Will of the Lord and often sacrifice to their private Quarrels They were as much at his beck as his Pack of Hounds were at the Sound of his Horne whether it was to march against a Forreign Enemy or against their own Natural Prince So that this was but exchanging one Tyrant for Three hundred for so many the Barons of England were accounted at least And this was the Effect of the Security vested in the People against the Arbitrary Power of the King which was to say the Barons took care to maintain their own Tyranny and to prevent the Kings Tyrahnizing over them But 't is said the Barons growing poor by the Luxury of the Times and the Common People growing rich they exchang'd their Vassalage for Leases Rents Fines and the like They did so and thereby became entituled to the Service of themselves and so overthrew the Settlement and from hence came a House of Commons And I hope England has reason to value the Alteration Let them that think not reflect on the Freedoms the Commons enjoy in Poland where the Gothick Institution remains and they will be satisfied In this Establishment of a Parliament the Sword is indeed trusted in the Hands of the King and the Purse in the Hands of the People the People cannot make Peace or War without the King noâ— the King cannot raise or maintain an Army without the People and this is the True Ballance But we are told The Power of the Purse is not a sufficient Security without the Power of the Sword What! not against Ten thousand Men To answer this 't is necessary to examine how far the Power of the Sword is in the Hands of the People already and next whether the Matter of Fact be true I say the Sword is in part in the Hands of the People already by the Militia who as the Argument says are the People themselves And how are they Ballanc'd 'T is true they are Commissioned by the King but they may refuse to meet twice till the first Pay is reimburst to the Countrey And where shall the King Raise it without a Parliament that very Militia would prevent him So that our Law therein Authorizing the Militia to refuse the Command of the King tacitly puts the Sword into the Hands of the People I come now to Examine the Matter of Fact That the Purse is not an Equivalent to the Sword which I deny to be true and here 't will be necessary to Examine How often our Kings of England have Raised Armies on their own Heads but have been forced to Disband them for want of Moneys nay have been forced to call a Parliament to Raise Money to Disband them King Charles the First is an Instance of both these for his First Army against the Scots he was forced to Dismiss for want of Pay and then was forced to call a Parliament to Pay and Dismiss the Scots and tho' he had an Army in the Field at the Pacification and a Church Army too yet he durst not attempt to Raise Money by them I am therefore to affirm that the Power of the Purse is an Equivalent to the Power of the Sword and I believe I can make it appear if I may be allowed to instance in those numerous Armies which Gaspar Coligny Admiral of France and Henry the Fourth King of Navar and William the First P. of Orange brought of Germany into France and into the Low Countries which all vanished and could attempt nothing for want of a Purse to maintain them But to come nearer what made the Efforts of King Charles all Abortive but Want of the Purse Time was he had the Sword in his Hand when the Duke of Buckingham went on those Fruitless Voyages to Rochell and himself afterwards to Scotland he had Forces on Foot a great many more than Five Thousand which the Argument mentions but he had not the Purse at last he attempted to take it without a Parliament and that Ruin'd him King Charles the Second found the Power of the Purse so much out-ballanced the Power of the Sword that he sat still and let the Parliament Disband his Army for him almost whether he would or no. Besides the Power of the Purse in England differs from what the same thing is in other Countries because 't is so Sacred a thing that no King ever touch'd at it but he found his Ruine in it Nay 't is so odious to the Nation that whoever attempts it must at the same time be able to make an Entire Conquest or nothing If then neither the Consent of Parliament nor the smalness of an Army proposed nor the Power of the Sword in the Hands of the Milia which are the People themselves nor the Power of the Purse are not a sufficient Ballance against the Arbitrary Power of the King what shall we say Are Ten Thousand Men in Arms without Money without Parliament Authority hem'd in with the whole Militia of England and Dam'd by the Laws Are they of such Force as to break our Constitution I cannot see any reason for such a Thought The Parliament of England is a Body of whom we may say That no Weapon Formed against them cou'd ever Prosper and they know their own Strength and they know what Force is needful and what hurtful and they will certainly maintain the First and Disband the Last It may be said here 'T is not the fear of Ten Thousand Men 't is not the matter of an Army but 't is not the Thing it self grant a Revenue for Life and the next King will call it My Revenue and so grant an Army for this King and the next will say Give Me my Army To which I Answer That these things have been no oftner ask'd in Parliament than deny'd and we have so many Instances in our late Times of the Power of the Purse that it seems strange to me that it