1709-10. mild; it was therefore proposed to suspend him from preaching for one year, others were for seven years; but by a not as a jury, for every lord ⚫ was both a judge and a juror; that fome peers might think Dr. Sacheverel guilty of one part, and innocent of the other; and yet if they were to give their judgment, as this queftion was flated, how could they fay he was not guilty, when the preamble fet forth, that the commons had made good their impeachment " The earl of Wharton replied, That this objection had been much • more proper before the house had proceeded fo far.' However the earl of Rochefter having moved, that the preamble be left out, the earl of Wharton and the reft agreed to it; and the lord, chancellor ftated the queftion thus: That the queflion to be put to each lord in Westminster - hall, beginning at the junior baron firft, fhall be, Is Dr. Henry Sache⚫verel guilty of high crimes and mifdemeanors?' The earl of Nottingham moved, that the words of high crimes and mifdemeanors be left out, and was feconded by the lord North and Grey. But the earl of Wharton faid, That what was of vote ceffarily followed, that he was guilty of the faid crimes and ⚫ misdemeanors.' To moderate the matter, the duke of Buckingham propofed, that the queftion be thus altered, of the crimes and misdemeanors charged upon him by the impeachment; to which the earls of Wharton and Sunderland readily agreed; but the earl of Jerfey excepted agaift the question, as being complex or complicated. The lord Guernfey purfued the fame objection, for the reafon he alledged before, viz. That fome peers might think Dr. Sacheverel guilty of fome of the crimes charged upon him by the impeachment of the commons, and innocent of the other; and urged an inftance of an indictment concerning feveral charges, in which cafe the jury is not to anfwer generally, but particularly to each offence, becaufe the judge goes by the verdict, and impofes the fine accordingly. Therefore his lordship moved, That each peer fhould give his judgment feverally to each article. To this the lord Sommers anfwered, vote it was fixed to three years. It was next moved, that 1709-10. he fhould be incapable of all preferments during these three guilty, though they thought him guilty only of one article: but that the lords, who did not think him guilty of all the four articles, might, afterwards, as judges, moderate the punishment." The earl of Nottingham replied, That, for his part, he thought Dr. Sacheverel guilty of no crime;' and moved, that the particle be left out, and the question put thus; Is Dr. Henry Sacheverel guilty of high crimes and mifdemeanors charged upon him by the impeachment?' which was agreed to. Then it being proposed to confider what anfwer each lord fhould give, the lord Halifax faid, That, according to the ufage of parliament, the lords ought to answer content, or not content. But the lord Ferrers alledged, That content, or not content, was not an adequate anfwer to the question:' and both the earl of Nottingham, and the lord Guernsey, his brother, urged, That there were feveral precedents for guilty, or not guilty, upon my honour; but did not remember any for content, or not • content.' The lord Halifax maintained his affertion, and faid, He wondered, the lord Nottingham did not know there were precedents for content < or not content; and inftanced in the lord Sommers's trial, in which the lords gave their judgment that way. On the other hand, the lord Guernsey infifted upon anfwering guilty or not guilty; and was feconded years; by the lord treasurer, who faid, That there was a difference ⚫ between the lords voting in their house promifcuously, • fometimes in confufion, and their giving their judgments in Westminster-hall; and that 'the precedent mentioned by the lord Halifax was an ex'traordinary one, made in an ⚫ extraordinary cafe.' The lord Halifax moved for searching the journals; and the earl of Whar ton for following precedents. The clerk turned to, and read the precedent of the lord Sommers's impeachment, in which the peers gave their judgment by content or not content. But the earl of Rochester defiring, that other precedents might be fearched, and urging, that there was a difference between the lords voting in their house and in Westminster-hall; the duke of Buckingham anfwered, That the trial was the fame in Westminster-hall, as if the lords were in their houfe; that they removed to the hall only for the fpaciouf• nefs of the place and therefore the question ought to be anfwered, as if they were in the house, content, or not con• tent.' To this the earl of Ilay replied, That content, or not content, was a very im⚫ proper and ungrammatical an fwer to the queftion, Is Dr. • Sacheverel guilty of high • crimes, &c. And therefore • either the question ought to be altered, or the answer be, guilty, or not guilty.' Then the lord Ferrers endeavoured to fhew the inconveniencies, that Q3 might 1709-10. years; upon that the houfe was divided, fifty-nine were for the vote, and fixty againft it; fo that that was laid afide. might attend the putting the the house in this cafe ought to The from this general determination; and that, this uncertainty being in the cafe of a clergyman for preaching, it might create fome fears in good men, when they preach fome doctrines of the church of England, particularly that ⚫ of