Before another campaign was opened the ascendancy of the Whigs had passed away. They had rendered themselves the more obnoxious to the citizens by the passing of an Act for the naturalization of foreign Protestants,[1946] the result of which had been to overcrowd the city with needy foreigners at a time when there was a great scarcity of provisions. A cry was raised that the price of corn and bread was being enhanced by the action of forestallers, and the lord mayor was instructed by letter from Sunderland (3 Oct., 1709) to put the law in force against all engrossers, forestallers and regraters of corn. The mayor in reply assured the secretary of state that there were no such engrossers in the city, but that the present dearness was caused by the exportation of large quantities of corn and grain to foreign countries. The city authorities had, moreover, been informed that wheat was selling in the north of England at 40s. a quarter and less. They therefore suggested that government should furnish a sufficient convoy for the purpose of bringing it to London.[1947] The representation as to the evils arising from exportation of corn had the desired effect, for a Bill was shortly afterwards passed limiting such importation,[1948] whilst another Bill was passed for regulating the assize of bread.[1949]
Dr. Sacheverell's sermon, 5 Nov., 1709.
The Court of Aldermen decline to print it, 8 Nov., 1709.
The bitter feeling against the Whigs engendered by their overbearing and dictatorial conduct whenever in power was increased by a sermon preached at St. Paul's on the 5th November before the lord mayor[pg 632] and aldermen by Dr. Sacheverell, a high church Tory. Taking for his text the words of the Apostle, "In perils among false brethren" (2 Cor., xi, 26), the preacher advocated in its entirety the doctrine of non-resistance, condemned every sort of toleration, and attacked with much bitterness the Dissenters. Sir Samuel Garrard, who had but recently entered on his duties as lord mayor (having been elected in place of Sir Jeffery Jeffreys, who had been excused from office on the ground of ill-health),[1950] was himself also a high Tory, and as such was greatly pleased with the sentiments put forth by Sacheverell. He congratulated the preacher on his sermon, and is said to have expressed a hope that it would be printed. If so, it would appear to betoken some doubt in his mind as to his brother aldermen consenting to print such a polemical discourse. As a rule all sermons preached on state occasions before the mayor and aldermen were ordered by the court to be printed as a matter of course, the sum of forty shillings being voted towards the expense. Two sermons recently preached before them, one at St. Paul's and the other in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, were so ordered (8 Nov.) to be printed by the court; but when on the same day the question was put to them that Dr. Sacheverell should be desired to print his sermon it was negatived.[1951] Sacheverell took no notice of this rebuff, but printed the sermon on his own responsibility and at his own expense, with a prefatory dedication to the mayor.[1952] The sermon was immensely popular with the high church party,[pg 633] and a large number of copies were circulated, much to the disgust of the Whigs.
The sermon brought to the notice of parliament, 13 Dec., 1709.
At length the ministry resolved to take proceedings against the author. On the 13th December a complaint was made to the House of Commons of this sermon, as well as of another sermon of similar character which had been preached by Sacheverell before the judges at the last summer assizes at Derby. After some debate the House resolved that both these sermons were "malicious, scandalous and seditious libels highly reflecting upon her majesty and her government, the late happy revolution, and the Protestant succession as by law established," and ordered that Dr. Henry Sacheverell and Henry Clements, his publisher, should attend at the Bar of the House the next day.
Sacheverell's impeachment ordered, 14 Dec., 1709.
Accordingly the next day (14 Dec.) the doctor and the bookseller appeared. Sacheverell owned that he was the author of the two discourses, and gave an account of what had taken place between himself and the lord mayor; but whilst expressing his regret at having incurred the displeasure of the House, he showed no contrition for the doctrines he had promulgated. The lord mayor, who was present in the House in his capacity as member for Agmondesham, was thereupon asked if he had given any orders for causing the sermon preached at St. Paul's to be printed, but he denied having done so.[1953] The doctor being called upon to retire, the House resolved to impeach him of high crimes and misdemeanours and in the meantime committed him to the custody of the[pg 634] sergeant-at-arms. Application was made a few days later for bail to be allowed, but this the House refused.[1954] It was, however, subsequently granted by the Lords, but at a very high amount, viz., Sacheverell himself in £6,000 and two sureties in £3,000 respectively. One of these sureties was no other than the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, of which Sacheverell was a member.[1955]
His trial in Westminster Hall, 27 Feb., 1710.
It was originally intended that the trial should take place at the Bar of the House of Lords, but as the Commons insisted upon being present as a committee of the whole House, the Lords appointed Westminster Hall to be the place of trial and instructed Sir Christopher Wren to make the necessary preparations as speedily as possible.[1956] The trial commenced on the 27th February and continued for three weeks. Day after day as Sacheverell passed from his lodgings in the Temple to Westminster Hall and home again his coach was besieged by crowds striving to kiss his hand and shouting "Sacheverell and the Church for ever!" So again when the queen, impelled by curiosity, attended the trial, as she did on more than one occasion, shouts were raised as she passed on her way of "God bless your majesty and the Church! we hope your majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell!" Had the mob confined itself to this kind of demonstration little harm had been done. Unfortunately it allowed itself to be carried away by excitement and took to attacking meeting-houses and damaging[pg 635] the property of Dissenters.[1957] The arguments on both sides having at last been concluded, the Lords, by a narrow majority, pronounced Sacheverell guilty. They did not venture, however, to proceed against him with any greater severity than to order his sermons to be burnt at the Exchange by the common hangman, in the presence of the lord mayor and sheriffs, and to prohibit him from preaching for the next three years.[1958] Such a sentence was virtually a victory for the Tories and a defeat of the Whigs. Lord mayor Garrard contrived to escape the humiliation of presiding over the burning of a sermon of which he in his heart approved, and this part of the sentence was carried out in his absence under the supervision of the sheriffs.[1959] The verdict was welcomed in the city with illuminations and bonfires, accompanied with some little tumult and disorder. The queen complained to the Court of Aldermen by letter, and thereupon the court appointed a committee to investigate the recent riots (27 March, 1710). The result was that the ringleaders were arrested and bound over to the sessions.[1960] The streets were flooded with republican pamphlets which the House ordered to be burnt by the common hangman.[1961] Addresses were sent in from all parts of the country, some in favour of the existing parliament, but the majority advocated a speedy dissolution.[1962] The Common Council voted an address (but only by a small majority) in which[pg 636] her majesty was assured of the City's hatred of all "anti-monarchical principles," its continued loyalty to her person and government, its zeal for the Church of England, its tender regard for liberty of conscience and its resolution to maintain the Protestant succession. The address concluded by saying that in obedience to her majesty's commands the civic authorities would do their utmost care to prevent and suppress riotous assemblies.[1963] The address, together with one from the lieutenancy of London, was presented to the queen on the 13th April.[1964]