of Rights then framed, that "the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless with the consent of Parliament, was against law."
In that kingdom, when the pulse of liberty was at its highest pitch, no security against the danger of standing armies was thought requisite, beyond a prohibition of their being raised or kept up by the mere authority of the Executive magistrate. The patriots, who effected that memorable revolution, were too temperate, and too well-informed, to think of any restraint on the Legislative discretion. They were aware, that a certain number of troops for guards and garrisons were indispensable; that no precise bounds could be set to the National exigencies; that a power equal to every possible contingency must exist somewhere in the Government: and that when they referred the exercise of that power to the judgment of the Legislature, they had arrived at the ultimate point of precaution, which was reconcilable with the safety of the community.
From the same source, the People of America may be said to have derived a hereditary impression of danger to liberty, from standing armies in time of peace. The circumstances of a revolution quickened the public sensibility on every point connected with the security of popular rights; and in some instances raised the warmth of our zeal beyond the degree, which consisted with the due temperature of the body politic. The attempts of two of the States, to restrict the authority of the Legislature in the article of military establishments, are of the number of these instances. The principles which had taught us to be jealous of the power of a hereditary monarch, were by an injudicious excess extended to the representatives of the People in their popular assemblies. Even in some of the States, where this error was not adopted, we find unnecessary declarations,
