Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

wars.

ri waring, they were condemned by a fentence of the lords; 1709-01. " and though he submitted, and retracted his opinion, yet i " a severe censure passed upon him. But, during the long « discontinuance of parliaments that followed, this doctrine

was more favoured : it was generally preached up, and

many things were done pursuant to it, which put the na“.tion into the great convulsions, that followed in our civil

After these were over, it was natural to return “ to the other extreme, as courts naturally favoured such « doctrines. King James trusted too much to it; yet the “ very afferters of that doctrine were the first, who pleaded“ for resistance, when they thought they needed it.”

Several other peers, particularly the duke of Devonshire, the lord-chancellor, and the lords Sommers, Halifax, and Mohun spoke also in vindication of the late revolution ; and maintained, that in extraordinary cafes resistance is necessary and lawful; and concluded, that the commons had made good the first article. The archbishop of York, the duke of Buckingham, the earls of Nottingham and Rochester, the lords Guernsey, North and Grey, and Caermarthen, and the bishops of London, Rochester, and Landaff, who spoke on the other side, declared, “That they never “ read such a piece of madness and nonsense, as Dr. Sa“ cheverel's sermon, but did not think him guilty of a mil“ demeanor.” After a long debate, which lasted till past nine in the evening, it was at last carried by a majority of nineteen, that the commons had made good their first article of impeachment against Dr. Sacheverel.

The next day, March 17, the lords took into consideration the second article of the commons impeachment, and Dr. Wake, bishop of Lincoln, began the debate with a speech, wherein he gave an account of the design of a comprehension set on foot, towards the end of king James II's reign,by archbishop Sancroft, and promoted by the most eminent divines of the church of England, particularly Dr. Patrick, late bishop of Ely, and Dr. Sharp, the present archbishop of York, and the bishops of London and Ely, which was, " to improve, and, if possible, to inforce our discipline, to “ review and inlarge our liturgy, by correcting some things, « and adding others; and by leaving some few indifferent ceremonies, in order to reconcile dissenters to the church." “ That Dr. Sacheverel had made a strange and false repre“ sentation of this des, un, which was again set on foot, and

openly espoused by king William and queen Mary, but “ which unhappily miscarried.” He then proceeded to

ofler

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1709-10. offer such passages out of Dr. Sacheverel's sermon, as plainly

and fully made out the second article of the commons impeachment, including, " That somewhat should be done is to put a stop to such preaching, as, if not timely cor" rected, may kindle such heats and animosities among us,

as may truly endanger both our church and state. As “ for the preacher himself, I am (said the bishop) very wil« ling to come into any measures of favour to him, that « are consistent with your lordships honour and justice, and “ will answer the ends of the impeachment, that has been “ brought before us against him.” Dr. Trimnel, bishop of Norwich inforced what the bishop of Lincoln had said “ about toleration ; inveighed against the infolence of Dr. Sacheverel, who had arraigned archbishop Grin“ dall (one of the eminent reformers in the reign of “ queen Elizabeth) as a perfidious prelate, for favour“ ing and tolerating the Genevian discipline ; checked « his presumption, in taking upon him, in his sermon, to « prescribe rules to his superiors, by telling them when they « are to thunder out their anathema's against schismatics; “ fhewed, that the proper use of those spiritual weapons is “ to suppress vice, immorality, and profaneness, among the « members of the church ; and that they were altogether « useless to convince heretics or schismatics, who are rather “ to be won by gentle methods and christian forbearance. “ And to that purpose his lordship took notice of the good c effects of the toleration act; and mentioned several in“ stances, wherein he had himself been instrumental in re« conciling diffenters to the church. I shall not take upon “ me (faid he in the conclusion) to charge the doctor, or

any of his particular friends, with this practice (meaning “ the late tumults) as great temptation as one is under to “ do so from several circumstances. And it is not the « least, that occurs in his prayers, which he has published

on this occasion, to represent, not so much to God, as « to the World, that he is under persecution, when he is

prosecuted for offending against the law, by those, who, “ in common justice, ought to be thought the fairest ac“ cusers, and, before your lordships, who are justly acknow“ ledged to be the most impartial judges. However, I will never believe, till I cannot avoid it, that any

members “ of the church of England, who have acknowledged the “ government, much less any clergyman, who has to often “ profeffed his obedience to it in church and state, should “ have been any way accessary to these threatnings, that

