These charges were well supported by various members of the Commons, and amongst them Robert Walpole particularly distinguished himself. The counsel for the doctor then pleaded in his behalf, and endeavoured to answer the arguments adduced against him. Sacheverell, however, was not contented with this; he delivered a defence himself which has been generally considered to be the work of the high Tory divine Atterbury, and probably with good reason. In this he dwelt much on his responsibility as a clergyman, and represented the interests of all his brethren and of the Church as involved in this attack made upon them through his person. He expressed the utmost loyalty towards the queen and the Constitution; denied having called in question the Revolution, though he had certainly condemned in the strongest terms the resistance by which it was achieved. He declared himself in favour of the Protestant succession, and asserted that, as his principle was that of non-resistance in all cases, he could not by any word or act of his own endanger the Government as by law established; as if his very declaration of the principle of non-resistance and passive obedience did not condemn in toto the Revolution, the means by which the queen came to the throne, and encourage all those who were seeking to restore Popery and the Stuarts as the rightful religion and rightful possessors of the throne, both of which had been, according to his doctrines, forced from their legitimate place by ungodly and un-Christian violence; and he concluded by calling on God and His holy angels to witness that he had never been guilty of the wicked, seditious, or malicious acts imputed to him in the impeachment.

As the doctor went to and from the Hall, his chair was thronged round by dense crowds, which attended him to his lodgings in the Temple, or thence to Westminster Hall. Numbers pressed forward to kiss his hand; they lifted their hats to him with the utmost reverence. The windows were crowded by ladies and gentlemen, who cheered him vociferously, and many flung down presents to him. The doctor returned the salutations by continual bows and smiles, and seemed wonderfully elated by his sudden consequence. His chairmen seemed to partake of his glory, and stepped on as proudly as if they had been carrying the queen. "This huzzaing," says Defoe, "made the doctor so popular that the ladies began to talk of falling in love with him; but this was only a prelude to the High Church affair. An essay was to be made on the mob, and the huzzaing of the rabble was to be artfully improved." Accordingly after the trial the next day, February 28th, the mob assembled in dense masses—sweeps, link-boys, butchers, by a sturdy guard of whom the doctor was always escorted to and from the Hall—collected in the City and began to cry "Down with the Dissenters! High Church for ever!" And they soon put their cries in practice by assaulting the Dissenting chapels, and sacking their interiors. The Tory writers of the time pretend that the rioters did this of their own accord, as the mobs had destroyed the Catholic chapels in 1688; but this was not the case. The proceedings of the mob were stimulated and directed by gentlemen, who followed them in hackney coaches, according to Cunningham, who is the only writer who has furnished us with full details of these outrages. They then directed their rage against the house of Bishop Burnet, which stood on the other side of St. John's Square, and attempted to demolish it. This they must have done under instructions from their disguised instigators, for Burnet was hated by the High Church and Tory party for the distinguished part which he had borne in the Revolution, for his constant attachment to King William and his measures, and especially for his advocacy of toleration. They vowed they would put the Low Church Bishop to death if they could catch him; but the respectable inhabitants vigorously interposed in defence of the Bishop's house and life, and the mob were compelled to desist.

So long as the rioters were only burning and ruining the Dissenting chapels, the Court remained most calmly quiescent; but when the news came that they were beginning to attack "Low Church as by law established," there was a bustle and a fright at St. James's. This fright was wonderfully increased when Sunderland rushed into the presence of the queen and announced that the mob was on the march to pull down and rifle the Bank of England in honour of "High Church and Dr. Sacheverell." At this news the queen turned deadly pale, and trembled. She bade Sunderland send instantly the Horse and Foot Guards and disperse the rioters. Captain Horsey, the officer on duty at St. James's, was at once summoned into the royal presence, and Sunderland delivered to him the queen's order to disperse the mob, but to use discretion, and not to proceed to extremities. Horsey was one of the anti-Marlborough faction, and received the command in evident dudgeon. "Am I to preach to the mob, or am I to fight them?" he asked. "If you want preaching, please to send some one with me who is a better hand at holding forth than I am; if you want fighting, it is my trade, and I will do my best." Sunderland could only repeat the order. Horsey easily dispersed the rabble, who were more valiant against peaceable Dissenters than against soldiers. In one or two places they seemed as though they would make a stand; but on any attempt of the Guards to charge them they flew like leaves before the wind.

DRINKING TO THE HEALTH OF DR. SACHEVERELL. (See p. [593].)

[[See larger version]]

The trial lasted for three weeks, and every day the same crowds assembled, the same hurraing of Sacheverell, the same appeals to the queen on behalf of the Church and Dr. Sacheverell were shouted by the enthusiastic mob. No one scarcely dared to appear abroad without an artificial oak-leaf in his hat, which was considered the badge of restored monarchy, and all the time the doctor carried the air of a conqueror. At length, on the 10th of March, the Lords adjourned to their own House to consider this point, raised by the counsel for Sacheverell—whether in prosecutions by impeachments the particular words supposed to be criminal should be expressly specified in such impeachments. The question was referred to the judges, who decided that the particular words ought to be so specified. It was objected that the judges had decided according to the rules of Westminster Hall, and not according to the usages of Parliament, and it was resolved to adhere to the usages of Parliament, lest it should become a practice for the judges to decide on questions of Parliamentary right and privilege. On the 16th of March the Lords came to the consideration of their judgment, and the queen attended incognita to hear the debate, which was long and earnest. In the end Sacheverell was pronounced guilty by a majority of seventeen; but four-and-thirty peers entered a protest against the judgment, and his sentence bore no proportion to the usual ones in such cases. He was merely suspended from preaching for three years, and his sermons were condemned to be burnt by the common hangman.

MAKING FRIENDS WITH MRS. MASHAM. (See p. [594].)

[[See larger version]]