one hundred and thirty years ago), are commonly men who fight themselves fearlessly into the mouth of hell for revenge, a booty, or a little revenue;-a day of battle is a day of harvest for the devil." Soldiers, like men, are much the same in every age and country.

"Heroes are much the same, the point's agreed,

From Macedonia's madman to the Sweed."

What will they not fight for-whom will they not fight against? Are these men, who take up arms with a view to defend their country and its laws? Do the ideas or the feelings of the citizen actuate a British private on entering the camp? Excitements, generous and noble, like these, are far from being the stimuli of a modern phalanx. The general of an army, habituated to uncontrolled command, feels himself absolute; he forgets his superiors, or rather despises that civil authority, which is destitute of an energy to compel his obedience. His soldiers (who look up to him as their sovereign, and to their officers as magistrates) lose the sentiments of the citizen and contemn the laws. Thus a will and a power to tyrannize become united; and the effects are as inevitable and fatal in the political, as the moral world.

The soldiers of Great Britain are by the mutiny act deprived of those legal rights which belong to the meanest of their fellow subjects, and even to the vilest malefactor. Thus divested of those rights and privileges which render Britons the envy of all other nations, and liable to such hardships and punishments as the limits and mercy of our known laws utterly disallow; it may well be thought they are persons best prepared and most easily tempted to strip others of their rights, having already lost their own. Excluded, therefore, from the enjoyments which others possess, like eunuchs of an Eastern seraglio, they envy and hate the rest of the community, and indulge a malignant pleasure in destroying those privileges to which they can never be admitted. How eminently does modern observation verify that sentiment of Baron Montesquieu-a slave living among free men will soon become a beast.

A very small knowledge of the human breast, and a little consideration of the ends for which we form into societies and commonwealths, discover the impropriety and danger of admitting such an order of men to obtain an establishment in the state; the annals and experience of every age, show that it is not only absurdity and folly→→ but distraction and madness. But we, in this region of the earth, have not only to dread and struggle with the common calamities resulting from such military bodies, but the combined dangers arising from an army of foreigners, stationed in the very bowels of the land. Infatuated Britons have been told-and as often deceived-that an army of natives would never oppress their own countrymen. But Cæsar and Cromwell, and an hundred others, have enslaved their

country with such kind of forces And who does not know that subalterns are implicitly obedient to their officers; who, when they become obnoxious, are easily changed, as armies to serve the purposes of ambition and power are soon new modelled. But as to America, the armies which infest her shores, are in every view foreigners, disconnected with her in interest, kindred, and other social alliances, who have nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by butchering and oppressing her inhabitants. But yet worse their inroads are to be palliated, their outrages are to receive a sanction and defence from a Parliament whose claims and decrees are as unrighteous as the Administration is corrupt; as boundless as their ambition, and as terrible as their power. The usurpation and tyranny of the Decemviri of Rome are represented as singularly odious and oppressive; but even they never assumed what Britain in the face of all mankind hath avowed and exercised over the colonies-the power of passing laws merely on her own authority. "Nothing that we propose (said they to the people) can pass into a law without your consent. Be yourselves, ye Romans, the authors of those laws on which your happiness depends."

"The dominion of all great empires degrades and debases the human species." The dominion of Britain is that of a mighty empire. Her laws waste our substance, her placemen corrupt our morals, and her armies are to break our spirits. Yes, are they not to do more? "To spoil, to slaughter, and to commit every kind of violence; and then to call the manoeuvre by a lying name-government; and, when they have spread a general devastation, call it peace.' In the barbarous massacres of France, in the sixteenth century, the very hanginen refused obedience to the cruel mandates of the French monarch, saying, they were legal officers, and only executed those the laws condemned. Yet history bears testimony that the soldiers performed the office which the hangman refused. Who then can be at a loss for the views of those who were so fond of introducing and tenacious of obtaining similar peace officers in this obnoxious capital? But let all such-yes, let Great Britain consider the nature of mankind; let her examine carefully the history of past events, and attend to the voice of experience.

In the same age we have just mentioned, the Low Countries, then subject to the crown of Spain, being persecuted by the court and church of that kingdom, rose up to resist their oppressors. Upon which, in the year 1567, the Duke of Alva was sent, and entered the country with a well-appointed army, ten thousand strong; in order to quell and punish the insurgents. Terrified with these martial operations, the towns suffered the open breach of their charters, and the people submitted to the most humiliating infraction of their liberties; while Alva, being invested with the government, erected the court of twelve, called the council of blood, and caused great numbers to be condemned

and executed on account of the insurrections. Universal complaints ensued on this disuse of the ordinary courts of law and the introduction of the army; but complaints were in vain, and all murmurs despised. The people became enraged; but without a leader, they were overawed. The army (says Sir William Temple) was fierce and brave, and desirous of nothing so much as a rebellion of the country." All was seizure and process, confiscation and imprisonment, blood and horror, insolence and dejection, punishments executed and meditated revenge. But though the multitude threatened vengeance, the threats of a broken and unarmed people excited contempt and not fear. Alva redoubled his impositions and ravages, his edicts were published for raising monies without the consent of the state, and his soldiers were called to levy the exactions by force.-But the event shewed that the timidity and tameness of mankind, like every thing human, will have a period. The patience of the miserable sufferers came to an end; and those commotions began which deluged a great part of Europe with blood, and finally freed the united provinces from the yoke of Spain and the inquisition.-What conflicts too sharp-what horrors too dreadful to endure for such a happy deliverance-such a glorious issue? Thus the first period of the low country troubles (says the same ingenious writer) proved to King Philip (of Spain) a dear experience, how little the boldest armies and best conduct, are able to withstand the torrent of a stubborn and enraged people, which ever bears all down before it, till it be divided into different channels by arts, or by chance; or till the springs which are the humors that fed it, come to be spent, or dry up of themselves."