66 have

1

C6 have been given out, particularly against such bishops, 1709-10.

as should happen to condemn the doctor's proceedings. in “ As far, my lords, as I have seen of this cause, I am “ likely to be one of those bishops; and, though I do not “ pretend to any great fhare of courage, I am very free to “ declare to your lordships, that I am in no comparison so “ apprehensive of what may befall myself for condemning “ this person, as I am of what will probably befall the “ public, if your lordships should not condemn him. How“ ever, I wish he may be treated with all poslibie inodera« tion; and that the wholsome severities, he recommends in “his fermon, may not be used against him. But that is in

your lordships judgment, to which I humbly submit it; as and only beg pardon for having detained your lordships “ so long in giving my reasons, why I think the commons “ have made good this second part of their charge.” No peer offering to speak in favour of the doctor, it was voted, That the commons had made good the second article of their impeachment. The party, that was for the doctor, made no opposition to the third, and but little to the fourth. They contented themselves with protesting against them, as they had done against the two first. The four articles being thus voted to be proved, the lords went down to the hall, when the question being put upon the whole impeachment, guilty or not guilty, the doctor was voted not guilty by fifty-two *, and guilty by sixty-nine +.

The

* The archbishop of York; Stawel, Guilford, Butler, Lemp-
the dukes of Ormond, Beauford, fter, Haversham, Guernsey, Con-
Northumberland, Shrewsbury, way.
Leeds, Buckingham, Hamilton; + The; lord-chancellor, lord-
the earls of Pembroke, Nor-treasurer, lord-president, Icrd-
thampton, Denbigh, Berkshire, privy-seal, lord iteward of the
Thanet, Scarsdale, Anglesea, Suf- houshold; the dukes of Cleve-
sex, Yarmouth, Nottingham, Ro- land, Richmond, Grafton, St.
chester, Abingdon, Plymouth, Albans, Bolton, Schomberg,
Scarborough, Jersey, Poulet, Mar, Bedford, Montross, Roxbu għ,
Wemys, Northek; the viscounts Dover ; the marquisses of Kent
Say and Seal, Weymouth; the and Dorchester ; the earls of
bishops of London, Durham, Derby, Lincoln, Dorset, Bridge-
Rochester, Bath and Wells, Chef water, Leicester, Westmoreland,
ter; the barons Ferrers, Wil Manchester, Rivers, Starnford,
loughby of Brooke, North and Winchelsea, Sunderland, Car-
Grey, Howard of Escrick, Chan- lifle, Radnor, Berkley, Holder-
dos, Leigh, Lexington, Berkley, nefs, Portland, Warrington, Brad-
Craven, Ofborn, Dartmouth, ford, Orford, Greenwich, Gran-
VOL. XVII,

tham,

1709-10

The next debate was, what censure ought to pass upon um him (n). And here a strange turn appeared ; fome seemed

to

tham, Wharton, Cholmondeley, younger peers fell a laughings Crawford, Loudoun, Leven, Ork- and cried out, Name him, name ney, Seafield, Rofeberry, Glas- him ; but the lord chancellor gow, Ilay; the bishops of Sa- interposed, declaring, 6 That rum, Ely, Peterborough, Oxford, • no peer was obliged to say Lincoln, Norwich, St. Afaph ; • but what he thought fit.” The the barons De la War, Fitzwal. lord Ferrers faid fomething in ter, Paget, Hunsden, Mohun, favour of Dr. Sacheverel, but Biron, Colepeper, Rockingham, was answered by the earl of Ilay; Cornwallis, Offulfton, Herbert, and then the lord Haverham Hallifax, Harvey, Pelham. made a short speech about that

(n) The proceedings of the peers part of the fourth article, wheremore at large were as follows : in Dr. Sacheverel was charged

