the Earl of Shaftesbury, have been the more reproached for this brave action, it be requisite by a double proportion of praise to set them two on equal terms with the rest of their companions in honour.  The particular relation in this debate, which lasted many days, with great eagerness on both sides, and the reasons but on one, was in the next Session burnt by order of the Lords, but the sparks of it will eternally fly in their adversaries’ faces."[205:1]

In a letter to his constituents, dated April 22, 1675, Marvell was content to say:  “The Lords sate the whole day yesterday till ten at night without rising (and the King all the while but of our addresses present) upon their Bill of Test in both houses and are not yet come to the question of committing it.”

After prolonged discussion the Oath Bill was sent to the Commons, where doubtless it must have passed, had not a furious privilege quarrel over Sir John Fagg’s case made prorogation in June almost a necessity.  In October Parliament met again, and at once resolved itself into a Committee upon Religion to prevent the growth of Popery.  This time the king made almost an end of the Parliament by a prorogation which lasted from November 1675 until February 1677—­a period of fifteen months.

On the re-assembling of Parliament the Duke of Buckingham fathered the argument much used during the long recess, that a prorogation extending beyond twelve months was in construction of law a dissolution.

For the expression of this opinion and the refusal to recant it the Duke of Buckingham and three other lords were ordered to the Tower, the king being greatly angered by the duke’s request that his cook might be allowed to wait on him.  On this incident Marvell remarks:  “Thus a prorogation without precedent was to be warranted by an imprisonment without example.  A sad instance!  Whereby the dignity of Parliament and especially of the House of Peers did at present much suffer and may probably more for the future, for nothing but Parliament can destroy Parliament.  If a House shall once be felon of itself and stop its own breath, taking away that liberty of speech which the King verbally, and of course, allows them (as now they had done in both houses) to what purpose is it coming thither?"[206:1]

The character of this House of Commons did not improve with age.

Marvell writes in the Growth of Popery:—­

“In matters of money they seem at first difficult, but having been discoursed with in private, they are set right, and begin to understand it better themselves, and to convert their brethren:  for they are all of them to be bought and sold, only their number makes them cheaper, and each of them doth so overvalue himself, that sometimes they outstand or let slip their own market.

“It is not to be imagined, how small things, in this case, even members of great estates will stoop at, and most of them will do as