The feeling in favour of short Parliaments grew with the growth of the Parliament in years. It was nine years after Sir Richard Temple was forced to withdraw his bill that some of the Lords took advantage of this public feeling, and, as already shown, would have carried a motion in favour of dissolution but for the votes of the bishops. In 1677 so much eagerness was shown out of doors to make out that the prorogation of more than twelve months was illegal, and that the Parliament was consequently dissolved by lapse of time, that the House of Commons was forced to take notice of the subject of so "much discourse abroad." A motion was made that in order to settle all doubt the King should be asked to dissolve the Parliament. It is not surprising that it did not meet with much support. Colonel Birch, who spoke in the debate, gives us the explanation in the shrewd remark, "Those in the long Parliament were

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

59

willing to keep their places, and he never yet met with any that were willing to part with theirs."

The King, who "never said a foolish thing and never did a wise one," soon after roused the nation to protest rather against "the breaking of Parliaments," as the phrase then had it, than against their long duration. Charles had to grapple with the suspicion that he intended to govern without a legislature, and he found it necessary to give a public assurance that he intended to have recourse to frequent Parliaments. The grievance of the moment was short Parliaments-sittings of the Legislature abruptly broken off because they were inconvenient to the King, but that the other grievance was always borne in mind is proved by the fact that the remedy sought by the Declaration of Rights was not a Parliament of long or even fixed duration. The evils of long Parliaments were too recent not to be vividly remembered.

Hence, after the brief reign of James II., in the Declaration of Rights, thirteenth article, it was declared "That for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently." Sir R. Temple, in the debates about this time, mentioned, as among the things necessary to secure liberties to posterity, "the calling of persons to account that break Parliaments when they will not do what pleased, the providing for their certainty and frequency, and the providing for elections of Parliaments that corporations may not be made tools to nominate whom they please." In the Scotch Parliament the declaration ran, "that for redress of all grievances, and for amending, strengthening, and preserving of laws, Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit, and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members." The Bill of Rights, confirming the declaration of right of the people of Great

Britain to short Parliaments, received the royal assent on the 16th of December, 1689.

The Convention Parliament which called William to the throne was itself of short duration, but the unreadiness of Parliaments to curtail their own existence was shown by the continuance of the next, which met in 1690, till long past the triennial period; not, however, without protest and a strenuous attempt to prevent this encroachment on the popular right. Already, in 1692, there were complaints that the electors were unfairly represented, and in the Legislature the claim for short Parliaments was revived by the introduction of another Triennial Bill. The Commons had sent to the Lords the Place Bill. The Peers rejected it, but forthwith declared for a Triennial Bill, and sent it down to the Commons. This bill in the Lower House met with opposition from Tories who, singular as the statement sounds in our day, relied a great deal in their argument upon

the avowed necessity of being jealous of the Lords. "Is it reasonable," asked Sir E. Seymour, the leading opponent of the bill, "that the Lords, who represent themselves, should turn you out that represent the people?" Even Sir R. Temple, who, as he reminded his colleagues in the Commons, had always been in favour of short Parliaments, suspected the designs of the Peers, and spoke against this measure. The majority, however, knew that the bill was demanded by the country, and did not dare to vote against it; and, as will be seen from some of the names to be presently mentioned, there were uncompromising Tories who gave this Whig measure their support. One of the arguments in favour of the bill was that bribery would prevail in the House if it lasted too long. This was certainly in these days a serious danger which did not pass away till long afterwards, and which furnished the literature of the reign with amusing anecdotes of the expectations