On the 25th, at night, some forty persons, or fewer, met at the St. Alban’s tavern, in Pall Mall. The Act that had granted the militia was within a year of expiring. It was become irksome to many of the country gentlemen, was much disliked by the chief ministers, and by great part of the House of Commons. The friends of the measure had wished to get it renewed for five years more. Some desired it perpetual. Pitt, while minister, had staved off even the shorter term. He now went to this meeting, spoke four times warmly for the perpetuity, and said, this was the moment to push it. Charles Townshend, who attended the meeting too, spoke earnestly, but only for the term of five years. The company signed a paper, engaging to stand by one another in the measure; and they who held commissions in the militia promised to throw them up, if the perpetuity should not be carried, agreeing only to await the arrival of General Townshend, the patron of the plan, who was expected from the army. The Court was as much set against the militia. The Duke of Devonshire told George Grenville, he believed he could not induce his own brothers to vote for it. The very same day intelligence had been received of an intended invasion from France. Grenville, told the Duke he could not come into any measure that would disband seven and twenty thousand men, when we should have so much occasion for them: it would be better to grant the perpetuity, and repeal it afterwards. The same morning, Charles Townshend,[138] now Secretary at War, moved for the land forces, which were granted without opposition. His new office gave him an opportunity of venting his vanity. He assumed much, and called himself trustee for the honest claims of the officers. On December 9th, he opened to the House the state of the foreign troops in our pay, the expense of which came to near a million. Townshend pleaded the inconsiderable loss we had sustained in the last campaign, not above two thousand men, which would easily be recruited; and that next year, as in the last four, we should cover our allies against any force France could bring against us. Should we for next year continue the same army, or break off abruptly? The Parliament had been called upon day after day to disapprove or ratify the measure; and had ratified it. The totality of the war had been one of the great causes of its success. Had we neglected any other part for Germany, it had been fatal: but a mixed system, and attention to the whole, had given us victory in every quarter. France had resisted every where, had been disgraced every where. Their navy, the last sanguine promise of still another minister, was annihilated. We ought not to desist but from inability to pursue up the blow. It ought to be manifest that we were disabled. But where was a symptom of decay? In our trade, credit, agriculture, where was a failure? Yet he thought our situation nor comfortable, nor desperate. Five millions he allowed would be expended