A LETTER TO A Member of Parliament CONCERNING GUARDS AND GARRISONS  
LONDON, Printed for A. Baldwin in Warwicklane, 1699.   

A LETTER TO A Member of Parliament CONCERNING Guards and Garrisons.  
SIR,  
I Am not ashamed to own that I was once of opinion that a Standing Army was necessary, nor that I own my Conversion to the printed Controversy upon that Subject, which was managed very unequally. On the one side there appears throughout the whole that irresistible Spirit of Truth which is inseparable from a good Cause: On the other part there is so much Prevarication, such mumbling of Thistles, and drawing in their Breath every moment, and withal such weak Arguments, lowness of Thought, and flatness of Expression, that the Reader might be tempted to think they had lost their Wits with their Integrity. But this Controversy is now at an end, since the whole Body of the People in two Parliaments have given a Sanction to the juster opinion, and (with a true Roman Resolution worthy their Illustrious Predecessors, worthy the noblest, the manliest, the best cause in the World, the cause of Liberty) have declared, that they have Courage, Honesty and Wisdom enough to defend themselves, and that they want no Keepers. Nor was this Debate carried on with that Heat and Faction which is often found in Popular Assemblies; no levelling at the Ministry, nor wreaking their private Discontents under the notion of Public Service. But it was managed with that Gravity, that Sedateness, that Candour, and yet with that Noble Constancy, as might convince the whole World that their Resolutions were the Results of the most mature Consideration, and unshaken Love to their Country, and Zeal for Liberty. This is declaring in Characters legible to all Europe, that it was not private Resentment, popular Faction, or a propensity to change, but a just sense of our Country's Liberty, that made us throw off our late Allegiance. It shows that we did not expel our King, but that we deposed a Tyrant. Whereas if we had been so transported by our Fortune, so debauched in our Understandings, and so destitute of all sense of Love and Honour due to our Native Country, as to have allowed that to one King for which we deposed another, we had been the scorn and reproach of Mankind, and justly called Traitors, Cowards, and Fools.  
However ungrateful this Vote may appear to Flatterers and Courtiers (who are but Infects bred and nourished out of the Corruption and Stench of bad Governments) yet I doubt not but his Majesty will consider it almost as the unanimous Opinion of that People hot voluntarily offered him two most potent Crowns, set him at the head of the Force and Councils of the greatest Confederacy that has been ever united, and supported him through the War at a Charge that neither We nor our Forefathers ever knew, till at last they enabled him to humble his powerful Adversary, and bring him to Terms both safe and honourable. Nor did their Affection terminate with the War: For though we were in debt near 20000000 l. they have increased the Civil List beyond what it was known in the Reigns of any of his Predecessors, and settled a great Revenue upon him for Life to support it. Nay, this very Parliament have given all the Testimony of their Duty which can be consistent with their Country's Safety; They have chosen a Speaker out of his own Family, and have left him 7000 men for Guards and Garrisons; which, if our Courtiers were honest, they would not so much as pretend to be necessary. For if we dare take the word of a noble Lord (who has never distinguished himself by his aversion to arbitrary Power, or hatred to Armies) 3000 men are enough to supply the Garrisons, and double as many as were established in Charles the 2d's time for that purpose. Then what Reason, or rather what Colour is there for 4000 Guards?  
I will not enter upon so invidious a Subject, as that Guards about the King's Person are both unnecessary and dangerous, though Aristotle has made it the distinguishing mark of Arbitrary Power to have them, and many more Princes have been murdered than protected by them; nay, even at this time in our neighbouring Country of Spain, though the King has much more power than we think consistent with our Constitution, yet he has no Guards: and not many years since, when their King attempted, to raise but a single Regiment, it was so resented, that if they had not been quickly disbanded, the whole Nation had been in Arms, thinking it ignoble and dishonourable that their King should rather trust his Person with a few Men of desperate Fortunes, and not of the best Morals, than with his Nobility, Gentry, and loyal People.  
However, since this Doctrine is not Orthodox, I will take it for granted that Guards are necessary about the King's Person: but at the same time I dare affirm that his three Troops of Horse, and one Regiment of Foot (which need not exceed 1200 Men) are more than sufficient for that purpose, though his Majesty was to be better attended than ever I saw him. Then what pretence is there for keeping the remaining 2800? What colour is there for keeping Guards at the Savoy, or indeed in the Tower?  
Are they kept there to defend the City, or to bridle the Citizens? which, as Macchiavel says, is the only use of Citadels. If the former, we can tell them, that the City has 20000 Militia to defend themselves, and 200000 Men more that will be ready to take Arms upon occasion, and better Men too than an Army will be, when they have been debauched and enervated with peace and idleness; which if they doubt, let them remember the time when a new Army raised suddenly out of the City, vanquished the King's veteran Troops.  
If they keep them to bridle the Citizens, that's our Complaint, and indeed is the only proper and natural use of Standing Forces in times of Peace. But why must the City of London be garisoned more than any other inland-part of the Kingdom? Was ever a Prince better beloved, or a City more loyal? why then must they be awed by Citadels?  
Perhaps it may be said, that the Tower is the chief Magazine of the King's Artillery, Arms, and Ammunition, which ought to be well guarded, to prevent a surprise. But why may not the Militia of London do duty there by turns? who if they are good for nothing else, sure may be trusted to defend the King's Stores. We see the Bank of England, which is the Repository of as great Treasure, is defended by a very few Men. How was the Tower defended before this Encroachment of Armies grew upon us? but then indeed it was a Prison, and now it is grown into a Garrison.  
Besides, what end can there be in attempting to surprise it? It can't be defended against a Prince that is beloved, many days; and whoever does attempt so desperate an Action, is sure to pay for his disobedience with his Life; which is all the security we have that his Majesty is not assassinated every day: for whoever will sacrifice himself, is master of any Man's Life.  
I have not laboured this matter so much to misrepresent the Parliament's Proceed, or lessen their affection to his Majesty, as to stop the mouths of a few Unreasonable Men, who calumniate the House of Commons as undutiful to their King, and regardless of their Country's safety; whereas I think I have made it appear, that they have allowed him near double as many Forces as are necessary; which makes me the more wonder how some Unthinking Men are imposed upon by calling a few Land, Regiments by the name of Mariners, and prevailed with to think them necessary.  
And because this Subject has not been handled by those Gentlemen who have exhausted the rest of the Argument, I will take that task upon myself, and by the next Post will send you my thoughts upon that affair, and endeavour to show that the Establishment of the Mariners is a useless charge to the Nation, a Nuisance to the Navy, and dangerous to the Kingdom's Liberties.  
From Newport in the Isle of Wight, Dec. 30. 1698.  
THE END.