domineered over those by whom he was supported. But the nation
was now threatened, not only with a standing army, but with a
Popish standing army, with a standing army officered by men who
might be very amiable and honourable, but who were on principle
enemies to the constitution of the realm. Sir William Twisden,
member for the county of Kent, spoke on the same side with great
keenness and loud applause. Sir Richard Temple, one of the few
Whigs who had a seat in that Parliament, dexterously
accommodating his speech to the temper of his audience, reminded
the House that a standing army had been found, by experience, to
be as dangerous to the just authority of princes as to the
liberty of nations. Sir John Maynard, the most learned lawyer of
his time, took part in the debate. He was now more than eighty
years old, and could well remember the political contests of the
reign of James the First. He had sate in the Long Parliament, and
had taken part with the Roundheads, but had always been for
lenient counsels, and had laboured to bring about a general
reconciliation. His abilities, which age had not impaired, and
his professional knowledge, which had long overawed all
Westminster Hall, commanded the ear of the House of Commons. He,
too, declared himself against the augmentation of the regular
forces.

After much debate, it was resolved that a supply should be
granted to the crown; but it was also resolved that a bill should
be brought in for making the militia more efficient. This last
resolution was tantamount to a declaration against the standing
army. The King was greatly displeased; and it was whispered that,
if things went on thus, the session would not be of long
duration.20