over. He never denied a pardon to any of his ministers on quitting his service, as Shaftesbury and Buckingham well knew. "Besides," he concluded, "there are great mistakes in those matters concerning him, for the letters were written by my order. And for the concealing the plot, it was impossible, for he had heard nothing of that but what he had immediately from myself. I have dismissed him from my court and councils, and not to return." * In furtherance of this announcement, a bill was introduced into the house of lordst, by which Danby was made incapable of office, employment, or gift from the crown, and of sitting in parliament. The secret history of these transactions is not known. As Danby nowhere complains of this disabling bill; it appears probable that it was introduced with his concurrence; yet it is difficult to believe that he acquiesced in eternal exclusion, not only from office, but from the privilege of his peerage. He has himself said, that rather than suffer a bill of attainder to pass against him, he must have produced all the letters; and it thus appears probable that he consented to endure any suffering short of the attainder, rather than disregard the appeal which Charles made to his loyalty and fidelity. The pardon was offered to Danby by Charles himself. So soon as it was questioned in the house of commons, Heneage Finch§, who had succeeded Winnington as solicitor-general, declared that his father, the chancellor, had refused the great seal, because the instrument did not come to him with the usual sanction of privy seal, or signet. chancellor confirmed this; he had remonstrated with Danby on the informality, but Danby preferred privacy to regularity, and the seal was, by the king's own order, affixed by an inferior officer.|| When the bill was presented by lord Essex, the house ordered Danby into the custody of the black rod; but he kept out of the way, + Lords' Journ. 470. 476. * Mar. 22. State Trials, 725. Letters, p. 111. Second son of Heneage, first earl of Nottingham. On this very irregular proceeding, see State Trials, xi. 741, The and the usher reported that he could not be found. The lords were thus enabled to tell the commons that they had anticipated their request, that the accused might be committed; and on the report of the supposed absconding, they converted the bill into one of banishment.* Lord Anglesey and lord Berkeley protested against this bill in the first instancet; they were joined in a later stage by lords Northampton and Ailesbury. The commons instantly rejected this bill, ana sent up to the lords one which had been introduced when they heard of Danby's absence, for summoning him to surrender on a certain day, and attainting him in case of failure. This bill, the lords, by an amendment, converted into a bill of banishment; a few more of Danby's friends now ventured to record their dissent, Lawarr, Arundel, Byron, Lindsey, and Hatton. Danby had now put himself in the wrong, and the commons urged, not without reason, in reply to the lords' amendments, that, having fled from justice, he had confessed the charge of high treason; nor could they be satisfied with the lords' general reference to the prudential necessity which might sometimes exist for forbearing to act with the utmost rigour. Ultimately the lords gave way, professing that they were ready to consent to any thing short of the destruction of the earl. The bill of attainder therefore passed on the 14th of April, whereby Danby was summoned to surrender on the 21st of April. Lords Ferrers, Lucas, Carnarvon, Frecheville, and Bath, were now added to the list of the protesters. On the 16th of April, Danby surrendered. This measure surprised the court, or at least the duke, who was not prepared for the scrupulous fidelity with which the minister abstained from exonerating himself at the expense of the king.§ He was made to kneel at the bar of the house, in which he had lately held nearly the * P. 479. ↑ Anglesey's reasons were, that "there was no hearing of the party, and so penal a bill ought not to be precipitated."-P. 476. Parl. Hist. 1115. 1118-21. Lords' Journ. xiii. 504, 24. highest rank, and decidedly the greatest power, and was committed to the Tower. When again brought up, he answered the charge, but pleaded his pardon.* The house of commons showed some unwillingness to proceed at once to extremities, and requested the lords to demand of Danby whether he would rely upon his plea of pardon. He answered, that he had put in his plea by advice of his counsel (Mr. Polexfen), and abided by it. The commons, after much debate, protested at the bar of the house of lords, with the speaker at their head, that the pardon was illegal and void, and therefore demanded judgment against the accused; and the lords appointed a day "for hearing the earl of Danby to make good his plea ;" and they acquainted the commons that they had addressed the king to appoint a high steward, for the trial of Danby, and of the other five lords in the Tower. Thus commenced a series of disputes between the two houses §, which lasted froin the 7th of May to the 27th, when the king prorogued the parliament. A dissolution soon followed. At the present day one might reasonably distrust the innocence of a man, who should rely upon a pardon previous to trial: and this, Danby himself admitted. But, in this case, the accused had no opportunity of making a full defence. "If the king" says Danby || "would have permitted me to produce Mr. Montagu's letters, the crime of endeavouring to get money from France (if it could be called a crime, under the circumstances aforesaid) would have been laid to Mr. Montagu's charge, and not to me; as I told the king when he offered me his pardon; but was answered by his majesty, that I owed him more duty than to expose his See appendix B. + State Trials, 769. 