DEBATES UPON IT IN THE LORDS.
On the tenth day of March, the lords being adjourned to their own house, the earl of Nottingham proposed the following question:—“Whether, in prosecutions by impeachments for high crimes and misdemeanors, by writing or speaking, the particular words supposed to be criminal are necessary to be expressly specified in such impeachments?” The judges being consulted, were unanimously of opinion, that, according to law, the grounds of an indictment or impeachment ought to be expressly mentioned in both. One of the lords having suggested that the judges had delivered their opinions according to the rules of Westminster-hall, and not according to the usage of parliament, the house resolved, that in impeachments they should proceed according to the laws of the land, and the law and usage of parliament. On the sixteenth day of the month, the queen being in the house incognita, they proceeded to consider whether or not the commons had made good the articles exhibited against Dr. Sacheverel. The earl of Wharton observed, that the doctor’s speech was a full confutation and condemnation of his sermon: that all he had advanced about non-resistance and unlimited obedience was false and ridiculous: that the doctrine of passive obedience, as urged by the doctor, was not reconcileable to the practice of churchmen: that if the revolution was not lawful, many in that house, and vast numbers without, were guilty of blood, murder, rapine, and injustice; and that the queen herself was no lawful sovereign, since the best title she had to the crown was her parliamentary title, founded upon the revolution. He was answered by the lord Haversham in a long speech. Lord Ferrers said, if the doctor was guilty of some foolish unguarded expressions, he ought to have been tried at common law. The earl of Scarborough observed, the revolution was a nice point, and above the law; he moved that they should adjourn the debate, and take time to consider before they gave judgment. Dr. Hooper, bishop of Bath and Wells, allowed the necessity and legality of resistance in some extraordinary cases; but was of opinion, that this maxim ought to be concealed from the knowledge of the people, who are naturally too apt to resist; that the revolution was not to be boasted of, or made a precedent; but that a mantle ought to be thrown over it, and it should be called a vacancy or abdication. He said the original compact were dangerous words, not to be mentioned without great caution; that those who examined the revolution too nicely were no friends to it; and that there seemed to be a necessity for preaching up non-resistance and passive obedience at that time, when resistance was justified. The duke of Argyle affirmed, that the clergy in all ages had delivered up the rights and privileges of the people, preaching up the king’s power, in order to govern him the more easily; and therefore they ought not to be suffered to meddle with politics. The earl of Anglesea owned the doctor had preached nonsense; but said, that was no crime. The duke of Leeds distinguished between resistance and revolution; for had not the last succeeded, it would have certainly been rebellion, since he knew of no other but hereditary right. The bishop of Salisbury justified resistance from the book of Maccabees; he mentioned the conduct of queen Elizabeth, who assisted the Scots, the French, and the states-general, in resisting their different sovereigns, and was supported in this practice both by her parliaments and her convocations. He observed that king Charles I. had assisted the citizens of Rochelle in their rebellion; that Manwayring incurred a severe censure from the parliament, for having broached the doctrine of the divine right of kings; and that though this became a favourite maxim after the restoration, yet its warmest asserters were the first who pleaded for resistance when they thought themselves oppressed. The archbishop of York, the duke of Buckingham, and other leaders of the tory interest, declared that they never read such a piece of madness and nonsense as Sacheverel’s sermon; but they did not think him guilty of a misdemeanor. Next day, Dr. Wake, bishop of Lincoln, accused Sacheverel of having made a strange and false representation of the design for a comprehension, which had been set on foot by archbishop Sancroft, and promoted by the most eminent divines of the church of England. He was of opinion that some step should be taken for putting a stop to such preaching, as, if not timely corrected, it might kindle heats and animosities that would endanger both church and state. Dr. Trimnel, bishop of Norwich, expatiated on the insolence of Sacheverel, who had arraigned archbishop Grindal, one of the eminent reformers, as a perfidious prelate, for having favoured and tolerated the discipline of Geneva. He enlarged upon the good effects of the toleration. He took notice of Sacheverel’s presumption in publishing inflammatory prayers, declaring himself under persecution, while he was prosecuted for offending against the law, by those who in common justice ought to be thought the fairest accusers, and before their lordships, who were justly acknowledged to be the most impartial judges. In discussing the fourth article, the bishop of Salisbury spoke with great vehemence against Sacheverel, who, by inveighing against the revolution, toleration, and union, seemed to arraign and attack the queen herself; since her majesty had so great a share in the first, had often declared she would maintain the second, and that she looked upon the third as the most glorious event of her reign. He affirmed that nothing could be more plain than the doctor’s reflecting upon her majesty’s ministers; and that he had so well marked out a noble peer there present, by an ugly and scurrilous epithet which he would not repeat, that it was not possible to mistake his meaning. Some of the younger peers could not help laughing at this undesigned sarcasm upon the lord-treasurer, whom Sacheverel had reviled under the name of Volpone; they exclaimed, “Name him, name him;” and in all probability the zealous bishop, who was remarkable for absence of mind and unguarded expressions, would have gratified their request, had not the chancellor, interposing, declared that no peer Was obliged to say more than he should think proper.
After obstinate disputes, and much virulent altercation, Sacheverel was found guilty by a majority of seventeen voices; and four-and-thirty peers entered a protest against this decision. He was prohibited from preaching for the term of three years: his two sermons were ordered to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, in presence of the lord mayor and the two sheriffs of London and Middlesex. The lords likewise voted that the executioner should commit to the same fire the famous decree passed in the convocation of the university of Oxford, asserting the absolute authority and indefeasible right of princes. A like sentence was denounced by the commons upon a book intituled, “Collections of Passages referred to by Dr. Sacheverel, in his Answer to the Articles of Impeachment.” These he had selected from impious books lately published, and they were read by his counsel, as proofs that the church was in danger. The lenity of the sentence passed upon Sacheverel, which was in a great measure owing to the dread of popular resentment, his friends considered as a victory obtained over a whig faction, and they celebrated their triumph with bonfires and illuminations.
1710
On the fifth day of April, the queen ordered the parliament to be prorogued, after having, in her speech to both houses, expressed her concern for the necessary occasion which had taken up great part of their time towards the latter end of the session. She declared that no prince could have a more true and tender concern for the welfare and prosperity of the church than she had, and should always have; and she said it was very injurious to take a pretence from wicked and malicious libels, to insinuate that the church was in danger by her administration.