waring, they were condemned by a fentence of the lords; 1709-01. and though he fubmitted, and retracted his opinion, yet n "a fevere cenfure paffed upon him. But, during the long "difcontinuance 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 convulfions, that followed in our civil After thefe were over, it was natural to return "to the other extreme, as courts naturally favoured such "doctrines. King James trufted too much to it; yet the . very afferters of that doctrine were the firft, who pleaded"for refiftance, when they thought they needed it.” << wars. Several other peers, particularly the duke of Devonshire, the lord-chancellor, and the lords Sommers, Halifax, and Mohun spoke alfo in vindication of the late revolution; and maintained, that in extraordinary cafes refiftance is neceffary and lawful; and concluded, that the commons had made good the firft article. The archbishop of York, the duke of Buckingham, the earls of Nottingham and Rochefter, the lords Guernsey, North and Grey, and Caermar then, and the bishops of London, Rochester, and Landaff, who spoke on the other fide, declared, "That they never "read fuch a piece of madness and nonsense, as Dr. Sa"cheverel's fermon, but did not think him guilty of a mis"demeanor." After a long debate, which lafted till past nine in the evening, it was at laft 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 confideration 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 defign of a comprehenfion fet 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. Pa- ́ trick, late bishop of Ely, and Dr. Sharp, the prefent archbi-fhop of York, and the bishops of London and Ely, which was, "to improve, and, if poffible, to inforce our difcipline, to "review and inlarge our liturgy, by correcting fome things, "and adding others; and by leaving fome few indifferent "ceremonies, in order to reconcile diffenters to the church. "That Dr. Sacheverel had made a ftrange and falfe repre "sentation of this defign, which was again fet on foot, and "openly espoused by king William and queen Mary, but "which unhappily mifcarried." He then proceeded to offer 1709-10. offer fuch paffages out of Dr. Sacheverel's fermon, as plainly and fully made out the second article of the commons impeachment, including, "That fomewhat fhould be done 66 to put a stop to fuch preaching, as, if not timely cor"rected, may kindle fuch heats and animofities among us, 66 as may truly endanger both our church and state. As "for the preacher himself, I am (faid the bishop) very wil"ling to come into any measures of favour to him, that "are confiftent 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 bifhöp of Lincoln had faid "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 difcipline; checked "his prefumption, in taking upon him, in his fermon, to "prescribe rules to his fuperiors, by telling them when they "are to thunder out their anathema's against schifmatics; "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 fchifmatics, who are rather 66 to be won by gentle methods and christian forbearance. "And to that purpose his lordship took notice of the good "effects of the toleration act; and mentioned feveral in"ftances, wherein he had himself been inftrumental in re"conciling diffenters to the church. I fhall not take upon me (faid he in the conclufion) 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 fo from feveral circumftances. And it is not the leaft, that occurs in his prayers, which he has published "on this occafion, to reprefent, not fo much to God, as "to the World, that he is under perfecution, when he is "profecuted for offending against the law, by those, who, "in common juftice, ought to be thought the fairest ac"cufers, and, before your lordships, who are justly acknowledged 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 lefs any clergyman, who has fo often "profeffed his obedience to it in church and state, should have been any way acceffary to thefe threatnings, that have been given out, particularly against fuch bishops, 1709-10. "as fhould happen to condemn the doctor's proceedings. "As far, my lords, as I have seen of this caufe, 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 "apprehenfive of what may befall myself for condemning "this perfon, as I am of what will probably befall the public, if your lordships fhould not condemn him. How"ever, I with he may be treated with all poffible modera"tion; and that the wholfome feverities, he recommends in ❝his fermon, may not be used against him. But that is in 66 your lordships judgment, to which I humbly fubmit it; "and only beg pardon for having detained your lordships "fo long in giving my reafons, why I think the commons. "have made good this fecond part of their charge." No peer offering to speak in favour of the doctor, it was voted, That the commons had made good the fecond article of their impeachment. The party, that was for the doctor, made no oppofition 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 fixty-nine †. *The archbishop of York; the dukes of Ormond, Beauford, Northumberland, Shrewsbury, Leeds, Buckingham, Hamilton; the earls of Pembroke, Northampton, Denbigh, Berkshire, Thanet, Scarfdale, Anglefea, Suffex, Yarmouth, Nottingham, Rochefter, Abingdon, Plymouth, Scarborough, Jersey, Poulet, Mar, Wemys, Northefk; the viscounts Say and Seal, Weymouth; the bishops of London, Durham, Rochester, Bath and Wells, Chefter; the barons Ferrers, Willoughby of Brooke, North and Grey, Howard of