II.—­The Disbanding of Troops.

It is the same with a people as it is with a man.  If it wishes to give itself some gratification, it naturally considers whether it is worth what it costs.  To a nation, security is the greatest of advantages.  If, in order to obtain it, it is necessary to have an army of a hundred thousand men, I have nothing to say against it.  It is an enjoyment bought by a sacrifice.  Let me not be misunderstood upon the extent of my position.  A member of the assembly proposes to disband a hundred thousand men, for the sake of relieving the tax-payers of a hundred millions.

If we confine ourselves to this answer—­“The hundred millions of men, and these hundred millions of money, are indispensable to the national security:  it is a sacrifice; but without this sacrifice, France would be torn by factions or invaded by some foreign power,”—­I have nothing to object to this argument, which may be true or false in fact, but which theoretically contains nothing which militates against economy.  The error begins when the sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it profits somebody.

Now I am very much mistaken if, the moment the author of the proposal has taken his seat, some orator will not rise and say—­“Disband a hundred thousand men!  Do you know what you are saying?  What will become of them?  Where will they get a living?  Don’t you know that work is scarce everywhere?  That every field is over-stocked?  Would you turn them out of doors to increase competition and to weigh upon the rate of wages?  Just now, when it is a hard matter to live at all, it would be a pretty thing if the State must find bread for a hundred thousand individuals?  Consider, besides, that the army consumes wine, arms, clothing—­that it promotes the activity of manufactures in garrison towns—­that it is, in short, the godsend of innumerable purveyors.  Why, any one must tremble at the bare idea of doing away with this immense industrial movement.”

This discourse, it is evident, concludes by voting the maintenance of a hundred thousand soldiers, for reasons drawn from the necessity of the service, and from economical considerations.  It is these considerations only that I have to refute.

A hundred thousand men, costing the tax-payers a hundred millions of money, live and bring to the purveyors as much as a hundred millions can supply.  This is that which is seen.

But, a hundred millions taken from the pockets of the tax-payers, cease to maintain these tax-payers and the purveyors, as far as a hundred millions reach.  This is that which is not seen.  Now make your calculations.  Cast up, and tell me what profit there is for the masses?

I will tell you where the loss lies; and to simplify it, instead of speaking of a hundred thousand men and a million of money, it shall be of one man and a thousand francs.