The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part F.: From Charles II. to James II.
David Hume · en
Seymour was deemed a great enemy to Danby; and it was the influence of
that nobleman, as commonly supposed, which had engaged the king to
enter into this ill-timed controversy with the commons. The impeachment,
therefore, of Danby was on that account the sooner revived; and it
was maintained by the commons, that notwithstanding the intervening
dissolution, every part of that proceeding stood in the same condition
in which it had been left by the last parliament; a pretension which,
though unusual, seems tacitly to have been yielded them. The king had
beforehand had the precaution to grant a pardon to Danby; and, in order
to screen the chancellor from all attacks by the commons, he had taken
the great seal into his own hands, and had himself affixed it to the
parchment. He told the parliament, that, as Danby had acted in every
thing by his orders, he was in no respect criminal; that his pardon,
however, he would insist upon; and if it should be found anywise
defective in form, he would renew it again and again, till it should be
rendered entirely complete; but that he was resolved to deprive him of
all employments, and to remove him from court.
The commons were nowise satisfied with this concession They pretended,
that no pardon of the crown could be pleaded in bar of an impeachment,
by the commons. The prerogative of mercy had hitherto been understood to
be altogether unlimited in the king; and this pretension of the commons,
it must be confessed, was entirely new. It was, however, not unsuitable
to the genius of a monarchy strictly limited, where the king’s ministers
are supposed to be forever accountable to national assemblies, even for
such abuses of power as they may commit by orders from their master.
The present emergence, while the nation was so highly inflamed, was the
proper time for pushing such popular claims; and the commons failed
not to avail themselves of this advantage. They still insisted On the
impeachment of Danby. The peers, in compliance with them, departed from
their former scruples, and ordered Danby to be taken into custody.
Danby absconded. The commons passed a bill, appointing him to surrender
himself before a certain day, or, in default of it, attainting him. A
bill had passed the upper house, mitigating the penalty to banishment;
but after some conferences, the peers thought proper to yield to the
violence of the commons, and the bill of attainder was carried. Rather
than undergo such severe penalties, Danby appeared, and was immediately
committed to the Tower.