Some conferences ensued between the houses where the lords were tenacious of their right of judicature, and maintained, that the method in which they had exercised it was quite regular.

The commons rose into a great ferment; and went so far as to vote, that "whoever should be aiding or assisting in putting in execution the order or sentence of the house of lords, in the case of Skinner against the East India Company, should be deemed a betrayer of the rights and liberties of the commons of England, and an infringer of the privileges of the house of commons." They rightly judged, that it would not be easy, after this vote, to find any one who would venture to incur their indignation.
The proceedings indeed of the lords seem in this case to have been unusual and without precedent.
{1669.} The king's necessities obliged him again to assemble the parliament, who showed some disposition to relieve him.

The price, however, which he must pay for this indulgence, was his yielding to new laws against conventicles.

His complaisance in this particular contributed more to gain the commons, than all the pompous pretences of supporting the triple alliance, that popular measure by which he expected to make such advantage.

The quarrel between the two houses was revived; and as the commons had voted only four hundred thousand pounds, with which the king was not satisfied, he thought proper, before they had carried their vote into a law, to prorogue them.