incensed, Charles dismissed him without waiting for an impeachment. But the Commons were not satisfied, for an impeachment was brought even after his dismissal. All manner of accusations were brought against the ex-chancellor; and when the accusers were told that these would not amount to high treason, they asked what would amount to it, as though willing to bring any charge imaginable, if only their end might be attained. Among the articles of impeachment as at first drawn up, none was found to amount to treason; but the one which came nearest to it was Article XVI., which read, "That he hath deluded and betrayed his Majesty and the nation in foreign treaties, and negotiations relating to the late war.” When this was read in the House, Lord Vaughan moved that the words be added "and discovered and betrayed his secret counsels to the enemy," promising to produce proof later. He confessed afterward to Lord Dartmouth "that he did not know any one thing against Lord Clarendon, but that he knew that he had so many enemies that he could never want any evidence to make good what he said."1

Much the same spirit was shown in the impeachment of Danby. He was charged with high treason for offences that could not possibly amount to that crime, and charges were brought against him for which there

1 Burnet, "History of his Own Times," Vol. I., 172d ed., 1830.

was no proof. Under the present arrangement, by means of which it is possible to get rid of an administration as soon as it is displeasing to the Commons, such hatred of and injustice toward a minister would be almost an impossibility.

The first step in the development of a system which was to reconcile the executive and legislative branches of government had been taken; but until other steps were taken, so far from lessening the hostility it had increased it. To us, looking back upon the period, signs are discernible even then of the way in which the problem was to be solved.

CHAPTER III

AN ATTEMPT AT A COMPROMISE : SIR

SCHEME

WILLIAM TEMPLE'S

From the Restoration, Parliament a permanent feature of the Constitution - Hence tendency to absorb all the functions of governinent-Attempts on the part of the King to control Parliament — Sir William Temple asked to frame a plan of government - His character- His plan - The King and Temple disagree over the admission of Halifax and Shaftesbury to the Council - Formation of interior Council of nine - Formation of interior Council of three - Halifax added to this Council Dissensions in the Council-Shaftesbury becomes leader of the Opposition in Parliament — Shaftesbury and Monmouth are for a short time members of the interior Council - Dissolution of Parliament - Dissolution of interior Council - Formation of new interior Council-Members of Council ceased to attend - Abandonment of the plan-Causes for its failure.

A

FTER the dissolution of the Long Parliament of

Charles II., and the meeting of the very violent new Parliament of 1679, the King awoke to the fact that some change in the mode of administration was necessary. Something must be done to bring about more harmonious relations between Parliament and the Crown. He had discovered by bitter experience that

the English Constitution was undergoing a change, and he must do what he could to prevent that change taking a direction too unfavorable to himself.

The principal change, as Professor Seeley has so well pointed out, lay in the fact that Parliament had become a fixed and permanent feature in the body politic.1 Since the Restoration, no English sovereign has attempted to govern without a parliament. That body has been recognized as an authority at least coördinate with the Crown. And no sooner had it attained this position, than it exhibited a tendency to absorb all the functions of government. The history of the Long Parliament of Charles II. is that of a seventeen years' struggle with the sovereign, and that too in spite of the fact that in no former period of equal length had the Crown exceeded its lawful authority so little, and the further fact that this Parliament was the most enthusiastically loyal set of men that could be got together. When such men proved so stubborn in maintaining their rights, it was useless to hope to ever again have a House of Commons, possessed of "the primitive temper and integrity, the old good manners, the old good nature," " for which Clarendon sighed.

2

1 Seeley, "Introduction to Political Science," p. 254 et seq. 2" Expressions of my Lord Chancellor Clarendon, which I could never read without being moved.”—BOLINGBROKE, "On the State of Parties at the Accession of George I."

As we have seen, Parliament had been instrumental in getting rid of every ministry of Charles II. prior to 1679. Nor had it been content with taking to itself the power of dismissal. It had attempted in every way to control the exercise of royal authority. It had disputed the pardoning power not only in the case of the wholesale pardon of the Declaration of Indulgence, but as we have seen it had treated the pardon of Danby with contempt and indignation. It had forced the King to make peace with Holland, and had almost forced him to make war with France. The Commons had also made use of their power over the purse to control executive action. Thus, in 1665, when they granted supplies for the Dutch war, a clause was introduced into the Subsidy Bill, providing that the funds so voted should be used only for the purposes of this war. In order that Parliament might be sure that this clause of the bill was respected, a committee was appointed in 1666 to inspect the accounts of the navy, ordnance, and stores. When the authority of this committee was discovered to be deficient, commissioners were appointed with the most extraordinary powers to examine into the public finances. They were to examine upon oath, to summon inquests if they thought fit, to commit persons disobeying their orders to prison without fail, to determine finally on the charge and discharge of all accountants; the barons of the