but without any coercive power upon the King if he will bring this Act. But, Lord, to see how the best things are not done without some design, for I perceived all those gentlemen that I was with to-day were against it (though there was reason enough on their side); yet purely I could perceive, because it was the King's mind to have it; and should he demand anything else I believe they would give it him."

The King, pleased and even profusely grateful for the Repeal Bill, came down specially to give immediate assent to the compensatory bill for preventing intermission of Parliaments. As if to reassure any that might be inclined to repent of their haste, he protested that the repealed Act could never have been the occasion of frequent Parliaments, and promised that he would not be an hour the less without one in consequence of the change in the statute book. This was in 1664, and the king kept his word too literally. It was a long time indeed before

PENSIONERS' PARLIAMENT.

49

"

he was without "one Parliament. The same Parliament, begun in May, 1661, was carried on till the beginning of 1679, with intervals, and was at length parted with to avoid the introduction of the Exclusion Bill, on which the Parliament had set its heart. By the surrender of the Triennial Act, the people might suffer inconveniences from extended Parliaments long enough, without further remedy than the gradual one afforded by the bye elections. Even then, as the name Pensioners' Parliament implied, corruption might prevail in favour of court interests where they were opposed to those of the nation, and we know how Danby bribed the legislators of that day. Hallam, while exempting this Parliament from serious reprehension, says it granted supplies too largely, and did not sufficiently provide against the perils of the time. Its great achievement, the Habeas Corpus Act, was only accomplished because the King knew that he was about to

E

dissolve Parliament, and that if he opposed this bill his hopes of a more friendly Parliament were doomed. Macaulay, who has so thoroughly investigated this period, says the servility of this Parliament left a deep impression on the public mind, so that as long after as 1692 it was the general opinion that " England ought to be protected against the risk of being ever again represented, during a long course of years, by men who had forfeited her confidence, and who were retained by a fee to vote against her." While the people's interests were thus at hazard from a long Parliament, there was no difficulty on the part of the monarch. When he began to find a Parliament troublesome, he took "into his serious consideration the many inconveniences arising by the over-long continuance of one and the same Parliament," and forthwith declared his royal will and pleasure to dissolve it. "When rogues fall out, honest men come by their own," says the adage. When, in 1676, the

VOTE OF THE BISHOPS.

51

usurpers of parliamentary functions, as we must consider them from the passing of the repealing Act of 1664, were quarrelling over a question of privilege, the Peers bethought themselves that the Lower House, which presumed to dispute with them so hotly, was no longer a truly representative assembly. An address to the King, praying him to dissolve Parliament, was moved, and would have been passed but for the bishops. All the bishops present voted against the motion, which was defeated by the narrow majority of fifty against forty-eight. The debate, however, was useful and instructive. The constitution of the country, the ancient laws and statutes of the realm were again appealed to, and the fact that new Parliaments, and not frequent sessions of old ones, were by these laws required, was brought into view. Prorogations, or long adjournments, were declared to be things never heard of until later years in our history. The members, it was

urged, were chosen once a year, if not oftener, under the old law, "so that they might perfectly give the sense of those that chose them, and were the same thing as if those were present that chose." It was represented to be "most unreasonable that any particular number of men should for many years engross so great a trust of the people as to be their representatives in the House of Commons; and that all other gentry and the members of the corporations of the same degree and quality with them should be excluded. Neither is it agreeable with the nature of representatives to be continued for so long a time, and those that chuse them not to be allowed frequent opportunity of changing the hands in which they are obliged to put so great a trust, the mutual correspondence of those who chuse and are chosen admitting of great variations in length of time." The bishops, apparently, had been arguing that the Church would be in danger from the Puritan