iple of short Parliaments, but in
Walpole's time the one great object of true statesmanship was to
strengthen the power of the House of Commons; to enable it to stand up
against the Crown and the House of Lords. It would be all but
impossible for the House of Commons to maintain this position if it
were doomed to frequent and inevitable dissolutions. Frequent
dissolution of Parliament means frequently recurring cost, struggle,
anxiety, wear and tear, to the members; and; of course, it meant all
this in much higher measure during the reign of George the Second than
it could mean in the reign of Victoria. Walpole had {12} devoted
himself to the task of strengthening the representative assembly, and
he was, therefore, well justified in resisting the motion made by Mr.
Bromley on March 13, 1734, for the repeal of the Septennial Act. Our
interest now, however, is not so much with the political aspect of the
debate as with its personal character. One illustration of the
corruption which existed at the time may be mentioned in passing. It
was used as an argument against long Parliaments, but assuredly at that
day it might have been told of short Parliaments as well. Mr. Watkin
Williams Wynn mentioned the fact that a former member of the House of
Commons, afterwards one of the judges of the Common Pleas, "a gentleman
who is now dead, and therefore I may name him," declared that he "had
never been in the borough he represented in Parliament, nor had ever
seen or spoken with any of his electors." Of course this worthy
person, "afterwards one of the judges of the Common Pleas," had simply
sent down his agent and bought the place. "I believe," added Mr. Wynn,
"I could without much difficulty name some who are now in the same
situation." No doubt he could.

[Sidenote: 1734--A supposititious minister]

Sir William Wyndham came on to speak. Wyndham was now, of course, the
close ally of Bolingbroke. He hated Walpole. He made his whole speech
one long denunciation of bribery and corruption, and gave it to be
understood that in his firm conviction Walpole only wanted a long
Parliament because it gave him better opportunities to bribe and to
corrupt. He went on to draw a picture of what might come to pass under
an unscrupulous minister, sustained by a corrupted septennial
Parliament. "Let us suppose," he said, "a gentleman at the head of the
Administration whose only safety depends upon his corrupting the
members of this