Mr. Pulteney's Reply. WE have heard a great deal about parliamentary armies, and about an army continued from year to year. I have always been, sir, and shall be, against a standing army of any kind. To me it is a terrible thing, whether under that of parliament, or any other designation; a standing army is still a standing army, whatever name it be called by; they are a body of men distinct from the body of the people; they are governed by different laws: blind obedience, and an entire submission to the orders of their commanding officer, is their only principle. The nations around us are already enslaved, and have been enslaved by those very means: by means of their standing armies, they have every one lost their liberties. It is, indeed, impossible that the liberties of the people can be preserved in any country where a numerous standing army is kept up. Shall we then take any of our measures from the examples of our neighbours? No, sir, upon the contrary, from their misfortunes we ought to learn to avoid those rocks upon which they have split. It signifies nothing to tell me that our army is commanded by such gentlemen as cannot be supposed to join in any measures for enslaving their country; it may be so, I hope it is so; I have a very good opinion of many gentlemen now in the army; I believe they would not join in any such measures; but their lives are uncertain, nor can we be sure how long they may be continued in command; that they may not be all dismissed in a moment, and proper tools of power put in their room. Besides, sir, we know the passions of men; we know how dangerous it is to trust the best of men with too much power. Where was there a braver army than that under Julius Cæsar? where was there ever an army that had served their country more faithfully? That army was commanded generally by the best citizens of Rome; by men of great fortune and figure in their country; yet that army enslaved their country; the affections of the soldiers towards their country, the honour and integrity of the under officers, are not to be depended on. By the military law, the administration of justice is so quick, and the punishment so severe, that neither officer or soldier dares to dispute the orders of his supreme commander; he must not consult his own inclinations. If an officer were commanded to pull his own father out of this house, he must do it; he dares not disobey; immediate death would be the sure consequence of the least grumbling; and if an officer were sent into the court of requests, accompanied by a body of musketeers with screwed bayonets, and with orders to tell us what we ought to do, and how we were to vote, I know what would be the duty of this house; I know it would be our duty to order the officer to be taken and hanged up at the door of the lobby. But, sir, I doubt much, if such a spirit could be found in the house, or in any house of commons that will ever be in England. Sir, I talk not of imaginary things; I talk of what has happened to an English house of commons, and from an English army; not only from an English army, but an army that was raised by that very house of commons; an army that was paid by them, and an army that was commanded by generals appointed by them; therefore do not let us vainly imagine that an army raised and maintained by authority of parliament, will always be submissive to them. If an army be so numerous as to have it in their power to overawe the parliament, they will be submissive as long as the parliament does nothing to disoblige their favourite general; but when that case happens, I am afraid, that instead of the parliament's dismissing the army, the army will dismiss the parliament, as they have done heretofore. Nor does the legality or illegality of that parliament, or of that army, alter the case for with respect to that army, and according to their way of thinking, the parliament dismissed by them was a legal parliament; they were an army raised and maintained according to law; and at first they were raised, as they imagined, for the preservation of those liberties, which they afterwards destroyed. It has been urged, sir, that whoever is for the protestant succession must be for continuing the army. For that very reason, sir, I am against continuing the army. I know that neither the protestant succession in his majesty's most illustrious house, nor any succession, can ever be safe, as long as there is a standing army in the country. Armies, sir, have no regard to hereditary successions. The first two Cæsars at Rome, did pretty well, and found means to keep their armies in tolerable subjection, because the generals and officers were all their own creatures; but how did it fare with their successors? Was not every one of them named by the army without any regard to hereditary right, or to any right? a cobler, a gardener, or any man who happened to raise himself in the army, and could gain their affections, was made emperor of the world. Was not every succeeding emperor raised to the throne, or tumbled headlong into the dust, according to the mere whim or mad frenzy of the soldiers? We are told, Oh! gentlemen, but this army is desired to be continued but for one year longer, it is not desired to be continued for any term of years. How absurd is this distinction! Is there any army in the world continued for any tern of years? Does the most absolute monarch tell his army, that he is to continue them for any number of years, or any number of months? How long have we already continued our army from year to year? And if it thus continues, wherein will it differ from the standing armies of those countries which have already submitted their necks to the yoke? We are now come to the Rubicon; our army is now to be reduced, or it never will. From his majesty's own mouth we are assured of a profound tranquillity abroad-we know there is one at home. If this is not a proper time, if these circumstances do not afford us a safe opportunity for reducing at least a part of our régular forces, we never can expect to see any reduction; and this nation, already overloaded with debts and taxes, must be loaded with the heavy charge of perpetually supporting a numerous standing army, and remain for ever exposed to the danger of having its liberties and privileges trampled upon, by any future king or ministry who shall take it in their heads to do so, and shall take a proper care to model the army for that purpose. LORD BATHURST. His Speech on the Number of Land Forces. THE noble duke who spoke last, has spoken so fully and so well in favour of a standing army, that if it were possible to convince me that a standing army is consistent with the liberties of the country, that noble duke would have done it. I should even be afraid to rise up to offer any thing in answer to what he has so well said upon that subject, if it were not, that I think myself under a necessity of giving your lordships some reason for my voting as I shall do, in the important question now be fore us. I was glad, my lords, to hear that noble duke allow, that the militia of the kingdom might be put upon such a footing as to be useful for our defence: this I should be glad to see done, because I think it the only defence, next to our fleet, which we can with any safety trust to; and as there is no man more capable than he, of putting us in a way of making our malitia useful, I wish he would give us his thoughts upon that subject; I am sure there is nothing he can offer but what will be well received and readily agreed to. As to the expence of keeping our militia under a proper discipline, I do not think that it is of any consideration in the present question, if it should amount to a great deal more than what we now pay for maintaining our regular army; it would be an argument of no weight with me against the scheme, for I am sure, if the expence were greater, our power would be rendered in proportion much more extensive, and our liberties much more secure. The If, my lords, the militia were to be put upon a proper and a right footing, if they were to be put upon such a footing as to be really useful for the defence of the country, it is not to be supposed, that the people would grumble at any charge or inconvenience they were put to upon such a necessary and reasonable account. many loads they have quietly submitted to of late years, shew us that they are not apt to grumble, when they are convinced of the reason of the thing; but at present they know that the militia are of no public use; they know that the drawing them out to exercise tends to no end but that of putting money in the pockets of the officers, and therefore they grumble when they find themselves put to any expence upon such an unprofitable account. Though the militia of the kingdom be under the command of the king, though their officers be all named by the king, yet under such a military force, our liberties must be safe: the militia of the kingdom are the people of the kingdom, and it is impossible to make use of the people for oppressing the liberties of the people; but a standing army of regular forces soon begin to look upon themselves as a body separate and distinct from the people and if the people in general neglect the use of arms, and trust entirely to such a military force for their defence, the king, who has the absolute command over them, may easily fall upon ways and means to make use of them for oppressing the liberties of the people; by granting particular favours to such a military force, and by preserving the affections of a few men bred up to VOL. I. 41 |