These considerations were altogether overlooked in 1692.  Nobody thought of drawing a line between the few functionaries who ought to be allowed to sit in the House of Commons and the crowd of functionaries who ought to be shut out.  The only line which the legislators of that day took pains to draw was between themselves and their successors.  Their own interest they guarded with a care of which it seems strange that they should not have been ashamed.  Every one of them was allowed to keep the places which he had got, and to get as many more places as he could before the next dissolution of Parliament, an event which might not happen for many years.  But a member who should be chosen after the first of February 1693 was not to be permitted to accept any place whatever.375

In the House of Commons the bill passed through all its stages rapidly and without a single division.  But in the Lords the contest was sharp and obstinate.  Several amendments were proposed in committee; but all were rejected.  The motion that the bill should pass was supported by Mulgrave in a lively and poignant speech, which has been preserved, and which proves that his reputation for eloquence was not unmerited.  The Lords who took the other side did not, it should seem, venture to deny that there was an evil which required a remedy; but they maintained that the proposed remedy would only aggravate the evil.  The patriotic representatives of the people had devised a reform which might perhaps benefit the next generation; but they had carefully reserved to themselves the privilege of plundering the present generation.  If this bill passed, it was clear that, while the existing Parliament lasted, the number of placemen in the House of Commons would be little, if at all, diminished; and, if this bill passed, it was highly probable that the existing Parliament would last till both King William and Queen Mary were dead.  For as, under this bill, Their Majesties would be able to exercise a much greater influence over the existing Parliament than over any future Parliament, they would naturally wish to put off a dissolution as long as possible.  The complaint of the electors of England was that now, in 1692, they were unfairly represented.  It was not redress, but mockery, to tell them that their children should be fairly represented in 1710 or 1720.  The relief ought to be immediate; and the way to give immediate relief was to limit the duration of Parliaments, and to begin with that Parliament which, in the opinion of the country, had already held power too long.

The forces were so evenly balanced that a very slight accident might have turned the scale.  When the question was put that the bill do pass, eighty-two peers were present.  Of these forty-two were for the bill, and forty against it.  Proxies were then called.  There were only two proxies for the bill; there were seven against it; but of the seven three were questioned, and were with difficulty admitted.  The result was that the bill was lost by three votes.