should not be allowed to be a sufficient Ballance King Charles the Second as I hinted before was very loath to part with his Army Rais'd in 1676. but he was forced to it for want of Money to pay them he durst not try whether when Money had Raised an Army an Army cou'd not Raise Money 'T is true his Revenues were large but Frugality was not his Talent and that ruin'd the Design King Iames the Second was a good Husband and that very Husbandry had almost Ruin'd the Nation for his Revenues being well managed he maintain'd an Army out of it For 't is well known the Parliament never gave him a Penny towards it but he never attempted to make his Army Raise any Money if he had 't is probable his Work had been sooner done than it was But pray let us Examine abroad if the Purse has not Governed all the Wars of Europe The Spaniards were once the most powerful People in Europe their Infantry were in the Days of the Prince of Parma the most Invincible Troops in the World The Dutch who
were then his Subjects and on whom he had Levied immense Sums of Money had the 10th Penny demanded of them and the Demand back'd by a great Army of these very Spaniards which among many other Reasons caused them to Revolt The Duke D'Alva afterwards attempted for his Master to raise this Tax by his Army by which he lost the whole Netherlands who are now the Richest People in the World and the Spaniard is now become the meanest and most despicable People in Europe and that only because they are the Poorest The present War is another Instance which having lasted Eight Years is at last brought to this Conclusion That he who had the longest Sword has yielded to them who had the longest Purse The late King Charles the First is another most lively Instance of this Matter to what lamentable Shifts did he drive himself and how many despicable Steps did he take rather than call a Parliament which he hated to think of And yet tho' he had an Army on Foot he was forced to do it or starve all his Men had it been to be done he wou'd have done it 'T is true 't was said the Earl of Strofford propos'd a Scheme to bring over an Army out of Ireland to force England to his Terms but the Experiment was thought too desperate to be attempted and the very Project Ruin'd the Projector such an ill Fate attends every Contrivance against the Parliament of England But I think I need go no further on that Head The Power of Raising Money is wholly in the Parliament as a Ballance to the Power of Raising Men which is in the King and all the Reply I can meet with is That this Ballance signifies nothing for an Army can Raise Money as well as Money Raise an Army to which I Answer besides what has been said already I do not think it practicable in England The greatest Armies in the Hands of the greatest Tyrants we ever had in England never durst attempt it We find several Kings in England have attempted to Raise Money without a Parliament and have tryed all the means they could to bring it to pass and they need not go back to Richard the Second to Edward the Second to Edward the Fourth to Henry the Eighth or to Charles the First to remind the Reader of what all Men who know any thing of History are acquainted with But not a King ever yet attempted to Raise Money by Military Execution or Billetting Soldiers upon the Country King Iames the Second had the greatest Army and the best as to Discipline that any King ever had and his desperate Attempts on our Liberties show'd his good Will yet he never came to that Point I won't deny but that our Kings have been willing to have Armies at Hand to back them in their Arbitrary Proceedings and the Subjects may have been aw'd by them from a more early Resentment but I must observe that all the Invasion of our Rights and all the Arbitrary Methods of our Governors has been under pretences of Law King Charles the First Levy'd Ship-Money as his due and the Proclamations for that purpose cite the pretended Law that in Case of Danger from a Foreign Enemy Ships shou'd be fitted out to Defend us and all Men were bound to contribute to the Charge Coat and Conduct Money had the like Pretences Charters were subverted by Quo Warrantoes and Proceedings at Law Patriots were Murther'd under Formal Prosecutions and all was pretended to be done legally I know but one Instance in all our English Story where the Souldery were employ'd as Souldiers in open Defyance of Law to destroy the Peoples Liberties by a Military Absolute Power and that stands as an Everlasting Brand of Infamy upon our Militia and is an Instance to prove beyond the Power of a Reply That even our Militia under a bad Government let them be our selves and the People and all those fine things never so much are under ill Officers and ill Management as dangerous as any Souldery whatever will be as Insolent and do the Drudgery of a Tyrant as effectually In the Year when Mr. Dubois and Mr. Papillon a Member of the Present Parliament were chosen Sheriffs of London and Sir Iohn Moor under pretence of the Authority of the Chair pretended to nominate one Sheriff himself and leave the City to choose but one and confirm the Choice of the Mayor the Citizens struggled for their Right and stood firm to their Choice and several Adjournments were made to bring over the Majority of the Livery but in vain At length the Day came when the Sheriffs were to be sworn and when the Livery-men assembled at Guild-hall to swear their Sheriffs