ploying
their whole strength against it, on the report it was thrown out by a
majority of two voices. The earl of Mulgrave again distinguished himself
by his elocution, in a speech that was held in great veneration by the
people; and, among those who entered a protest in the journals of the
house when the majority rejected the bill, was prince George of Denmark,
duke of Cumberland. The court had not collected themselves from the
consternation produced by such a vigorous opposition, when the earl of
Shrewsbury produced another bill for triennial parliaments, providing
that there should be an annual session; that if, at the expiration of
three years, the crown should not order the writs to be issued, the lord
chancellor, or keeper, or commissioner of the great seal, should issue
them _ex officio_, and by authority of this act, under severe penalties.
The immediate object of this bill was the dissolution of the present
parliament, which had already sat three sessions, and began to be
formidable to the people from its concessions to the ministry. The
benefits that would accrue to the constitution from the establishment
of triennial parliaments were very well understood, as these points had
been frequently discussed in former reigns. The courtiers now objected,
that frequent elections would render the free-holders proud and
insolent, encourage faction among the electors, and entail a continual
expense upon the member, as he would find himself obliged, during the
whole time of the sitting, to behave like a candidate, conscious how
soon the time of election would revolve. In spite of the ministerial
interest in the upper house, the bill passed, and contained a proviso
that the present parliament should not continue any longer than the
month of January next ensuing. The court renewed its efforts against it
in the house of commons, where nevertheless it was carried, with some
alterations which the lords approved. But all these endeavours were
frustrated by the prerogative of the king, who, by refusing his assent,
prevented its being enacted into a law.

It was at the instigation of the ministry that the commons brought in a
bill for continuing and explaining certain temporary laws then expiring
or expired. Among these was an act for restraining the liberty of the
press, which owed its original to the reign of Charles II., and had been
revived in the first year of the succeeding reign. The bill passed the
lower house without diff