ine for home defence; and about
1757 a practical conscription by ballot for this force was proposed,
and after much opposition carried in Parliament. During training they
were to be under the Mutiny Act and Articles of War. These latter,
drafted originally on the general’s own responsibility when conducting
a campaign, had been still reluctantly recognised by Parliament, and
in 1754 had been extended, with even greater reluctance, to the East
Indies and America. The old feeling of dread of independent governance
by officers was still alive, though beneath the surface of things.
As late as 1770, Beckford, Lord Mayor of London, remonstrated with
the Secretary of State for War because a detachment returning from
Spitalfields had marched past the Mansion House with drums beating,
“making a very warlike appearance, and raising in the minds of peaceful
citizens the idea of a town garrisoned with regular troops.” It is
curious to watch, in the army’s growth, how persistently the civil
mind was antagonistic to the force that had carried its name, its
reputation, and, soon, its trade to success and esteem. Yet Lord
Bavington had to accept the remonstrance, and assure the civic chief
that such should not occur again without his approval and approbation.

Only the 3rd Buffs, the Royal Marines, the Royal London Militia, and
the 3rd Grenadier Guards, because of their asserted origin from London
trained bands, can claim as a right the privilege of marching through
the city of London with fixed bayonets and colours flying.

The army meanwhile had been largely increased and as frequently
reduced. Many existing regiments have more than once borne other
numbers than those they at present possess, owing to these changes.
Thus in 1760 there were 100,000 armed men serving the State. Of these,
to give an idea of the distribution of regiments in those days, there
were in Great Britain 3 regiments of cavalry and 2 of infantry. In
Ireland, 3 of cavalry and 17 of infantry; in Gibraltar, 6 battalions;
in America and the West Indies