DEBATE ON A STANDING ARMY.

The next subject of debate was the number of land-forces. When the supply fell under consideration, sir W. Strickland, secretary at war, moved that the same number which had been maintained in the preceding year should be continued in pay. On the other hand, lord Morpeth having demonstrated the danger to which the liberties of the nation might be exposed, by maintaining a numerous standing army in time of peace, made a motion that the number should be reduced to twelve thousand. A warm debate ensuing, was managed in favour of the first motion by lord Hervey, sir Robert Walpole and his brother, Mr. Pelham, and sir Philip Yorke, attorney-general. This gentleman was counted a better lawyer than a politician, and shone more as an advocate at the bar than as an orator in the house of commons. The last partisan of the ministry was sir William Yonge, one of the lords commissioners in the treasury; a man who rendered himself serviceable and necessary by stooping to all compliances, running upon every scent, and haranguing on every subject, with an even uninterrupted tedious flow of full declamation, composed of assertions without veracity, conclusions from false premises, words without meaning, and language without propriety. Lord Morpeth’s motion was espoused by Mr. Watkin Williams Wynne, a gentleman of an ancient family and opulent fortune in Wales, brave, open, hospitable, and warmly attached to the ancient constitution and hierarchy; he was supported by Mr. Walter Plummer, who spoke with weight, precision, and severity; by sir W, Wyndham, Mr. Shippen, Mr. W. Pulteney, and Mr. Barnard. The courtiers argued that it was necessary to maintain such a number of land-forces as might defeat the designs of malcontents, secure the interior tranquillity of the kingdom, defend it from external assaults, overawe its neighbours, and enable it to take vigorous measures in case the peace of Europe should be re-embroiled. They affirmed, the science of war was so much altered, and acquired so much attention, that no dependance was to be placed upon a militia; that all nations were obliged to maintain standing armies, for their security against the encroachments of neighbouring powers; that the number of troops in Great Britain was too inconsiderable to excite the jealousy of the people, even under an ambitious monarch; that his majesty never entertained the least thought of infringing the liberties of his subjects; that it could not be supposed that the officers, among whom were many gentlemen of family and fortune, would ever concur in a design to enslave their country; and that the forces now in pay could not be properly deemed a standing army, inasmuch as they were voted and maintained from year to year by the parliament, which was the representative of the people. To these arguments the members in the opposition replied, that a standing force in time of peace was unconstitutional, and had been always thought dangerous; that a militia was as capable of discipline as a standing army, and would have more incentives to courage and perseverance; that the civil magistrate was able to preserve the peace of the country; that the number of the malcontents was altogether contemptible, though it might be considerably augmented by maintaining a standing army, and other such arbitrary measures; that other nations had been enslaved by standing armies; and howsoever they might find themselves necessitated to depend upon a military force for security against encroaching neighbours, the case was very different with regard to Great Britain, for the defence of which nature had provided in a peculiar manner; that this provision was strengthened and improved by a numerous navy, which secured her dominion of the sea; and, if properly disposed, would render all invasion impracticable, or at least ineffectual; that the land-army of Great Britain, though sufficient to endanger the liberties of an unarmed people, could not possibly secure such an extent of coast, and therefore could be of very little service in preventing an invasion; that though they had all imaginable confidence in his majesty’s regard to the liberty of the subjects, they could not help apprehending, that should a standing army become part of the constitution, another prince of more dangerous talents, and more fatal designs, might arise, and employ it for the worst purposes of ambition; that though many officers were gentlemen of honour and probity, these might be easily discarded, and the army gradually moulded into quite a different temper. By these means, practised in former times, an army had been new modelled to such a degree, that they turned their swords against the parliament for whose defence they had been raised, and destroyed the constitution both in church and state; that with respect to its being wholly dependent on the parliament, the people of England would have reason to complain of the same hardship, whether a standing army should be declared at once indispensable, or regularly voted from year to year, according to the direction of the ministry; that the sanction of the legislature granted to measures which in themselves are unconstitutional, burdensome, odious, and repugnant to the genius of the nation, instead of yielding consolation, would serve only to demonstrate that the most effectual method of forging the chains of national slavery, would be that of ministerial influence operating upon a venal parliament. Such were the reasons urged against a standing army, of what number soever it might be composed; but the expediency of reducing the number from about eighteen thousand to twelve thousand, was insisted upon as the natural consequence of his majesty’s declaration, by which they were given to understand that the peace of Europe was established; and that he had nothing so much at heart as the ease and prosperity of his people. It was suggested, that if eighteen thousand men were sufficient on the supposed eve of a general war in Europe, it was surely reasonable to think that a less number would suffice when peace was perfectly re-established. Whatever effect these reasons had upon the body of the nation, they made no converts in the house, where the majority resolved that the standing army should be maintained without reduction. Mr. Plummer complained that the country was oppressed by an arbitrary method of quartering soldiers, in an undue proportion, upon those publicans who refused to vote in elections according to the direction of the ministry. Mr. Pulteney asserted, that the money raised for the subsistence of eighteen thousand men in England, would maintain sixty thousand French or Germans, or the same number of almost any other people on the continent. Sir William Wyndham declared, that eighteen thousand of the English troops in the late war were maintained on less than two-thirds of the sum demanded for the like number; but no regard was paid to these allegations.