THE elections were carried on, as might be expected, with great heat, and generally speaking, much to the advantage of Opposition. It is said that the practice of splitting freeholds was now introduced, for the first time, by the country party.

Some letters of Lord Shaftesbury and the Marquis of Winchester were intercepted and opened by the court. They were found to contain recommendations to their friends not to choose fanatics, and the King declared he had not heard so much good of them a great while. *

In the new parliament, John Hampden was returned for Buckinghamshire, Henry Booth for Cheshire, Mr. Sacheverell and Lord Cavendish for Derbyshire, Sir Samuel Barnadiston for Suffolk, and Lord Russell for Bedfordshire and Hampshire. He finally made his election for the former.† Perhaps there is hardly another instance in the history of elections, of one man being chosen for two counties. Two days before the meeting of Parliament, the Duke of 1679. York left England and retired to Brussels. He had been advised to this step by many of his friends, backed by the entreaty of the Lords in the Tower. But before he would consent to go, he obtained from the King the three following conditions: first, that he should solemnly declare he was never married to the Duke of Monmouth's mother; secondly, that he should never give his assent to any bill

March 4.

* Lady Russell's Letters, MSS.

Life, p. 536.

+ See the Requisition in the Appendix.

March 6.

to vacate his (the Duke's) right to the crown; and, thirdly, that he should give him an order, under his hand,to remove.* The session of Parliament began with an unfortunate difference concerning the choice of a speaker, little interesting to a reader of the present day. Mr. Seymour having been chosen for the zeal which he had shown against Popery, was rejected by the court for his enmity to Danby, and Sir Thomas Meres proposed in his stead. But the House generally resented what they thought an encroachment on their privileges, and sent Lord Russell and Sir Robert Carr to desire time to consider of the King's message. On a subsequent day they presented an address, asserting the undoubted right of the Commons to elect freely one of their members as speaker, and that the person so elected had always continued speaker, unless excused for some bodily infirmity. But the King gave them a sharp answer, and upon their insisting on their right, prorogued them. Upon their meeting again two days after, Lord Russell said he hoped the late unhappy difference would not be renewed, and proposed Serjeant Gregory as speaker. This motion was seconded by Lord Cavendish, and was generally acquiesced in. The more prudent part of the Opposition, led by the opinion of Serjeant Maynard, seem to have thought that the dangers at home and abroad were evident, and a remedy necessary, while the question of privilege was not clear, nor a decision essential. They felt they could not answer it to the country, if they broke with the King on a point comparatively trifling. The King's refusal to confirm the speaker, however, was not entered in the Journal of either House, and cannot, therefore, be considered a precedent. Speaker Onslow said, the House of Commons gained nothing by the contest, but that a speaker might be proposed by a member, not being a privy counsellor. †

March 15.

That which was really important in this affair, was the animosity it provoked against Lord Danby, who had been led into the part he

Ralph. Orleans's Revolutions. Temple.

+ Hatsell's Precedents, vol. ii.

had taken against Mr. Seymour by a quarrel of his wife. * now raised against him could not be allayed.

The storm

The Commons began the business of the new Parliament

March 20. by reminding the Lords of the impeachment of the trea

surer, and desiring that he might be committed. The Lords, on the other hand, appointed a committee to draw up a bill for disabling him to hold any office. This they afterwards changed into a bill of banishment, but it was immediately rejected when it came down to the Lower House. The Commons next voted the plot real, and addressed the Crown that 5001. might be paid to Bedloe, as the discoverer of the murderers of Sir E. Godfrey. But they immediately afterwards resumed the impeachment of Lord Danby. Upon the rumour of a pardon having been granted him, they appointed a committee to ascertain the fact from the Lord Chancellor. By their report it appeared that a pardon had passed the great seal with the utmost privacy, and had not been entered in any office. This excited the rage of the country party, and produced a message to the Lords to demand justice against Thomas Earl of Danby, and that he be immediately sequestered from Parliament, and committed to safe custody. An address was also sent to the throne, representing the irregularity, illegality, and dangerous consequence of the pardon. And as Lord Danby had withdrawn, a bill was brought in to attaint him. The Lords converted this bill also into a bill of banishment; but the more moderate of the country party in vain endeavoured to promote the milder expedient in the Commons. Winnington, who had lately lost his place of solicitor, spoke violently against it as an attempt to favour the escape of a bad minister, and an encouragement to future misrule. Littleton tried, in private, to moderate his warmth, by representing, that if Lord Danby's life was spared, the court might be inclined to come to terms. But his arguments had no effect; and on the bill of attainder coming to a third reading, the Earl surrendered himself. The Commons immediately voted his pardon Temple Mem. p. 492.

