But there is another and still more important difference between a representative assembly and a primary assembly of the people.  It is this:  that a representative cannot be a violent partisan of a small section of his constituents; he must be in general favour with all sections.  Therefore a representative assembly is composed of moderate men, representing a compromise of the views of their individual supporters.  Moreover, the representatives appeal to the people to sink their minor differences for the general welfare.  This feature is very prominent in the early parliaments.  The local communities were arrayed as a united people against the aggression of the monarchy.  The principle which is here apparent is that of organization.  In the first stage of English parliamentary history we may say at once that these two principles—­organization and leadership—­were most conspicuous.  The people, sinking all minor differences, formed one united party; and recognised that their struggle against the party of prerogative depended on the ability, influence, and integrity of their deputies.

+The Second Stage of Representation.+—­There is no need to enter into that long struggle between the nation and the monarchy which followed.  We pass on, then, to the time when the parliaments, having wrested a share of power, began to split up into parties.  It was natural that when power became divided two parties should arise; one upholding the authority of the Parliament against the King; and the other favouring the divine right of Kings.  The Puritans and Cavaliers in the troublous times of Charles I. were the earliest signs of this tendency.  The Long Parliament, which met in 1640, was divided on these lines; the misdemeanors of the King brought on civil war; the parliamentary troops defeated the royal troops after a bloody struggle; and the King was brought to execution.  The succeeding events were full of instruction.  The Parliament attempted to govern the nation—­or, rather, we should say the House of Commons did, for the House of Lords was abolished.  But it proved quite unfit for the purpose.  It was thoroughly disorganized, and rent by violent factions.  The anarchy which ensued was ended by a military despot, Oliver Cromwell, who entered the House of Commons in 1653 with his soldiers.  The Speaker was pulled from his chair; the members were driven from the House; and Cromwell was proclaimed dictator.  It is strange, indeed, that the lesson which is to be drawn from this event, and which has been repeated in France time after time since the Revolution, has not yet been learned:  the only escape from continued political anarchy is despotism.  But the weakness of despotism is that it ends with the life of the despot.  Cromwell’s son was forced to abdicate, and the monarchy was restored.  The same division of parties in the Parliament continued, and they began to take the names of Whigs and Tories.  Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the dissensions