The parliament of Great Britain being assembled on the fifteenth day of November, the queen in her speech told both houses that the enemy had endeavoured, by false appearances and deceitful insinuations of a desire after peace, to create jealousies among the allies: that God Almighty had been pleased to bless the arms of the confederates with a most remarkable victory and other successes, which had laid France open to the impression of the allied arms, and consequently rendered peace more necessary to that kingdom than it was at the beginning of the campaign. She insisted upon the expediency of prosecuting the advantages she had gained, by reducing that exorbitant and oppressive power which had so long threatened the liberties of Europe. The parliament were as eager and compliant as ever.. They presented congratulatory addresses: they thanked the duke of Marlborough for his signal services; while great part of the nation reproached him with having wantonly sacrificed so many thousand lives to his own private interest and reputation. In less than a month the commons granted upwards of six millions for the service of the ensuing year, and established a lottery, with other funds, to answer this enormous supply. On the thirteenth day of December, Mr. Dolben, son to the late archbishop of York, complained to the house of two sermons preached and published by Dr. Henry Sacheverel, rector of St. Saviour’s in Southwark, as containing positions contrary to revolution principles, to the present government, and the protestant succession. Sacheverel was a clergyman of narrow intellects, and an overheated imagination. He had acquired some popularity among those who had distinguished themselves by the name of high-churchmen, and took all occasions to vent his animosity against the dissenters. At the summer assizes at Derby, he had held forth in that strain before the judges; on the fifth day of November, in Saint Paul’s church, he, in a violent declamation, defended the doctrine of non-resistance; inveighed against the toleration and dissenters; declared the church was dangerously attacked by her enemies, and slightly defended by her false friends: he sounded the trumpet for the church, and exhorted the people to put on the whole armour of God. Sir Samuel Garrard, the lord mayor, countenanced this harangue, which was published under his protection, extolled by the tories, and circulated all over the nation. The complaint of Mr. Dolben against Sacheverel, was seconded in the house of commons by sir Peter King and other members. The most violent paragraphs were read: the sermons were voted scandalous and seditious libels. Sacheverel, being brought to the bar of the house, acknowledged himself the author of both, and mentioned the encouragement he had received from the lord mayor to print that which was entitled, “The Perils of False Brethren.” Sir Samuel, who was a member, denied he had ever given him such encouragement. The doctor being ordered to withdraw, the house resolved he should be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors; and Mr. Dolben was ordered to impeach him at the bar of the house of lords, in the name of all the commons of England. A committee was appointed to draw up articles, and Sacheverel was taken into custody. At the same time, in order to demonstrate their own principles, they resolved that the reverend Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, rector of St. Peter-le-Poor, for having often justified the principles on which her majesty and the nation proceeded in the late happy revolution, had justly merited the favour and recommendation of the house; and they presented an address to the queen, beseeching her to bestow some dignity in the church on Mr. Hoadly, for his eminent service both to the church and state. The queen returned a civil answer, though she paid no regard to their recommendation. Hoadly was a clergyman of sound understanding, unblemished character, and uncommon moderation, who, in a sermon preached before the lord mayor of London, had demonstrated the lawfulness of resisting wicked and cruel governors, and vindicated the late revolution. By avowing such doctrines, he incurred the resentment of the high churchmen, who accused him of having preached up rebellion. Many books were written against the maxims he professed. These he answered; and, in the course of the controversy, acquitted himself with superior temper, judgment, and solidity of argument. He as well as Bishop Burnet and several other prelates, had been treated with great virulence in Sacheverel’s sermon, and the-lord treasurer was scurrilously abused under the name of Volpone. The doctor being impeached at the bar of the upper house, petitioned that he might be admitted to bail; but this indulgence was refused, and the commons seemed bent upon prosecuting him with such severity as gave disgust to men of moderate principles. Meanwhile the tories were not idle. They boldly affirmed that the whigs had formed a design to pull down the church, and that this prosecution was intended to try their strength before they could proceed openly to the execution of their project. These assertions were supported, and even credited by great part of the clergy, who did not fail to alarm and inflame their hearers; while emissaries were employed to raise a ferment among the populace, already prepared with discontent, arising from a scarcity which prevailed in almost every country of Europe. The ministers magnified the dangers to which the church was exposed, from dissenters, whigs, and lukewarm prelates. These they represented as the authors of a ruinous war, which in a little time would produce universal famine; and as the immediate encouragers of those Palatine refugees who had been brought over, to the number of six thousand, and maintained by voluntary contributions, until they could be conveniently transported into Ireland and the plantations of America. The charity bestowed upon those unhappy strangers exasperated the poor of England, who felt severely the effects of the dearth, and helped to fill up the measure of popular discontent. The articles against Dr. Sacheverel being exhibited, his person was committed to the deputy-usher of the black rod, but afterwards the lords admitted him to bail. Then he drew up an answer to the charge, in which he denied some articles, and others he endeavoured to justify or extenuate. The commons having sent up a replication, declaring they were ready to prove the charge, the lords appointed the twenty-seventh day of February for the trial in Westminster-hall.
