Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

being fo to that Treaty, may be faid to be like a man, who, after breaking another's bones, and feeing them fet again very right, and well cured by an able Surgeon, cries, you are obliged to me, Sir, for this great cure that has been performed upon you. Mr. Horatio Walpole, Jan. 26, 1732.

I CANNOT but be against even giving this Bill a fecond reading, because at firft view it apppears to be for fupporting a numerous standing army in time of peace: this I need not any time to confider of; this appears evidently to be the purport and intention of the Bill now read to us; and this, my Lords, is against the very words of the Petition of Right, and alters the very nature of our conftitution. All the confufions and diforders that have been brought upon this kingdom for many years, have all been brought upon it by the means of standing armies: it was, my Lords, a standing army that took off King Charles the Firft's head, and turned that very Parliament out of doors which had eftablished them; and the very fame army that had murdered the father reftored the fon: it was by King fames the Second's keeping up a ftanding army, that the affections of the people were alienated from him; and by that very army, in whom he had put his only truft, he was turned out; for by their joining the other fide, the scales were turned against him, and he found himself at last obliged to fuccumb under the juft refentments of an injured people. In this country, in every country, my Lords, where numerous ftanding armies have been kept up, we may find that innumerable evils and ftrange confufions have been brought on by the means of fuch armies: and therefore I fhall always be against giving the least countenance to any Bill, that seems to tend towards keeping up a standing army in time of peace in this country. Earl of Aylesford, Feb. 24, 1732.

I SHALL readily grant that there is a continual rivalship between the two great contending powers of Europe; there

always

always will, I hope, be fuch a rivalfhip; for if ever that rival, fhip fhould cease, which it never can, but by one of them being fwallowed up by the other, it would be an unlucky thing for this nation, as well as for all the rest of Europe: but, my Lords, are we to keep up a numerous ftanding army as long as that rivalfhip fhall continue? If fo, we must never think of any reduction no, my Lords, that rivalship has already continued for many ages, and yet we have always fupported ourfelves against both, without having ever kept up a standing army this new fort of defence has been but lately thought on, and never can be a proper defence for this nation; the only way we have to fecure ourselves at home, to make ourselves confiderable abroad, and to force a respect from both these contending powers, is to do as we have always formerly done, to put our whole truft in our natural ftrength, which confifts in our fleet, and in the natural bravery of our men in general; as long as we truft to this, and obferve a neutrality as to both thefe contending powers, we fhall be courted by both: we may fall in fometimes with the one' and fometimes with the other, according as may beft fuit with our own interest, and with the circumftances of affairs at the time: by fuch a ma nagement we shall always be able to hold the balance of Europe in our own hands, and never will have any occafion either to court the friendship, or to fear the refentment of any power on earth.

But, my Lords, if we begin to purfue contrary measures, if we be always the first to enter into alliances with the powers of Europe, and the original contracting parties in moft treaties, we thereby give the power of holding the balance of Europe out of our hands; and the neglecting and the neglecting our fleet and militia, for the fake of keeping up a standing army, will foon render us contemptible to every one of our neighbours, unless we refolve to keep up a much more numerous army than what is proposed by this Bill; and fuch a propofition will, I hope, never be approved of by a majority of either Houfe of Parliament.

A ftand.

A ftanding army and military law, has, my Lords, been always inconfiftent with the liberties of the people; the officers and foldiers under fuch a regulation, are always obliged to give the most implicit obedience to the commands of their fuperior officers; they muft obferve and execute the orders they receive without any referve or hesitation; they must not inquire whether their orders be according to law, if they do, they are guilty of mutiny, and may be immediately shot for any fuch disobedience: the chief Commander of an army must always be vested with an arbitrary and abfolute power over the army; and if his army be numerous, he may eafily, by their means, extend his power over the whole people of the country where fuch army is kept up: and therefore, my Lords, in all countries where the people have any regard to their liberties, they ought never to keep up a greater number of regular forces than are abfolutely neceffary for the fecurity of the government, and for the preservation of the country against any sudden invafion or inroad that may be made by a foreign enemy. In this country we have the happiness to be furrounded by the fea; we know how difficult and expenfive it is to make any invasion upon us with any great body of men; any fuch invafion we must have a timely warning of, and by having our militia in good order, and our men, as they were formerly, all trained up to arms and military difcipline, we fhould always be able to draw, upon any occafion, and in any place within the island, a great army together, to oppofe our enemies, if they should happen to have the good fortune to escape our fleet at fea.