Efcrick, Chandos, Leigh, Lexington, Berkley, Craven, Ofborn, Dartmouth, VOL. XVII. The Stawel, Guilford, Butler, Lemp- The lord-chancellor, lord- e tham, 1709-10. * Volpone. The next debate was, what cenfure ought to pass upon him (n). And here a strange turn appeared; fome feemed tham, Wharton, Cholmondeley, Crawford, Loudoun, Leven, Ork ney, Seafield, Rofeberry, Glafgow, Ilay; the bifhops of Sarum, Ely, Peterborough, Oxford, Lincoln, Norwich, St. Asaph; the barons De la War, Fitzwalter, Paget, Hunfden, Mohun, Biron, Colepeper, Rockingham, Cornwallis, Offulfton, Herbert, Hallifax, Harvey, Pelham. (n) The proceedings of the peers more at large were as follows: In relation to the third article, the lord Halifax made a short fpeech, and was anfwered by the lord Ferrers and the earl of Nottingham. The fourth article occafioned a longer debate, which was begun by the earl of Wharton, in the commendation of the prefent adminiftration. The bifhop of Salisbury feconded him, and ipoke with vehemence against Dr. Sacheverel, who, by inveighing against the revolu-. ⚫tion, toleration, and union, ⚫ feemed to arraign and attack the queen herself, fince her majelly had fo great a fhare in the firft, and had often declared, that fhe would main⚫tain the fecond; and that she looked upon the third as the moft glorious event of her reign. That nothing could be more plain than his reflecting on her majefly's minifters; and that he had in particular fo well marked out a noble peer there prefent, by an ugly and fcurrilous epithet* (which he would not repeat) that it was not poffible to mistake him,' Upon this fome of the younger peers fell a laughings and cried out, Name him, name him; but the lord chancellor interpofed, declaring, That no peer was obliged to fay but what he thought fit." The lord Ferrers faid fomething in favour of Dr. Sachéverel, but was anfwered by the earl of Ilay; and then the lord Haverfham made a fhort fpeech about that part of the fourth article, wherein Dr. Sacheverel was charged with wrefting and perverting divers paffages of fcripture. He faid, No man on earth has authority to interpret the fcripture; which, he thought, muft be interpreted by itfelf: fince the reformation, we had contended against the church of Rome, who pretended to that authority and shall we (added he) allow infallibility in the commons, which we deny to the pope of Rome?' And in conclufion he repeated his defire, that the reverend prelates there prefent would tell the houfe, How Dr. Sacheverel could be charged with wrefting the fcripture?' But none of the bishops offered to fatisfy him. The duke of Hamilton having faid fomething in favour of the doctor, he was answered by the lord Mohun. The duke of Buckingham, the lord Ferrers, the earls of Scarfdale and Abingdon, and the lord Caermarthen, endeavoured likewise to extenuate the doctor's offences, but it was voted that the commons had made good the fourth article of the impeachment. How ever, to apprehend the effects of a popular fury, if the cenfure was 1709-10. fevere; to others it was faid, the queen defired it might be ever, thirty-eight lords entered their diffent to the question upon the fecond, third, and fourth articles. At the clofe of the debate, the earl of Wharton faid, • That fince the houfe had re• folved, that the commons had • made good their four articles of impeachment againft Dr. Sacheverel, the lords ought, by a neceffary confequence, to refolve and declare likewife, < That the doctor was guilty of the high crimes and mifdemeanors charged upon him.' But the earls of Abingdon and Rochefter, the lord treafurer, the lord North and Grey, and the lord Ferrers, ftarting fome difficulties, it was propofed, that the queftion to be asked every lord in Weftminster-hall fhould be as follows: That the com<mons having made good the ⚫ several articles of the impeach⚫ment against Henry Sacheverel, doctor in divinity; the faid doctor Henry Sacheverel is guilty of high crimes and mifdemeanors." Accordingly, on the 18th of March, the queftion being read, the earl of Rochefter moved, that the judges fhould be confulted; but no peer feconding that motion, the lord Guernsey faid, The queftion, as flated, was not fit to be put in Weftminfter-hall, because it would fubvert the conftitution of parliament, and preclude the peers ⚫ from their right of giving their judgment, both of the fact, as • well as of the law. For in this cafe fome peers might be • fatisfied as to the fact, but not neceffity of putting the queftion in Weáminfter-hall, but only 'acquainting the commons there, 'that Dr. Sacheverel is guilty in general for how can any peer, that thinks him not guilty (as for my part, I don't) fay in the face of the commons, he is not guilty, and allow at the fame time, that the commons have made good their articles of impeachment? The earl of Wharton faid, He won' dered at the lord Guernsey's 'making that motion, after the houfe had come to a refolu tion, that the commons had ⚫ made good their articles. The question, as stated by the lord chancellor, did not preclude any peer from his right of giving his judgment; for every lord was at liberty to protett and enter his diffent, if he 'would not be convinced by the majority of the houfe; and that the lords, being in the nature of a jury, ought to deliver their opinions fe'riatim.' The lord Ferrers fupported the lord Guernsey's motion, objecting against the preamble of the queftion as unneceflary, and urging, that it was only the majority of the houfe, and not the house, that came to a refolution, • That the |