they found the Hall Garrison'd with a Company of Trained-Bands under Lieutenant Coll. Quiney a Citizen himself and most of the Soldiers Citizens and Inhabitants and by this Force the Ancient Livery-men were shut out and several of them thrown down and insolently used and the Sheriffs thrust away from the Hustings and who the Lord Mayor pleased was Sworn in an open Defiance of the Laws of the Kingdom and Priviledges of the City This was done by the Militia to their Everlasting Glory and I do not remember the like done by a Standing Army of Mercenaries in this Age at least Nor is a Military Tyranny practicable in England if we consider the power the Laws have given to the Civil Magistrate unless you at the same time imagine that Army large enough to subdue the whole English Nation at once which if it can be effected by such an Army as the Parliament now seem enclined to permit we are in a very mean Condition I know it may be objected here that the Forces which were on Foot before 1680. are not the Army in Debate and that the Design of the Court was to have a much greater Force I do not know that but this I know that those Forces were an Army and the Design of all these Oponents of an Army is in so many words against any Army at all small as well as great a Tenet absolutely destructive of the present Interest of England and of the Treaties and Alliances made by His Majesty with the Princes and States of Europe who depend so much on his Aid in Guard of the present Peace The Power of making Peace or War is vested in the King 'T is part of his Prerogative but 't is implicitly in the People because their Negative as to Payment does really Influence all those Actions Now If when the King makes War the Subject shou'd refuse to assist him the whole Nation would be ruin'd Suppose in the Leagues and Confederacies His Present Majesty is engag'd in for the Maintenance of the present Peace all the Confederates are bound in case of a Breach to assist one another with so many Men say Ten thousand for the English Quota more or less where shall they be found Must they stay till they are Rais'd To what purpose would it be then for any Confederate to depend upon England for Assistance It may be said indeed if you are so engag'd by Leagues or Treaties you may hire Foreign Troops to assist till you can raise them This Answer leads to several things which would take up too much room here Foreign Troops require Two things to procure them Time to Negotiate for them which may not be to be spar'd for they may be almost as soon rais'd Time for their March from Germany for there are none nearer to be hir'd and Money to Hire them which must be had by Parliament or the King must have it ready If by Parliament that is a longer way still if without that opens a worse Gate to Slavery than t'other For if a King have Money he can raise Men or hire Men when he will and you are in as much danger then and more than you can be in now from a Standing Army So that since giving Money is the same thing as giving Men as it appear'd in the late K. Iames's Reign both must be prevented or both may be allow'd But the Parliament we see needs no Instructions in this Matter and therefore are providing to reduce the Forces to the same Quota they were in before 1680. by which means all the fear of Invading our Liberties will be at an end the Army being so very small that 't is impossible and yet the King will have always a Force at hand to assist his Neighbours or defend himself till more can be Raised The Forces before 1680. were an Army and if they were an Army by Consent of Parliament they were a Legal Army and if they were Legal then they were not inconsistent with a Free Government c. for nothing can be Inconsistent with a Free Government which is done according to the Laws of that Government And if a Standing Army has been in England Legally then I have proved That a Standing Army is not Inconsistent with a Free Government c. FINIS Advertisement Lately Published SOme Reflections on a Pamphlet lately Published Entituled An Argument shewing that a Standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free Government and absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy 2d Edit Printed for and Sold by E. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall 1697.
those Towns tho' they were immediately the Spaniards were really Bulwarks to keep the French the further off from his own Country and thus it is now And how our Militia can have any share in this part of the War I cannot imagine It seems strange to me to reconcile the Arguments made use of to magnifie the Serviceableness of the Militia and the Arguments to enforce the Dread of a Standing Army for they stand like two Batteries one against another where the Shot from one dismounts the Cannon of the other If a small Army may enslave us our Militia are good for nothing if good for nothing they cannot defend us and then an Army is necessary If they are good and are able to defend us then a small Army can never hurt us for what may defend us Abroad may defend us at Home and I wonder this is not consider'd And what is plainer in the World than that the Parliament of England have all along agreed to this Point That a Standing Army in time of Peace with Consent of Parliament is not against Law The Establishment of the Forces in the time of K. Charles II. was not as I remember ever objected against in Parliament at