The
king now desired, that the choice should fall on Sir Thomas Meres: but
Seymour, speaker to the last parliament, was instantly called to the
chair, by a vote which seemed unanimous. The king, when Seymour was
presented to him for his approbation, rejected him, and ordered the
commons to proceed to a new choice. A great flame was excited. The
commons maintained, that the king s approbation was merely a matter of
form, and that he could not without giving a reason, reject the speaker
chosen; the king, that, since he had the power of rejecting, he might,
if he pleased, keep the reason in his own breast. As the question had
never before been started, it might seem difficult to find principles
upon which it could be decided.[*] By way of compromise, it was agreed
to set aside both candidates. Gregory, a lawyer, was chosen; and the
election was ratified by the king. It has ever since been understood,
that the choice of the speaker lies in the house; but that the king
retains the power of rejecting any person disagreeable to him.

[*] In 1566, the speaker said to Queen Elizabeth, that
without her allowance the election of the house was of no
significance. D'Ewes's Journal, p. 97. In the parliament
1592, 1593, the speaker, who was Sir Edward Coke, advances a
like position. D'Ewes, p. 459; Townshend, p. 35. So that
this pretension of the commons seems to have been somewhat
new; like many of their other powers and privileges.

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