ACT FOR SEPTENNIAL PARLIAMENTS.

Though the rebellion was extinguished, the flame of national dissatisfaction still continued to rage: the severities exercised against the rebels increased the general discontent; for now the danger was blown over, their humane passions began to prevail. The courage and fortitude with which the condemned persons encountered the pains of death in its most dreadful force, prepossessed many spectators in favour of the cause by which those unhappy victims were animated. In a word, persecution, as usual, extended the heresy. The ministry, perceiving this universal dissatisfaction, and dreading the revolution of a new parliament, which might wrest the power from their faction, and retort upon them the violence of their own measures, formed a resolution equally odious and effectual to establish their administration. This was no other than a scheme to repeal the triennial act, and by a new law to extend the term of parliaments to seven years. On the tenth day of April, the duke of Devonshire represented, in the house of lords, that triennial elections served to keep up party divisions; to raise and foment feuds in private families; to produce ruinous expenses, and give occasion to the cabals and intrigues of foreign princes; that it became the wisdom of such an august assembly to apply proper remedies to an evil that might be attended with the most dangerous consequences, especially in the present temper of the nation, as the spirit of rebellion still remained unconquered. He therefore proposed a bill for enlarging the continuance of parliaments. He was seconded by the earls of Dorset and Rockingham, the duke of Argyle, Lord Townshend, and the other chiefs of that party. The motion was opposed by the earls of Nottingham, Abingdon, and Paulet. They observed, that frequent parliaments were required by the fundamental constitution of the kingdom, ascertained in the practice of many ages; that the members of the lower house were chosen by the body of the nation, for a certain term of years, at the expiration of which they could be no longer representatives of the people, who, by the parliament’s protracting its own authority, would be deprived of the only remedy which they have against those who, through ignorance or corruption, betrayed the trust reposed in them; that the reasons in favour of such a bill were weak and frivolous; that, with respect to foreign alliances, no prince or state could reasonably depend upon a people to defend their liberties and interests, who should be thought to have given up so great a part of their own; nor would it be prudent in them to wish for a change in that constitution under which Europe had of late been so powerfully supported; on the contrary, they might be deterred from entering into any engagements with Great Britain, when informed by the preamble of the bill, that the popish faction was so dangerous as to threaten destruction to the government; they would apprehend that the administration was so weak as to want so extraordinary a provision for its safety; that the gentlemen of Britain were not to be trusted; and that the good affections of the people were restrained within the limits of the house of commons. They affirmed that this bill, far from preventing the expense of elections, would rather increase it, and encourage every species of corruption; for the value of a seat would always be in proportion to the duration of a parliament, and the purchase would rise accordingly; that a long parliament would yield a greater temptation, as well as a better opportunity to a vicious ministry, to corrupt the members, than they could possibly have when the parliaments were short and frequent; that the same reasons urged for passing the bill to continue this parliament for seven years, would be at least as strong, and, by the conduct of the ministry, might be made much stronger before the end of that term, for continuing and even perpetuating their legislative power, to the absolute subversion of the third estate of the realm. These arguments served only to form a decent debate, after which the bill for septennial parliaments passed by a great majority, though twenty peers entered a protest. It met with the same fate in the lower house, where many strong objections were stated to no purpose. They were represented as the effects of party spleen; and, indeed, this was the great spring of action on both sides. The question for the bill was carried in the affirmative; and in a little time it received the royal sanction.