council, on 20 December 1678 caused two incriminating letters written by Danby to him to be read aloud to the House of Commons by the Speaker. The House immediately resolved on Danby's impeachment. At the foot of each of the letters appeared the king's postscripts, "I approve of this letter. C.R.", in his own handwriting; but they were not read by the Speaker, and were entirely ignored in the proceedings against the minister, thus emphasising the constitutional principle that obedience to the king's orders is not a bar to impeachment. Danby was charged with having assumed royal powers by treating matters of peace and war without the knowledge of the council, with having raised a standing army on the pretence of war with France, with having obstructed the assembling of Parliament, and with corruption and embezzlement in the treasury. Danby, when communicating the "Popish Plot" to Parliament, had from the first expressed his disbelief in Titus Oates's revelations, he now stood accused of having "traitorously concealed the plot". He was voted guilty by the Commons; but while the Lords were disputing whether the accused peer should have bail, and whether the charges amounted to more than a misdemeanour, Parliament was prorogued on 30 December and dissolved three weeks later. While Danby had few friends, the debate in the Lords showed a notable reluctance to impeach a Crown servant for simply carrying out Crown policy: Charles Dormer, 2nd Earl of Carnarvon, in a remarkably witty speech, reminded his peers of how many of their predecessors had taken part in impeachments, only to end up being impeached themselves. In March 1679, a new Parliament hostile to Danby was returned, and he was forced to resign the treasurership; but he received a pardon from the king under the Great Seal, and a warrant for a marquessate. His proposed advancement in rank was severely reflected upon in the Lords, Halifax declaring it in the king's presence the recompense of treason, "not to be borne". In the Commons, his retirement from office did not appease his antagonists. The proceedings against him were revived, a committee of privileges deciding on 23 March 1679 that the dissolution of Parliament did not abate the impeachment. The Lords passed a motion for his committal, and, as in Clarendon's case, his banishment. This was rejected by the Commons, who passed a bill of attainder. Danby had gone to the country,