non-refiftance.' The earl of Sunderland calling for the queftion, the earl of Anglesey infifted on the inconveniencies of anfwering generally to it. Whereupon the lord chancellor mentioned four inconveniencies that might enfue: Firft, That clergymen would know, that to preach against the revolution, was a high crime and • misdemeanor: fecondly, to preach against the toleration : thirdly, against the union: and, fourthly, that to reflect on the queen's minifters, and fuggeft, that the church is in danger under her majefty's 'administration, were likewife high crimes and misdemeanors. Thefe, faid his lordfhip, are the only inconveniencies, that I can forefee, will attend this judgment.' The earl of Wharton calling then for the queftion, the duke of Shrewsbury faid, That he did not think the doctor guilty of the first article, though he had as great a fhare as any man in the late revolution, and would ever go as far as any to vindicate the memory ' of our late glorious deliverer. That he thought the church fafe under her majefty's adminiftration; but he would not have it made a high crime and • misdemeanor * The fermons were ordered to be burnt in the prefence of the 1709-10. lord-mayor and the fheriffs of London, which was done; . mifdemeanor to fay, That the church is in danger, because times might come, when it might really be in danger.' And, in conclufion, his grace infifted on his voting article by article. The lord Caermarthen, the earl of Anglefey, and the earl of Nottingham did the like: but, the fame being oppofed by fome other peers, the lord chancellor at laft propofed this question, Whether the answer to be given by each lord fhould be guilty or not guilty only ? Which being refolved in the affirmative, then the main queftion was put, whether it should be afked, Is Henry Sacheve◄rel, doctor in divinity, guilty · of high crimes and mifdemeanor, charged upon him by the impeachment of the houfe of commons? This was likewife carried in the affirmative; when four and thirty lords entered their proteft, importing, in fubftance, That the obliging every lord to answer generally guilty or not guilty, to a queftion containing all the articles of his impeachment, was a kind of tacking upon them⚫ felves by an unneceffary joining of matters of a different nature, and fubjecting them to one and the fame determination; and confequently, might prejudice the right every peer had to give a free affirmative or negative; fince whoever thought Dr. Sacheverel guilty of one part, and innocent of the other, would be obliged either to approve what he * condemned, or condemn what only he approved. 2. They con'ceived, there was at leaft a poffibility, that though a majority of the house was admitted to vote to the articles feparately, and might think him 'innocent upon each article; yet, by this method of a general anfwer, he might be 'condemned of all; which 'feemed not to be confiftent ⚫ with the ufual method of juf tice in this houfe. 3. That fince the judgment of the houfe, in this cafe, ought to be a declaration of the law; the condition of the people would be moft miferable, to have punishment inflicted for high crimes and misdemeanors, and not have a poffibility of informing themselves, what the high crimes and mifdemeanors, thereby punished, ae. For the people's only guide is the law; and they can never be guided by what they can never be informed of. And that, this uncertainty being in the • cafe of a clergyman for preaching, it might create fome fear in good men, when they preach fome doctrines of the church of England, particularly that of non-refistance; and might be made ufe of by ill ones, as an excufe for the neglect of that duty, which upon fome occafions is required.' On the 20th of March, about three o'clock in the afternoon, the lords and commons having taken their respective seats, and their lordships houfe being refumed, the lord chancellor declared, that they had agreed upon 1710. only the lord-mayor being a member of the house of commons, did not think he was bound to be present (o). With and yet the commiffioners of fhires, who make part of the commons of Great - Britain, were not mentioned with the knights, citizens, and burgeffes in parliament affembled. Both which he begged their lordships to take into confider⚫ation.' The lords, being returned to their house, confidered of the doctor's plea; and refolved, that the fame was frivolous, and that they would the next day confider what cenfure to pafs upon him. Pr. H. L. upon a question to be put to each 6 (0) The fentence paffed upon him was, that Henry Sacheverel, doctor in divinity, shall be, and is hereby injoined not to preach during the term of three years next enfuing. That Dr. Henry Sacheverel's two printed fermons, referred to by the impeachment of the house of commons, fhall be burnt before the Royal Exchange in London, between the hours of twelve and one, on Monday the 27th dayof this inftant March, by the hands of the common hangman, in the prefence of the lord-mayor of the city of London, and the two fheriffs of London and Midfex. The lord-mayor, who was not a little mortified at his being, by the lords fentence, obliged to affift at the burning of a fermon, which he had approved, and commanded to be printed (as Dr. Sacheverel afferted in the dedication) defired and moved, that he might be excufed from attend the |