party at the elections, and that the Church and nation must fall together. But the prelates' fears were made light of, and they were taunted with confessing by resort to such argument that members of this House of Commons were "not the true representatives of those they serve for, and that the people and they were of different minds." The arguments of the minority were put on record in a protest signed by Buckingham, Clarendon, Dorset, Shaftesbury, Chesterfield, Mohun, Salisbury, and fifteen others. Buckingham, formerly of the Cabal, at the opening of the next session made a speech of singular eloquence and force on this subject. It procured him, by the way, a lodging for some time in the Tower, because he carried the argument so far as to say that Parliament, then meeting, was, by virtue of its long continuance, by law dissolved. The Triennial Act having been repealed while the new law to prevent the discontinuance of Parliaments longer than three

years had not yet come into operation, he' argued that either the King was bound by the statutes of Edward III., or the Government of England by Parliaments according to law was at an end; and once again he asserted, for the people of England, "their undoubted rights of choosing men frequently to represent their grievances in Parliament." From the efforts made to punish Aaron Smith, who had said "dangerous and seditious words against the being of this present Parliament," and to regulate the press, it is to be presumed that the plea of Buckingham found ardent supporters in the country. Lord Shaftesbury, who was sent to the Tower for supporting the Duke of Buckingham's view, was in the next Parliament made a member of the new privy council, and, following the usual and natural course of those in office, opposed an early appeal to the people when, through difficulties with the existing Parliament, the king was inclined to make one.

SIR R. TEMPLE'S BILL.

55

Even in a well-bribed House of Commons there had before this been some murmuring about the length of the Parliament. Sir R. Temple, whose violent protests against the repeal of the Triennial Act have already been noticed, brought in a bill for frequent holding of Parliaments in February, 1667. He suggested triennial Parliaments.

Annual Parlia

ments, he seems to have argued, were laid aside because they were too frequent, and this is the first time we hear of any statement being made in Parliament against the old system of annual Parliaments. The debate was a warm one, characterized by what are called "scenes," nowadays. In the first place, Sir Hugh Wyndham having referred to the bill as brought in "he had almost said with impudence," this expression, in the language of the chronicle of the day (Grey's "Debates "), "was taken ill by many." Again, Sir Thomas Littleton, in defence of the bill, said he knew not a more

modest way of compelling the King by law. "Great exception was taken at the expression;" some good-natured members, anxious to allay the storm, suggested that the word used by the honourable member was not "king," but "thing." There were also objections to the bill on account of non-compliance with some of the forms of the House, and the Speaker objected that the bill was blotched and interlined. "With much difficulty," says the reporter of this ancient debate, "a first reading was obtained; but from that time the gentleman that brought it in did not increase his interest in the House." It is to be gathered from this debate that the bill revived the provision of the previous Triennial Act, that if in three years the King should not call a Parliament, the chancellor for the time being might issue out writs for an election. Sir T. Clifford, who held a government office, denounced the bill as contrary to monarchy, and appealed to his fellow

POPULAR OPINION.

57

members to say whether it would be proper for the House that had repealed a similar Act to pass another, or whether it would be seemly towards the King, “who had declared so much affection to the Parliament." In the debate there is not wanting evidence of a consciousness on the part of members, that they were not precisely in harmony with the constituencies in their treatment of this measure. One representative asked what the people would say if this bill were thrown out; another member seized on the fact of the bill being interlined as a reason for laying it aside in preference to rejecting it, for he "would not have it thrown out, lest apprehensions should be in the minds. of the people ;" and the House itself, in finally ordering Sir R. Temple to withdraw the measure, thought it prudent to take steps to prevent its votes being challenged on such measures. It ordered that no bill of this nature should in future be tendered without leave and order.