sented, and alien to the people in sympathy and interest.1

1 The Parliament of England (Part I.) contains a list of the representatives of all the Parliaments in England from 1213-1703, and from the names one can form a pretty good idea of the classes to which they belonged. From the Parliament of 23 Edward I. (1295), I take a few of these names at random: Johannes le Palfrenur, and Nicholaus Baret, were members for the city of Ely; Henricus le Bailly, and Robertus Maynard, the members for Truro; Robertus de Grenesdal, and Andreas le Seler, the members for Carlisle; Willielmus de Barnstaple, and Durant le Cordwaner, the members for Barnstaple ; Radulphus de Satchevill, and Walterus le Wise, the members for Tavistock; Johannes le Taverner, the member for Bristol (one member); Henricus le Chaunger, and Rogerus le Heberer, the members for Gloucester borough; Nicholaus Caperown, and Ricardus le Teynturer, the members for Huntington borough ; Lambertus le Despenser, and Willielmus le Chaunter, the members for Lancaster borough; Adam fil. Ricardi, and Robertus Pynklowe, the members for Liverpool: Willielmus le Teinterer, and Henricus le Bocher, the members for Wigan; Adam fil. Alani, and Hugo fil. Hugonis, the members for Corbridge; Walterus de la Mare, and Henricus de la Chambre, the members for Axbridge; Andreas le Conestable, and Johannes Nichol, the members for Guildford; Rogerus le Carreuer, and Robertus Sakel, the members for Reigate; and so on. In this Parliament there were representatives from thirtyfive counties, two for each, except Bedford and Southampton, which had three and four respectively, and representatives from 110 cities and boroughs, two from each, except Totnes and Bristol, which returned only one each; in all 291 members. On the other hand if we turn to the Parliament of 33 Charles II. (1680), we find only three members. without a prefix or affix to their names, namely, John Pollexfen, merchant, member for Plympton; John Dubois, merchant, member for Liverpool; and plain Henry Bertie, member for New Woodstock. There were also two aldermen, representing the city of London, and one doctor of laws, representing Oxford, and one professor of physic, representing Cambridge. All the rest were earls, viscounts, baronets, knights, or esquires. In this Parliament fifty counties were represented, two members being returned for each, and 220 cities and boroughs, two or one member each; in all 516 members.

The next change was the substitution of first triennial and subsequently of septennial for annual Parliaments. This was a far more serious innovation than the abolition of the residential qualification. When the Crown became alarmed at the encroachments of the Commons it endeavoured to neutralize the influence of that body, first, by prolonging a subservient House beyond a single session; secondly, by discontinuing annual sessions, and only summoning Parliament when it became absolutely necessary to do so; thirdly, by boldly, as was done by Charles I., refusing to summon Parliament at all under any circumstances. It was felt that there was no chance of the House of Commons becoming a mere assembly for registering the will of the sovereign as long as it was elected annually, and therefore the first attack was made on annual Parliaments. It was clearly impossible for the sovereign to exercise any undue influence over the House so long as its members had to appear before their constituents every year. Annual Parliaments placed the representatives in the hands of the constituent body; the irregular summoning of Parliament placed them at the mercy of the Crown; septennial Parliaments rendered them practically independent of both the Crown and the constituent body.

For a long period Parliament existed only for a

single session, every session having been preceded by a general election and followed by a dissolution. And the same course was followed even when Parliament met more than once within the year. On one occasion only during nearly four centuries were the same members elected for two consecutive Parliaments, and even then they had to go through the formality of a fresh election each time. In the second Parliament, 45 Edward III., the sheriffs were directed to return certain knights, citizens, and burgesses who had been in the first Parliament of that year, but they had to undergo a fresh election notwithstanding. The reason why the same members were elected was because certain matters had been left unfinished by the first Parliament, and it was considered desirable to summon the same representatives to finish the work which they had begun. The first instance we have of a Parliament being extended beyond a single session occurs in the reign of Henry IV. The Parliament which met in the 7th of that reign held three sessions, and existed 297 days. For the remainder of this reign, and during the whole of the next, a new Parliament was summoned regularly every year, and sometimes oftener, and it was not till the 23rd Henry VI. that any intermission took place. The Parliament which was summoned in that year held four sessions, and

existed 411 days. From this time, with one or two exceptions, a new Parliament was regularly summoned every year till the time of Elizabeth, when the system was introduced of keeping Parliament in existence from year to year, and only summoning it when absolutely necessary. Thus, the Parliament of 5 Elizabeth held only one session in four years; and that elected in 14th of the same reign held only two sessions in eleven years. The same system was continued by James I., although it was not carried out to the same extent as it had been by his predecessor. A new and a bolder policy was however adopted by Charles I. This sovereign commenced his reign by calling three Parliaments within three years; but finding them not to his taste he attempted to carry on without a Parliament at all. The Parliament of 3 Charles I. was dissolved on 10th of March, 1628, and no new Parliament was summoned till the 13th of April, 1640, a period of twelve years, and the Parliament that was summoned in that year was also dissolved after existing for three weeks. Next came the Long Parliament, which was summoned 3rd of November, 1640, and continued sitting almost continuously till the 20th of April, 1653, a period of thirteen years.

It was during the first year of this Parliament that an Act was passed "For preventing any incon

veniences happening by the long intermission of Parliament." This is not what is known as the Triennial Act, nor is it an Act for abolishing annual Parliaments; on the contrary, it was rather intended to confirm that practice. The preamble of the Act sets forth that "by the laws and statutes of this realm a Parliament ought to be holden at least once every year... it be enacted therefore that the said laws. and statutes shall be henceforth duly kept." The Act, which was almost revolutionary in its character, provided for the summoning of a new Parliament, "by any twelve peers of the realm," without the consent of the king, and in defect of their acting, "by the sheriffs, mayors and bailiffs" in case the Lord Chancellor should fail to do so within three years from the last meeting; and to prevent a merely nominal compliance with the law the Act provided that "no Parliament henceforth to be assembled shall be prorogued within fifty days after the time appointed for their meeting." This Act was repealed by the Pensioner Parliament of 16 Charles II., "as derogatory to the honour of the Crown, serving to discredit Parliament, and make the Crown jealous of Parliament, and Parliament of the Crown."

With the Restoration there was a recurrence to the former state of things which commenced under the Stuarts. The Parliament of 13 Charles II. was kept