DEBATE IN 1692.

63

of county members and their demands upon the ministers who resorted to corruption. But whether by bribery or otherwise, it was recognized that in Parliament men were apt to change. "When men continue here long, they alter," said one member; "they come up hither free men, but here are made bondmen." This honest fellow believed in the equity of frequent elections. "If to be elected be an honour," he said, "let neighbours share; if a burden, so likewise." Mr. Herbert, afterwards Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and acknowledged to be “a hearty promoter of the Revolution," said, "I would rather have a standing army than a standing Parliament." Sturdy was the declaration of Mr. Bowyer, member for Southwark. "Two of the greatest mischiefs of this kingdom," said he, "are either to have no Parliaments or to have long Parliaments." Mr. Harley put in the argument that "a standing Parliament can never be a true representative, men are much

Sir

altered after being some time here, and are not the same men as sent up." Sir T. Clarges told the House that he could not refuse to speak in favour of the bill, lest in the country he should be discredited, and expressed his opinion that the article in the Bill of Rights which was "the chief good" was that relating to triennial Parliaments. Mr. Foley, taking a line befitting the character of a man who was by-and-by selected to replace a Speaker disgraced for bribery, wanted the bill to stop corruption. F. Winnington maintained that the people had as much right to have frequent Parliaments as to have Parliaments, because they could not recall their members without an election. Frequent Parliaments, he said, would cure the great evils and oppressions of privilege. Sir C. Musgrave, lamenting that former laws on this subject had ever been evaded, insisted on the necessity for now having them "better explained;" and Colonel Granville declared that

TRIENNIAL BILL DEBATES.

65

the bill, so far from being an innovation, was designed to guard our ancient constitution. Such arguments, or more probably the knowledge that on this subject at least the people were roused, led to the second reading of the bill by 210 votes against 32. On the motion for commitment of the bill, similar arguments were advanced for and against the measure. Howe declared that persons out of doors would thank the House for the bill, and as for himself, he hoped to behave so well as to be again sent up. Mr. Brockmann, a member who afterwards brought in another Triennial Bill, laid down the proposition that it was better for the King to rely on his people than on the ministry, Mr. Foley, again speaking for the bill, argued that when a Parliament failed to check a ministry the people would succeed. All speeches, it seems, were not to the point in these days any more than in the present. The report from which this summary has been derived quaintly

says that "Sir John Guise spoke also in this debate, in which he was not very short neither, but it was difficult to perceive whether he was for or against the bill." The speech of Colonel Titus, in the form it has come down to us, is not lacking in the point which that of Sir J. Guise wanted. He compared Parliaments to manna, which when it fell was sweet as honey, but if kept bred worms. "It is objected," said he, "that we have good laws for frequent Parliaments already. I answer, the ten commandments were made almost four thousand years ago, but were never kept." The bill was committed, but in order to meet objections on the score of interference with the King's prerogative, the clause terminating the Parliament on January 1st, 1694, was altered, and it was simply declared that the Parliament should be dissolved on March 25th, 1694, "if the King pleased." Burnet declares that one of the objections to the bill was that frequent

THE ROYAL VETO.

67

elections would make the freeholders proud and insolent when they knew that applications must be made to them at the end of three years. Another was the great cost of elections. The bill finally passed by 200 to 161 votes; but, to the astonishment of the country, the King refused to give his assent. He seems to have caused to be given out as his reason for declining to pass the bill, his indisposition to part with the Parliament while the nation was at war. Great excitement prevailed in the country in consequence of the royal veto imposed on this measure. Its early re-introduction was inevitable.

Surprise followed surprise, however. Notwithstanding the popularity of the measure, it was destined to fail once again before it was finally adopted. In addition to the letters of L'Hermitage, to which Macaulay acknowledged himself indebted on this subject, and to the correspondence of Bonnet, utilized by Von Ranke, we have now a new source of information in the letters