1 Id. 790. In the course of the proceedings, the commons, by one of those tyran. nous votes by which the parliaments of the seventeenth century distinguished themselves, forbade any commoner to maintain, as counsel for lord Danby, the validity of the pardon. (See State Trials, 807.; and Lords' Journ. 564.) About the same time colonel Sackville was expelled for saying that they were lying rogues that said there was a plot.-Parl. Hist. 1118. Remarks upon Montagu's letters in Danby Letters, pp. 108, 110. VOL. V. X and his ambassador's letters of private negotiations be tween him and the king of France; and he was sure I would not be guilty of such a perfidious baseness to him, as Montagu had been guilty of." It is also to be considered, that if Danby could have had all necessary evidence for his defence, still, he could not expect a fair trial, at a time in which perjury and credulity were striving for the mastery. Such was the termination of the first stage of Danby's ministerial career. I am afraid that it is true, as Algernon Sidney wrote at the time, that "never was man less pitied in his fall than he."* Yet, if his conduct be compared with that of each of the persons concerned in his downfal, Danby will not suffer by the comparison. Of the ingratitude and treachery of his immediate accuser, it is unnecessary to say more. But the most consistent of his opponents were far from blameless. That they did less than justice to Danby, was, as I have already admitted, in a great measure, his own fault. They had at least a technical, perhaps a moral right, to make him responsible for measures in which he acquiesced; and it is possible that his admirable loyalty to the king may have disguised from contemporaries the sincerity of his opposition to the French policy of Charles, and his zeal against popery. He was assuredly untainted by per*To B. Furley, March 23. 1679. P. 94. Original Lett. of Locke, &c. 1830, + See on this a tory writer. "The hon. R. M., then ambassador in France, was in measures with some topping men of the faction here, among other things, to ruin the earl of Danby, and for bringing that about somewhat very extraordinary must be done. For the said earl hath founded his policy upon the protestant cavalier interest, and opposition to the French; which he carried on steadily, so far as he thought consistent with his post at court, and also with a popular interest in parliament. And that management of himself, and also a care to appear opposite to popery, had rendered him very strong. He was the first prime minister (if I may except old Clarendon, who came in with the king) that built upon that foundation, and never wrought with either fanatics or papists, but courted the loyal gentry, and perhaps too much, if the usefulness of some of them for the employment he put them in might carry that construction. It is most certain that, whether judgment or policy directed his conduct, it was so far very well chosen; and his great parts and abilities to manage in public were much set off by the advantage of so good a cause at the bottom."- North's Examen, p. 528. sonal corruption, and although he justified in Charles the acceptance which nevertheless, he endeavoured to prevent-of the money of the French king, yet he steadily refused it for himself, though he would have had the excuse of not being diverted from his course, and moreover the sanction of the royal example. It is not denied that many of his opponents received French money, and that his ruin was concerted between them and the court of France.* The defence that has been made for them, is precisely that which Danby made for Charles, (he did not require it for himself,) namely, that they did nothing in consequence of this receipt of money, which they would not otherwise have done. Granting that this was so, (for I do not think it necessary to discuss the question here.) I would observe, that what they did was in itself highly blamable. It is avowed that, believing, or pretending to believe, that a war with France was good policy for England, and having granted supplies for carrying on this war, they designedly annexed conditions to the grant, which they expected the king to reject. Considering that this rejection was the particular object of Louis, whose money they had taken, it is really drawing too largely upon candour, to admit that their object was to prevent * Letters to Louis XIV. Extract from Barillon, Dec. 14. 1679:-" In the affair of the high treasurer, and the disbanding of the army, no person was more useful to your majesty than lord Holles. I have had a strict connection with Mr. Lyttleton, who is one of the most considerable in the house of commons, and whose opinions have always been the most followed. I have also kept a particular correspondence with Mr. Powle. He was put into the council when the persons who opposed the court were put there. He has so conducted himself since that time, that he will always be useful when the parliament shall meet: he is a man fit to fill one of the best posts in England; he is very eloquent, and very able. Our first correspondence came through Mr. Montague's means; but I have since kept it by my own, and very secretly. Mr. Harbord is another of those whom I have made use of, and who bore an active part in the affair of the treasurer and the disbanding of the troops, but it would be difficult to employ him at present. He has considerable credit among people in the country; he would be more fit if a minister was to be attacked, than he will be to speak in parliament against an alliance, which the court would make, and the other party hinder. These four have touched what was promised them, when the disbanding of the troops should be finished, and the high treasurer removed from affairs. Mr. Sidney has been of great use to me on many occasions. He is a man who was in the first war, and who is naturally an enemy to the court. I gave him only what your majesty permitted me; he would willingly have had more, and if a new gratification were given to him, it would be easy to engage him entirely.". - Dalr, ii. 336. |