During several centuries, history informs us, that no monarch in Europe was either so bold, or so powerful as to venture on any steps towards the introduction of regular troops. At last, Charles the 7th of France, seizing a favorable opportunity in 1445, executed that which his predecessors durst not attempt, and established the first standing army known in Europe. Lewis the 11th, son and successor of Charles, finding himself at the head of his father's forces, was naturally excited to extend the limits of his ancestors, in the levies of money and men. Charles had not been able to raise upon his subjects two millions, but the army he left his successor enabled him to levy near five. The father established an army of about seventeen hundred, which "he kept in good order and placed for the defence of the realm;" but this army, though thus disciplined and stationed, enabled the son to maintain "in continual pay a terrible band of men of arms, which gave the realm (says the historian Philip de Commines) a cruel wound of which it bled many years.' How regular, correspondent and uniform are the rise and progression of military calamities in all ages! How replete with instruction-how full of admonition are the memorials of distant times-especially when contracted into the view, and held up in comparison with the present.

Charles and Lewis having set the example, all the neighboring crowned heads soon followed, and mercenary troops were introduced into all the considerable kingdoms of the continent. They gradually became the only military force that was employed or trusted. It has long been (says the learned Dr. Robertson) the chief object of policy to increase and support them, and the great aim of princes or ministers to discredit and to annihilate all other means of national activity or defence. Who will wonder at this, who reflect, that absolute monarchies are established, and can only be supported by mercenary forces? Who can be surprised that princes and their subalterns discourage a martial spirit among the people, and endeavor to render useless and contemptible the militia, when this institution is the natural strength, and only stable safeguard of a free country? "Without it, 'tis folly to think any free government will ever have security and stability." A standing army in quarters will grow effeminate and dissolute; while a militia, uniformly exercised with hard labor, are naturally firm and robust. Thus an army in peace is worse than a militia; and in war, a militia will soon become disciplined and martial. But "when the sword is in the hands of a single person-as in our constitution-he will always (says the ingenious Hume) neglect to discipline the militia, in order to have a pretext for keeping up a standing army. 'Tis evident (says the same great character) that this is a mortal distemper in the British government; of which it must at last inevitably perish." What a deformed monster is a standing army in a free nation? Free, did I say? what people are truly free, whose monarch has a numerous body of armed mercenaries at his heels? who is already absolute in his power -or by the breath of his nostrils may in an instant make himself so? No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for defence of the state. The sword should never be in the hands of any, but those who have an interest in the safety of the community, who fight for their religion and their offspring;-and repel invaders that they may return to their private affairs, and the enjoyment of freedom and good order. Such are a well regulated militia composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their rights as freemen. Such is the policy of a truly wise nation, and such was the wisdom of the ancient Britons. The primitive constitution of a state in a few centuries falls to decay: errors and corruption creep gradually into the administration of government-till posterity forget or disregard the institutions of their remote ancestors. In ancient times, the militia of England was raised, officered and conducted by common consent. Its militia was the ornament of the realm in peace, and for ages continued the only and sure defence in war. Was the King himself general of an army-it was by the consent of his people. Thus, when the Romans visited the island of Britain, Cassibelan was the Prince

and chief commander in war; but it was by the election of the great Common Council, Summa belli (says Cæsar) communi concilio, Cassibilano traditur. Nor will this seem strange, when we consider that it was the first state maxim with the Druids ne loqui de republica, nisi per concilium-not even to speak upon a matter of state but in council. Nor is it to be wondered that such politicians informed Cæsar, that they had been so long accustomed to liberty, that they knew not the meaning of tribute and slavery; and sent him word that they had as good blood as he, and from the same fountain. Surely a message that was received by a Roman, may be sent to a British Cæsar, These were those venerable Druids, who had inspired the Gauls, of whom Cæsar reports this memorable boast: We can call or appeal to such a Great Common Council, as all the world cannot resist. Tacitus, speaking of our Saxon ancestors, relates, Reges ex nobilitate. Duces ex virtute in iisdem conciliis eliguntur. The great council, or the Parliament of the state had, not only the appointment of the principes militia, but the conduct of all the military forces, from the first erection of the standard, to its lodgment in the Citadel; for as the same noble writer informs, it was their general custom-not to entrust any man with the bearing of arms, antequam civitas sussecturum probaverit. Such was the security of the people from the calamities of a standing army:happy indeed if their successors could boast a similar provisionBritain would not now be groaning under oppression-nor her distant children struggling for their freedom.

A spirited nation thus embodied in a well disciplined militia, will soon become warlike; and such a people more fitted for action than debate, always hasten to a conclusion on the subject of grievances and public wrongs, and bring their deliberations to the shortest issue. With them "it is the work of but one day, to examine and resolve the nice question, concerning the behavior of subjects towards a ruler who abuses his power."

Artful dissemblings and plausible pretences are always adopted in order to introduce regular troops. Dionysius became the tyrant of Syracuse, the most opulent of all the Grecian cities, by feigning a solicitude for the people and a fear of his own person. He humbly prayed only a guard for his protection: they easily granted, what he readily took-the power of plundering by military force, and entailing his sovereignty by a devise of his sword. Agathocles, a successor to the Dionysian family and to the command of the army, continued the military tyranny; and butchered the enslaved people by centuries.

Cardinal Ximenes, who made the first innovation of this kind in Spain, disguised the measure under the pious and popular appearance of resisting the progress of the infidels. The nobles saw his views and excited opposition in the chief towns of the kingdom. But by dexterously using terror and entreaty, force and forbearance, the refractory cities were brought to compliance. The nobles thus driven to despe