In relation to the third article, with wresting and perverting dithe lord Halifax made a short vers passages of scripture. He speech, and was answered by faid, No man on earth has the lord Ferrers and the earl of authority to interpret the scripNottingham. The fourth article • ture ; which, he thought, muft occafioned a longer debate, which • be interpreted by itself: fince was begun by the earl of Whar • the reformation, we had conton, in the commendation of the tended against the church of present administration. The bi • Rome, who pretended to that thop of Salisbury seconded him, • authority: and shall we (adand ipoke with vehemence against • ded he) allow infallibility in Dr. Sacheverel, “ who, by in the commons, which we deny veighing against the revolu

pope

of Rome? And • tion, toleration, and union, in conclusion he repeated his • seemed to arraign and attack defi:e, that the reverend prethe queen herlelf

, fince her lates there present would tell the • majelty had so great a share in house, • How Dr. Sacheverel • the first, and had often de- ' {ould be charged with wresting " clared, that she would main • the scripture ?' But none of • tain the second ; and that she the bishops offered to satisfy him, • looked upon the third as the The duke of Hamilton having • most glorious event of her faid something in favour of the

reign. That nothing could doctor, he was answered by the • be more plain than his reflect- lord Mohun. The duke of "ing on her majefly's ministers; Buckingham, the lord Ferrers, • and that he had in particular the earls of Scarsdale and Abing• fo well marked out a noble don, and the lord Caermart'en,

peer there present, by an ugly endeavoured likewise to exteno* Volpore. . and fearrilous epithet (which ate the doctor's offences, but it

• he would not repeat) that it was voted that the commons

was not possible to mistake had made good the fourth ar• him.' Upon this fome of the ticle of the impeachment. How

to the

to apprehend the effects of a popular fury, if the cenfure was 1909-10. fevere ; to others it was said, the queen desired it might be care

mild;

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ever, thirty-eight lords entered as to the law, and if they were
their diffent to the question upon ' to give their judgment as the
the second, third, and fourth question was stated, their free-
articles. At the close of the de dom of voting would be taken
bate, the earl of Wharton said, away. Therefore he moved,
« That since the house had re • That the first part of the pro-
• folved, that the commons had posed question be left out."
• made good their four articles The lord North and Grey, who
• of impeachment againft Dr. fpoke next, faid, “ There is no
• Sacheverel, the lords ought, necefsity of putting the question

by a necessary confequence, to in WeAminster-hall, but only
( resolve and declare likewise, acquainting the commons there,
« That the doctor was guilty of • that Dr. Sacheverel is guilty in

the high crimes and mifdemea general: for how can any

nors charged upon him.' But peer, that thinks him not the earls of Abingdon and Ro guilty (as for my part, I don't) chester, the lord treafurer, the fay in the face of the commons, lord North and Grey, and the ' he is not guilty, and allow at lord Ferrers, ftarting fome diffi * the same time, that the comculties, it was proposed, that mons have made good their the question to be asked every articles of impeachment The lord in Westminster-hall should earl of Wharton said, “ He wonbe as follows: " That the com • dered at the lord Guernsey's

mons having made good the making that motion, after the v several articles of the impeach " house had come to a resolus ' ment against Henry Sacheve « tion, that the commons had rel, doctor in divinity; the • made good their articles. The * faid doctor Henry Sacheverel question, as stated by the lord • is guilty of high crimes and • chancellor, did not preclude i misdemeanors.

any peer from his right of Accordingly, on the 18th of giving his judgment; for every March, the question being read, • lord was at liberty to protett the earl of Rochester moved, that « and enter his diffent, if he the judges should be confulted; I would not be convinced by but no peer seconding that mo • the majority of the house; tion, the lord Guernsey faid, • and that the lords, being in "The question, as stated, was • the nature of a jury, ought

not fit to be put in Westmin ( to deliver their opinions se* fter-hall, because it would sub " riatim.' The lord Ferrers

vert the constitution of parlia- supported the lord Guernsey's * ment, and preclude the peers motion, objecting against the

from their right of giving their preamble of the quefion as un-
judgment, both of the fact, as necessary, and urging, that it
• well as of the law. For in was only the majority of the

this case fome peers might be house, and not the house, that
satisfied as to the fact, but not

came to a resolution, "That

R.2

[ocr errors]

o the

« AnteriorContinuar »