In our prefent circumftances, my Lords, and confidering the happy fituation of our country, I must be of opinion, that 12,000 men are abundantly fufficient for all the good uses we can have for them, and therefore I fhall give my affent to the reduction propofed.

Earl Strafford, March 6, 1733.

[ocr errors]

I CANNOT imagine how fome people have got into that way of thinking, that the liberties of all the countries in Europe have been overturned by ftanding armies: I do not know one country in Europe whose liberties have been overturned by their ftanding army. It is a mistake to fay fo of the Romans; the liberties of Rome, were in a great measure overturned, by the luxury and corruption that had crept in among the people long before the time of Julius Cæfar: and in his time, their standing army were so far from being the only means of overturning the liberties of Rome, that the greatest part of the standing army joined against Julius Cæfar: but he had a devilish head of his own, fo that by his own good conduct, and bravery of his troops, he got the better of his enemies, though they had the greatest number of regular troops of their fide. If the Romans at that time had had no ftanding army, would not the people, would not the very mob have done the fame? Every man who had courage, or who could be perfuaded to go to fight, would have joined that party he liked beft: the Commander who could make the best use of those that joined him, would have got the advantage, and the victorious army would have had it in their power to have settled the future form of government upon what footing they had a mind.

It is the fame with refpect to all the other countries of Europe, where arbitrary power is or ever was established: in France, it is certain that their liberties were overturned long before they had fuch a thing as a ftanding army: the oldeft regiment or corps of regular troops in France, is what they call the regiment of Picardy; that regiment was raised only in the firft or fecond year of the reign of our Queen Elizabeth; and it is well known, that long before that time the liberties of the French people were entirely deftroyed. In Spain we know that it was their pricfts that deftroyed the liberties of the people; and it is by means of their Inquifition, that their arbitrary government is to this day fupported: by means of that terrible spiritual court, their priests support their own defpotic rule not only

over the people, but like wife over the court, and even over their army too. In Sweden, my Lords, it was likewife their priefts that formerly established an arbitrary rule in that country; and it was by their army that their liberties were reftored. In Denmark it was a House of Commons that furrendered up their liberties to the Crown; they first gave up their own liberties, and thereby enabled their King to get himfelf declared the abfolute and the arbitrary Sovereign over the whole country.

Thus, my Lords, we may find that a ftanding army never had in any country the chief hand in deftroying the liberties of their country nor indeed can it be fuppofed that they ever will. Can it be fuppofed that any man of common sense, who has a good poft in the army, and has the laws of his country for his protection as long as he behaves well, can it, I fay, my Lords, be fuppofed, that any such man will ever join in measures for fubjecting himself to the uncontroulable will and giddy pleasure of any one man? He muft know that true honour and virtue, or a faithful performance of his duty, could then be no protection to him; his life, his eftate, and every thing that is dear to him, muft then depend on the mere pleasure of a court: and every man knows, that about courts, true honour and virtue often falls a facrifice to .whispers, to deceitful infinuations, and to false and private accufations is it then reasonable to prefume, that the Gentlemen of the army, who are by their education bred ftrangers to the low arts and vile practices ufual about courts, will ever give up that honourable dependence they have upon their own behaviour, and the laws of their country, for the fake of a flavish dependance upon any court whatever? For my part, it is not poffible for me to suspect any fuch thing, and therefore I cannot from thence draw any argument against keeping up a standing army in this country.

:

Duke of Argyle, March 6, 1733.

« AnteriorContinuar »