HIS TRIAL.
The eyes of the whole kingdom were turned upon this extraordinary trial. It lasted three weeks, during which all other business was suspended; and the queen herself was every day present, though in quality of a private spectator. The managers for the commons were sir Joseph Jekyl, Mr. Eyre, solicitor-general, sir Peter King, recorder of the city of London, lieutenant-general Stanhope, sir Thomas Parker, and Mr. Robert Walpole, treasurer of the navy. The doctor was defended by sir Simon Harcourt and Mr. Phipps, and assisted by Dr. Atterbury, Dr. Smallridge, and Dr. Friend. A vast multitude attended him every day to and from Westminster-hall, striving to kiss his hand, and praying for his deliverance, as if he had been a martyr and confessor. The queen’s sedan was beset by the populace, exclaiming, “God bless your majesty and the church. We hope your majesty is for Dr. Sacheverel.” They compelled all persons to lift their hats to the doctor as he passed in his coach to the temple, where he lodged; and among these some members of parliament, who were abused and insulted. They destroyed several meeting houses; plundered the dwelling houses of eminent dissenters; and threatened to pull down those of the lord chancellor, the earl of Wharton, and the bishop of Sarum. They even proposed to attack the bank, so that the directors were obliged to send to Whitehall for assistance. The horse and foot guards were immediately sent to disperse the rioters, who fled at their approach. Next day the guards were doubled at Whitehall, and the train bands of Westminster continued in arms during the whole trial. The commons entreated the queen, in an address, to take effectual measures for suppressing the present tumults, set on foot and fomented by papists, nonjurors, and other enemies to her title and government. She expressed a deep sense of their care and concern, as well as a just resentment at these tumultuous and violent proceedings. She published a proclamation for suppressing the tumults; and several persons being apprehended, were afterwards tried for high-treason. Two of them were convicted and sentenced to die, but neither suffered. The commons presented another address of thanks to her majesty for her gracious answer to their first remonstrance. They took this occasion to declare, that the prosecution of the commons against Dr. Henry Sacheverel proceeded only from the indispensable obligation they lay under to vindicate the late happy revolution, the glory of their royal deliverer, her own title and administration, the present established and protestant succession, together with the toleration and the quiet of the government. When the doctor’s counsel had finished his defence, he himself recited a speech, wherein he solemnly justified his intentions towards the queen and her government, and spoke in the most respectful terms of the revolution and the protestant succession. He maintained the doctrine of “non-resistance” in all cases whatsoever, as a maxim of the church in which he was educated, and by many pathetical expressions endeavoured to excite the compassion of the audience. He was surrounded by the queen’s chaplains, who encouraged and extolled him as the champion of the church; and he was privately favoured by the queen herself, who could not but relish a doctrine so well calculated for the support of regal authority.
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.