An army encouraged to mutiny
What becomes of a country whose soldiers have been urged to disobey their officers? The House is told this was done in France deliberately, and that an army detached from its officers guards nobody's liberty — it is the shortest road out of civil authority.
Supply was the evening's business: the year's money for the army, voted as it was voted every year. Burke used the vote to describe what French policy had done to a French army and to draw the English consequence from it. Soldiers taught that obedience is conditional do not turn into citizens; they turn into the instrument of whoever speaks to them next, and no settled government survives that for long. The argument lands harder for its occasion. Members were counting regiments, and one of them was explaining what a regiment is for.
- standing armies
- mutiny
- military
- civil authority
- anarchy
- tyranny
- power
- despotism
Enter a dialogue
- An armed, disciplined body is dangerous to liberty, and an undisciplined one ruinous to society. How can a free country keep an army at all?
- France put a crown army and a city army under different authorities. You said states can divide civil power but armies cannot bear divided command. Why the difference?
- Some, your ally Fox among them, saw French soldiers refusing to fire on fellow citizens as a gain for liberty. Why did you see only 'mutineers' and 'deserters'?
- In 1688 English regiments went over to William of Orange in bodies, under their own officers. Why was that not the mutiny you saw in France?
- You warned that mutinous soldiers set servants against masters and children against parents, a cause 'not an enemy to servitude, but to society'. Why would it spread?