154

HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

CHAP.

XIX.

IG92.

interest they guarded with a care of which it seems strange that- they should not have been ashamed. Every one of them wasallowed to keep the places which he had got, and to get asmany more places as he could before the next dissolution ofParliament, an event which might not happen for many years.But a member who should be chosen after the first of February1693 was not to be permitted to accept any place ■whatever.*

In the House of Commons the bill passed through all itsstages rapidly and without a single division. But in the Lordsthe contest was sharp and obstinate. Several amendments wereproposed in committee; but all were rejected. The motion thatthe bill should pass was supported by Mulgrave in a lively andpoignant speech, which has been preserved, and which provesthat his reputation for eloquence w r as not unmerited. TheLords who took the other side did not, it should seem, ventureto deny that there was an evil which required a remedy: butthey maintained that the proposed remedy would only aggra-vate the evil. The patriotic representatives of the people haddevised a reform which might perhaps benefit the nextgeneration: but they had carefully reserved to themselves theprivilege of plundering the present generation. If this billpassed, it was clear that, while the existing Parliament lasted,the number of placemen in the House of Commons would belittle, if at all, diminished; and, if this bill passed, it washighly probable that the existing Parliament would last till bothKing William and Queen Mary were dead. For as, under thisbill, Their Majesties would be able to exercise a much greaterinfluence over the existing* Parliament than over any futureParliament, they would naturally wish to put off a dissolutionas long as possible. The complaint of the electors of Englandwas that now, in 1692, they were unfairly represented. It wasnot redress, but mockery, to tell them that their children* The bill will be found among the archives of the House of Lords.