[thejsjunky]

> not that he hadn't broken it so as to have a pardon

Reasoning I find confusing. A pardon is by definition something given to people convicted of breaking the law. It can be and is sometimes used as a relief for people who have been -wrongly- convicted if there is no other mechanism (or just because it's easier), but that's not implied or required.

Is this some difference between US and UK law?

[estel]

The argument would be that he wasn't wrongly convicted.

By modern standards it's obviously a stupid, unjust and immoral law that he was convicted under; but if he was correctly found guilty under the laws of the time, then it was a sound conviction.

[thejsjunky]

Pardons are a general tool to forgive (in several senses) a crime. If you look at the history of pardons in the US for example, you'll find examples ranging from people who were wrongly convicted, to people who got one as a reward for cooperating in investigations, to people who simply had powerful friends.

Which is why I find that reasoning confusing - when you pardon someone, you just do it... and if you care to give a reason you can.

Perhaps it's different in the UK? Is this some limitation on the powers of the House of Lords?