tion of its members. Yet it rarely happens that a political faction is crushed by the terrors of an oath. Many of the more rigid presbyterians refused the conditions imposed by this act, but the majority found pretexts for qualifying themselves.

It could not yet be said, that this loyal assembly had meddled with those safeguards of public liberty which had been erected by their great predecessors en 1641. The laws that Falkland and Hampden had combined to provide, those bulwarks against the ancient exorbitance of prerogative; stood unscathed, threatened from afar, but not yet betrayed by the garrison. But one of these, the bill for triennial parliaments, wounded the pride of royalty, and gave scandal to its worshippers; not so much on account of its object, as of the securities provided against its violation. If the king did not summon a fresh parliament within three years after a dissolution, the peers were to meet and issue writs of their own accord ; if they did not within a certain time perform this duty, the sheriffs of every county were to take it on themselves; and in default of all constituted authorities, the electors might assemble without any regular summons, to choose representatives. It was manifest that the king must have taken a fixed resolution to trample on a fundamental law, before these irregular and tumultuous modes of redress could be called into action; and that the existence of such provisions could not in any degree weaken or endanger the legal and limited monarchy. But the doctrine of passive obedience had now crept from the homilies into the statute-book; the parliament had not scrupled to declare the unlawfulness of defensive war against the king's person and it was but one step more to take away all direct means of counteracting his pleasure. Bills were

accordingly more than once ordered to be brought in for repealing the triennial act; but no further steps were taken till the king thought it at length necessary, in the year 1664, to give them an intimation of his desires '. A vague notion had partially gained ground, that no parliament, by virtue of that bill, could sit for more than three years. In allusion to this, he told them on opening the session of 1664, that he had often read over that bill; and though there was no colour for the fancy of the determination of the parliament, yet he would not deny, that he had always expected them to consider the wonderful clauses in that bill, which passed in a time very uncareful for the dignity of the crown or the security of the people. He requested them to look again at it. For himself, he loved parliaments; he was much beholden to them; he did not think the crown could ever he happy without frequent parliaments. But assure yourselves," he concluded, "if I should think otherwise, I would never suffer a parliament to come together by the means prescribed by that bill.

So audacious a declaration, equivalent to an avowed design, in certain circumstances of preventing the execution of the laws by force of arms, was never before heard from the lips of an English king; and would, in any other times, have awakened a storm of indignation from the commons. They were, however, sufficiently compliant to pass a bill for the repeal of that which had been enacted with unanimous consent in 1641, and had been hailed as the great palladium of constitutional monarchy. The preamble recites the said act to have been " in de

'Journals, 3d April, 1662; 10th March, 1663.

⚫ Parl. Hist. 289. Clarendon speaks very unjustly of the triennial act, forgetting that he had himself concurred in it. P. 221.

rogation of his majesty's just rights and prerogative, inherent in the imperial crown of this realm, for the calling and assembling of parliaments. "The bill then repeals and annuls every clause and article in the fullest manner; yet, with an inconsistency not unusual in our statutes, adds a provision that parliaments shall not in future be intermitted for above three years at the most. This clause is evidently framed in a different spirit from the original bill, and may be attributed to the influence of that party in the house, which had begun to oppose the court, and already showed itself in considerable. strength'. Thus the effect of this compromise was, that the law of the long parliament subsisted as to its principle, without those unusual clauses which had been enacted to render its observance secure. The king assured them, in giving his assent to the repeal, that he would not be a day more without a parliament on that account. But the necessity of those securities, and the mischiefs of that false and servile loyalty which abrogated them, became manifest at the close of the present reign nearly four years having elapsed between the dissolution of Charles's last parliament and his death.

Clarendon, the principal adviser, as yet, of the king since his restoration (for Southampton rather gave reputation to the administration, than took that superior influence which belonged to his place of treasurer), has thought fit to stigmatize the triennial bill with the epithet of infamous. So wholly had he divested himself

1 16 Car. II. c. 1. We find by the Journals that some divisions took place during the passage of this bill, and though, as far as appears, on subordinate points, yet probably springing from an opposition to its principle. March 28, 1664. There was by this time a regular party formed against the court.

of the sentiments he entertained at the beginning of the long parliament, that he sought nothing more ardently than to place the crown again in a condition to commit those abuses and excesses, against which he had once so much inveighed. "He did never dissemble," he says, "from the time of his return with the king, that the late rebellion could never be extirpated and pulled up by the roots, till the king's regal and inherent power and prerogative should be fully avowed and vindicated, and till the usurpations in both houses of parliament, since the year 1640, were disclaimed and made odious; and many other excesses, which had been affected by both before that time under the name of privileges, should be restrained or explained. For all which reformation the kingdom in general was very well disposed, when it pleased God to restore the king to it. The present parliament had done much, and would willingly have prosecuted the same method, if they had had the same advice and encouragement '. I can only understand these. words to mean, that they might have been led to repeal other statutes of the long parliament besides the triennial act, and that excluding the bishops from the house of peers; but more especially to have restored the two great levers of prerogative, the courts of star-chamber and high commission. This would indeed have pulled up by the roots the work of the long parliament, which, in spite of such general reproach, still continued to shackle the revived monarchy. There had indeed been some serious attempts at this in the house of lords during the session of 1661-2. We read in the Journals 2, that a committee was appointed to prepare a bill for re

' P. 383.

* Lords' Journals, 23d and 24th Jan, 1662.

pealing all acts made in the parliament begun the 3d day of November, 1640, and for re-enacting such of them as should be thought fit. This committee some time after reported their opinion, "that it was fit for the good of the nation, that there be a court of like nature to the late court called the star-chamber, but desired the advise and direction of the house in these particulars following: Who should be judges? What matters should they be judges of? By what manner of proceedings should they act?" The house, it is added, thought it not fit to give any particular directions therein, but left it to the committee to proceed as they would. It does not appear that any thing further was done in this session; but we find the bill of repeal revived next year 2. It is, however, only once mentioned. Perhaps it may be questionable, whether, even amidst the fervid loyalty of 1661, the house of commons would have concurred in re-establishing the star chamber. They had taken marked precautions in passing an act for the restoration of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that it should not be construed to restore the high-commission court, or to give validity to the canons of 1640, or to enlarge in any manner the ancient authority of the church 3. A tribunal still more formidable and obnoxious would hardly have found favour with a body of men, who, as their behaviour shortly demonstrated, might rather be taxed with passion and vindictiveness towards a hostile faction, than a deliberate willingness to abandon their English rights and privileges.

The striking characteristic of this parliament was a zeal

12th Feb.

2 19th March, 1663. 313 Car. II. c. 12.