least we may say the Parliament permitted them if they did not establish them And the Present Parliament seems enclin'd to continue the Army on the same foot so far as may be suppos'd from their Vote to disband all the Forces raised since 1680. To affirm then That a Standing Army without any of the former Distinctions is Inconsistent c. is to argue against the General Sense of the Nation the Permission of the Parliament for 50 years past and the Present apparent Resolutions of the best Composed House that perhaps ever entred within those Walls To this House the whole Nation has left the Case to act as they see cause to them we have committed the Charge of our Liberties nay the King himself has only told them His Opinion with the Reasons for it without leading them at all and the Article of the Claim of Right is left in full force For this Consent of Parliament is now left the whole and sole Judge Whether an Army or no Army and if it Votes an Army 't is left still the sole Judge of the Quantity how many or how few Here it remains to enquire the direct Meaning of those words Vnless it be by Consent of Parliament and I humbly suppose they may among other things include these Particulars 1. That they be rais'd and continued not by a Tacit but Explicite Consent of Parliament or to speak directly by an Act of Parliament 2. That they be continued no longer than such Explicite Consent shall limit and appoint If these two Heads are granted in the word Consent I am bold to affirm Such an Army is not Inconsistent with a Free Government c. I am as positively assur'd of the Safety of our Liberties under the Conduct of King and Parliament while they concur as I am of the Salvation of Believers by the Passion of our Saviour and I hardly think 't is fit for a private Man to impose his positive Rules on them for Method any more than 't is to limit the Holy Spirit whose free Agency is beyond his Power For the King Lords and Commons can never err while they agree nor is an Army of 20 or 40000 Men either a Scarcrow enough to enslave us while under that Union If this be allow'd then the Question before us is What may conduce to make the Harmony between the King Lords and Commons eteernal And so the Debate about an Army ceases But to leave that Question since Frailty attends the best of Persons and Kings have their faux Pas as well as other Men we cannot expect the Harmony to be immortal and therefore to provide for the worst our Parliaments have made their own Consent the only Clause that can make an Army Legitimate But to say that an Army directly as an Army without these Distinctions is destructive of the English Monarchy and Inconsistent with a Free Government c. is to say then that the Parliament can destroy the English Monarchy and can Establish that which is Inconsistent with a Free Government which is ridiculous But then we are told that the Power of the Sword was first placed in the Lords er Barons and how they serv'd the King in his Wars with themselves and their Vassals and that the King had no Power to Invade the Priviledges of the Barons having no other Forces than the Vassals of his own Demeasnes to follow him And this Form is applauded as an extraodinary Constitution because there is no other Limitation of a Monarchy of any Signification than such as places the Sword in the hand of the Subject And all such Government where the Prince has the Power of the Sword tho' the People have the Power of the Purse are no more Monarchies but Tyrannies For not only that Government is tyrannical which is tyrannically exercis'd but all Governments are tyrannical which have not in their Constitution sufficient Security against the Arbitrary Power of their Prince that is which have not the Power of the Sword to Imploy against him if need be Thus we come to the Argument Which is not how many Troops may by allow'd or how long but in short No Mercenary-Troops at all can be maintain'd without Destroying our Constitution and Metamorphizing our Government into a Tyranny I admire how the Maintainer of this Basis came to omit giving us an Account of another Part of History very needful to examine in handing down the True Notion of Government in this Nation viz. of Parliaments To supply which and to make way for what follows I must take leave to tell the Reader that about the time when this Service by Villenage and Vassalage began to be resented by the People and by Peace and Trade they grew rich and the Power of the Barons being too great frequent Commotions Civil Wars and Battels were the Consequence nay sometimes without concerning the King in the Quarrel One Nobleman would Invade another in which the weakest suffered most and the poor Man's Blood was the Price of all the People obtain'd Priviledges of their own and oblig'd the King and the Barons to accept of an Equilibrium this we call a Parliament And from this the Due Ballance we have so much heard of is deduced I need not lead my Reader to the Times and Circumstances of this but this Due Ballance is the Foundation on which we now stand and which the Author of the Argument so highly applaudes as the best in the World and I appeal to all Men to judge if this Ballance be not a much nobler Constitution in all its Points than the old Gothick Model of Government In that the Tyranny of the Barons was intollerable the Misery and Slavery of the Common People insupportable their Blood and Labour was at the absolute