March 26.

April 15.

*

+ Burnet.

illegal and void, and demanded justice against him. The Lords, to elude this request, sent down a message, that the Lords spiritual and temporal had appointed a day for hearing the cause of the Earl of Danby. This answer was a bone of contention to the Commons, who resolved, that the Lords spiritual had no right to give their vote during any part of the proceedings, in cases of blood. On this ground they voted, that any Commoner who should appear to maintain before the House of Peers the validity of Danby's pardon, without their consent, should be accounted a betrayer of the liberties of the English Commons.

Upon this question the prosecution rested; and we find the Earl of Danby moving for a writ of Habeas Corpus in 1682; when the Parliament being dissolved, there was no longer a prospect of his receiving judgment. But the court remanded him, and he remained in the Tower till 1685. Lord Danby tells us, in the preface to his letters, that Lord Russell afterwards owned himself mistaken in the part he took against him. The confession, if really made by Lord Russel, does credit to his candour; but, in fact, there is more to blame in the manner, than in the substance of the impeachment. So fell Lord Danby. His talents, as a speaker in the House of Commons, had raised him to the high office of Lord Treasurer. His conduct in that great post was as little creditable to his wisdom and skill as to his honesty and patriotism. He gave way to the King, as far as was necessary to preserve his place, but not sufficiently to acquire the royal favour. He concurred in measures which endangered both our religion and government, and yet lost the friendship of the Duke of York. He extended the system of corrupting members of Parliament, increasing the sum allowed for that service, from 12,0001. to 20,0001. *; and yet he was impeached by the same House of Commons he had endeavoured to buy; and he sent for the letters and acquittances, the day after he had declared in his defence before the Lords, that there had not been one farthing granted by the Commons, which had not been strictly applied by him as the acts had Report from Comm. of Surrey, May 24. 1679. It was paid by the commissioners of Excise.

directed. This assertion rested upon the miserable quibble, that the money which he had used to corrupt the Parliament was unappropriated.

The proceedings relating to Lord Danby have contributed to settle three points concerning parliamentary impeachments. First, that impeachments laid by the Commons in one session, or one Parliament, continue in force to the next; secondly, that a peer impeached by the Commons is ordered to withdraw; thirdly, that the King's pardon cannot be pleaded in bar of an impeachment. Every one of these questions, but especially the last, is of high importance to the constitution.

April 21.

It was at this time that Sir William Temple, thinking that the ministry, and finally the succession, would fall into the power of Monmouth, proposed a new privy council. It was to consist of 30 members. Some of the most violent Whigs, Russell, Cavendish, Capel, and Powle, were admitted. According to the present theory of our constitution, there is no part of it more perfect than that which regards the appointment of the ministers of the crown. As the power of refusing supplies has brought all public business within the sphere of the House of Commons, it follows, as a necessary consequence, even though the House should offer no advice on the subject, that ministers must be capable of bearing their scrutiny, and acquiring their confidence. Hence the choice of men distinguished as members of Parliament, before they are trusted as servants of the crown. The monarchy itself derives great advantage from this restraint to the personal will of the sovereign. Not only is the King less liable than other sovereigns to errors, which even the best intentioned are exposed to, by the arts of specious impostors and dishonest flatterers, but he has this security for the conduct of the most violent parliamentary leaders, that ambition can hardly lead them to wish the total destruction of that monarchy, of which they may hope at a future time to exercise the powers.

But such ideas were far from being understood before the Revo

N