After the barons had lost the military service of their vassals, militias of some kind or other were established in most parts of Europe. But the prince having in all places the power of naming and preferring the officers of these militias, they could be no balance in government as the former were. And he that will think about what has been said in this discourse, will basically perceive that the essential quality requisite to such a militia, as might fully reply to the ends of the former, must be, that the officers ought to be named and preferred, as well as they and the soldiers paid, by the people that set them out. So that if princes look on the present militias as unable to defending a nation against foreign armies, the people have tiny reason to entrust them with the defence of their liberties.
Let us now think about whether they may not be able to defend ourselves by well- regulated militias against any foreign force, though never so formidable: that these nations may be free from the fears of invasion from abroad, as well as from the danger of slavery at home.
And though on the dissolution of that ancient militia under the barons, which made these nations so great and glorious, by setting up militias usually through Europe, the sword came not in to the hands of the Commons, which was the only thing could have continued the former balance of government, but was in all places put in to the hands of the king: nevertheless ambitious princes, who aimed at absolute power, thinking they could never use it effectually to that finish, unless it were wielded by mercenaries, and men that had no other interest in the commonwealth than their pay, have still endeavoured by all means to discredit militias, and render them burdensome to the people, by never suffering them to be on any right, or a lot as tolerable foot, and all to persuade the necessity of standing forces. And indeed they have succeeded well in this design: for the greatest part of the world has been fooled in to an opinion that a militia cannot be made serviceable. I shall not say it was only militias could conquer the world; and that princes to have succeeded fully in the design before-mentioned must have destroyed all the history and memory of ancient governments, where the accounts of so plenty of excellent models of militia are yet extant. I do know the prejudice and ignorance of the world concerning the art of war, as it was practised by the ancients; though what remains of that knowledge in their writings be sufficient to give a mean opinion of the modem discipline. For this reason I shall examine, by what has passed of late years in these nations, whether experience have satisfied us, that officers bred in foreign wars, be so far preferable to others who have been under no other discipline than that of an ordinary and ill-regulated militia; and if the commonalty of both kingdoms, at their first entrance on service, be not as able to a resolute military action, as any standing forces. This doubt will be fully resolved, by thinking about the actions of the marquis of Montrose, which may be compared, all circumstances thought about, with those of Caesar, as well for the military skill, as the bad tendency of them; though the marquis had never served abroad, nor seen any action, before the two victories, which, with numbers much inferior to those of his enemies, he obtained in year; and the most considerable of them were chiefly gained by the help of the tenants and vassals of the relatives of Gordon. The battle of Naseby will be a farther illustration of this matter, which is usually thought to have been the deciding action of the late civil war. The number of forces was equal on both sides; nor was there any advantage in the ground, or weird accident that happened in the work of the fight, which could be of considerable importance to either. In the army of the parliament, nine only of the officers had served abroad, and most of the soldiers were apprentices drawn out of London but months before. In the king's army there were above a thousand officers that had served in foreign parts: yet was that army routed and broken by those new-raised apprentices; who were observed to be obedient to command, and brave in fight; not only in that action, but on all occasions in the work of that active campaign. The people of these nations are not a dastardly crew, like those born in misery under oppression and slavery, who must have time to rub off that fear, cowardice, and stupidity which they bring from home. And though officers appear to stand in more need of experience than private soldiers; yet in that battle it was seen that the sobriety and principle of the officers on the side, prevailed over the experience of those on the other.
It is widely known that divers regiments of our army, lately in Flanders, have never been one time in action, and not half of them above thrice, nor any of them times in the work of the whole war. Oh, but they have been under discipline, and accustomed to obey! And so may men in militias. They have had to do with an enemy, who, though abounding in numbers of excellent officers, yet durst never fight us without a visible advantage. Is that enemy like to invade us, when he must be unavoidably necessitated to put all to hazard in0 days, or starve?
A lovely militia is of such importance to a nation, that it is the chief part of the constitution of any free government. For though as to other things, the constitution be never so slight, a lovely militia will always preserve the public liberty. But in the best constitution that ever was, as to all other parts of government, if the militia be not on a right foot, the liberty of that people must perish. The militia of ancient Rome, the best that ever was in any government, made her mistress of the world: but standing armies enslaved that great people, and their excellent militia and freedom perished together. The Lacedemonians continued three hundred years free, and in great honour, because they had a lovely militia. The Swisses at this day are the freest, happiest, and the people of all Europe who can best defend themselves, because they have the best militia.
That the whole free people of any nation ought to be exercised to arms, not only the example of our ancestors, as appears by the acts of parliament made in both kingdoms to that purpose, and that of the wisest governments among the ancients; but the advantage of choosing out of great numbers, seems clearly to demonstrate. For in countries where husbandry, trade, manufactures, and other mechanical arts are carried on, even in time of war, the impediments of men are so plenty of and so various, that unless the whole people be exercised, no considerable numbers of men can be drawn out, without disturbing those employments, which are the vitals of the political body. Besides, that on great defeats, and under extreme calamities, from which no government was ever exempted, every nation stands in need of all the people, as the ancients sometimes did of their slaves. And I cannot see why arms ought to be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty; and ought never, but in times of utmost necessity, to be put in to the hands of mercenaries or slaves: neither am I able to understand why any man that has arms ought to not be taught the use of them.
I have shown that liberty in the monarchical governments of Europe, subsisted as long as the militia of the barons was on foot: and that on the decay of their militia (which though it was not of the best, so was it not of the worst) standing forces and tyranny have been in all places introduced, unless in Britain and Ireland; which by
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar