted soldiers have to do with their enormous appetites and the amount of work it takes to prepare the food. Many times these soldiers were on the way to eating the families out of house and home.

It was on constitutional grounds that people contested billeting. A petition presented to Charles clearly states that “by the fundamental Laws of this Realm, every Freeman hath, and of Right ought to have, full and absolute Property in his Goods and Estates; and that therefore the billeting and placing of Soldiers in the House of any such Freeman against his Will, is directly contrary to the said Laws, under which we and our Ancestors have been to long and happily governed.” People resented that they were being made against their will to house these soldiers. The billeting debate is entrenched in problems with legality and authority, property rights, and liberties of the people even under the law.