Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-02-02 00:00:00

STANDING ARMIES

There can be no question about large standing
armies being things to be deprecated. But since
a standing army of some degree of force is a
necessary evil in a country like ours, with such
vast and scattered interests to protect, and so
many dominions to defend, they certainly err who
decry their being kept up at all. War is a curse
to any people ; but armies, though designed for
war, in case of need, are much more frequently its
prevention than its occasion. Take the case of
England in the present state of Continental
Europe—to go no further—with some of the most
powerful of the European Governments increasing
their armaments rather alarmingly,—where
would be her position were she left defenceless
—had she no standing army to rely upon, and her
Continental neighbours knew it, as knew it they,
of course, would ? Can it for a moment be sup-
posed that England has no enemies to take advan-
tage of her defenceless condition, the moment she
should be found defenceless ? It does not of
• necessity involve any approval of war, to concur
in the necessity of keeping up a sufficient military
force to be ready, should there be any need for
them, to defend our own "tight little island" at
home, or our vast possessions abroad.
They evidently overshoot the mark, then, who
decry all soldiery whatever, as the Quakers do,
and as one (we believe) of their body, Mr. EDMUND
FRY, has been doing in a public lecture he has
delivered in the metropolis. It is contended that
there are " evils inflicted on a community by their
rulers having the power of maintaining large
standing armies, and at any moment, to suit their
own whim or caprice, threatening to launch these
against a neighbouring State." And no doubt

there are great evils thus inflicted, where the ruler
of a kingdom is unhappily in a position to be able
to go to war on his own mere " whim or caprice."
But such is not our case. We have, it is true, a
large standing army ; but not for the purpose of
going to war, so much as to avert the possibility of
such a calamity. And if other Powers, with
standing armies, are really so circumstanced as,
"on their own whim or caprice," to at any time
" launch them against a neighbouring State,"
surely it were a very strong and urgent reason
why we should be prepared, in such an event, to
to resist them.

Our case, with respect to the employment of
armaments, is this,—the power of the Crown to
direct the • military force of the kingdom, is
balanced by the annual necessity of resorting to
Parliament for the maintenance and government
of that force; and the power of the Sovereign to
declare war, is checked by the privilege of the
House of Commons to grant or withhold the sup-
plies by which the war must be carried on. So
that the fact is, our rulers cannot possibly indulge
" their own whim and caprice," if they should
happen to have any, in such a matter at all. They
have not even " the power of maintaining large
standing armies," for any purpose whatever, with-
out the House of Commons chooses to give it them.
So that here we see a very 'gross fallacy, and a
very inexcusable piece of misrepresentation, have
been put forth by the Quaker-Lecturer, as respects
the effect, in anywise, of a standing army in this
country.

The maxim is denied, but not disproved, that the
best way to preserve peace, is to be prepared for
war. How should we stand, in this country, as

regards peace or war, if our standing army was so
much reduced as to be utterly ineffectual, or, as
the Quakers contend ought to be the case, we
had no army at all ? Would not our defenceless
state be immediately taken advantage of ? Is
there no Power, either in the old world or the
new, that would be tempted to come and take
liberties with us, or even propose to " annex" us ?
And would not this soon lead to war,—unless, of
course, we were content to bend our necks to any
foreign yoke that might be threatened us ? But
then the Quaker's peace party admit that " it is
the people who have the matter in their own
hands." Undoubtedly they have. Only, it is
declared, that "so long as the people clamour for
more ships and more guns, or rather when the
writers in the public Press do so, we cannot expect
that there will be a great diminution in these."
But why do they " clamour " for them ? Why,
but because they see that unless we are fully and
completely prepared for defence, there can be no
security whatever that we shall not be assailed--
and, when assailed, worsted.
Another of the Quaker fallacies is thus stated,—