I scorned to take advantage of, and, in what I said, rectified. But this served for a shew of an excuse. They said something more on this head, but not to what was my objection; but promised the Doctor should clear all. Church and Constitution; yet still the question is, what hands are about to execute this judgment upon us? We charge him as representing the Church in danger under her majesty's administration; as suggesting that her majesty's administration, in Church and State, tends to the destruction of the constitution; and consequently, that the hands of those in the administration are about to execute such judgment; And he solemnly protests, he apprehends no danger but from God. My lords, this is trifling; for every such danger is from God, and is his judgment, whoever they be, whether her majesty, and her ministry, or any others, that immediately bring it upon us. This, therefore, instead of answering, is evading, and diverting your lordships' view from the persons he charges to be working the ruin of the Church, to God, the supreme director and over-ruler of all the actions and designs of men. As if the reflection on the queen and her administration were the less, for saying, that they are the instruments in the band of God to scourge the nation for its sins, and to exe cute his vengeance in overthrowing the Church and Constitution. So that I am afraid, this part of his solemn protestation is either false, or evasive, or both. And let so much suffice to be added on these clauses. To what I offered to your lordships on the clause of keeping up distinction of factions and parties: I desire to add the weight of one authority, out of the excellent Sermon preached by the most reverend prelate, my lord archbishop of York, and produced by the Doctor. The words are these: "They are factious, they are setters up and abettors of parties, who endeavour to destroy, or unsettle, or disparage, or in the least hurt or weaken the government, and the laws as they are established: let the principles on which they go, or the pretences they make, be what they will." Whether the Doctor hath not endeavoured in the highest degree to disparage the government, and consequently to weaken it, your lordships will judge. As to the other clauses, they have offered very little, and I will not repeat what I said before. Only I would take notice, that under the head of stirring up to arms, something was urged by the counsel in relation to what I said upon some texts of Scripture, but so entirely mistaking my meaning, that I think myself unconcerned therein. As for perverting Scripture; The counsel would seem to pretend something or other to be the mistake of the printer, without saying where the mistake is, or how they would have it read. I will tell your lordships what the mistake is; it is printing the second chapter of Lamentations instead of the first, and misplacing the references to Lamentations and Zachariah; which My lords, I think I might reasonably here put an end to the trouble I am giving your lordships; but that I apprehend some things which fell from the Doctor, and which have not fallen in my way already, may be proper to be taken notice of, so far as concerns what is within my province. I own, his speech was extremely well composed, fitted not so much to inform (his case would not bear that), as to move, (wherein his hopes were more justly placed ;) not so much to state the question, and clear it, as to divert it: All the plausible topics were laboured, and ali the arguments that pressed hardest upon him, and most required an answer, passed over in silence; the whole framed to give the passions mastery over reason, and to induce a persuasion, that so good, so excellent a man as be painted himself, that has so many virtues, so great sincerity, so true a zeal for religion, could not be guilty of this charge, though plainly proved upon him: The protestations were strong and hearty, and such as will read well amongst the people; clear of all those qualifying clauses, that might perhaps bave made it suit better with the truth of his case, but would have had the inconvenience of giving to the readers suspicion of guilt. An agreeable concern for religion and virtue ran through all; which will always strike an audience, and seems intended to make some amends for the rage and fury, and zeal for party in the Sermon. I only wish, for the Doctor's sake, the composer had preserved a little more regard, as well to what was fit to be said here, (where the truth of the whole matter is known) as to what was fit to be said abroad, and given it a little more resemblance of the Doctor and bis Sermon; that he had not calculated so many parts of it for an appeal to the people, and to obtain their acquittal upon his own word. And I must needs say for myself, (though my liking, or disliking it, is of very little moment) had it had fewer and less solemn appeals to God Almighty, or more truth, or I known less of the matter, I should have liked it much better. He begins with making his order, the Church and Christianity to be concerned in the cause; intending it, I presume, to be understood abroad as a charge upon his accusers, that in his person they arraign all these. But I shall not pretend to follow him through out the whole speech, only point out some fallacies in it. My lords, great regard is to be had to the word, much more to the solemn declaration, much more to the oath of a clergyman, when he is free and unbiassed. But when he stands in judgment, when the rod is over him, when there is only one way open for escape from the just punishment due | to his crimes, by protesting his innocence; neither his word, nor his declaration, nor his oath is to be regarded. That method will acquit all that are accused; and the less conscience any such wretch has, the surer and easier will be his escape. And therefore your lordships will judge, by what the Doctor has taught the people, what he has published, and not by what he pretends to be his intentions in doing it. He makes complaint of the generality of the Charge, that it was such that he knew not where it would point. My lords, suppose we had followed the more common way, and set forth all the passages we have read, or the whole Sermon and Dedication verbatim, (as we might have done) with out pointing out what we objected to, or why; had that left him less in the dark? It was therefore more for his advantage, that we should tell him the particular points we would insist upon, than if we had left ourselves at liberty at the Trial, to make as many points as we then pleased. He lays it down for a rule, that the higher the charge is, the more clear ought the proof to be. My lords, the proof here is indisputable; the Sermons and Books are not denied to be his. And these are all that strictly make the evidence in the case; the rest is but argument, and shewing them to be libellous in the particulars in the Charge. But take proof in a larger sense, so as that it may extend to the reasoning upon the evi dence, and to the making good the Charge, as in this case is perhaps not improper : I have no reason, in respect of this Charge against him, to contest his rule, because the proof of it is clear in that sense too. But yet, for the sake of justice, I shall take the liberty to say, that, as applied to this case, it is a fallacy. This sort of proof arises from the sense and doctrine of his books. And, I presume, the Doctor cannot hope, that because this is charged to be so high a crime, as defaming and undermining the government, any more favourable meaning is to be put upon his words, than if it were the less crime of defaming a private person; or that your lordships should not understand in this case, (that which every body else that hears it, understands) and which your lordships would have understood, if it had not endangered the government. I own, I cannot comprehend why your lordships should be more shy of defending the government than a private reputation; or most afraid of censuring that which is infinitely the most dangerous consequence, if it escape uncensured. On the contrary, in the case of those things which tend to the overthrow of the constitution, where the rules and methods of inferior courts cannot apply a proper remedy, your lordships (upon the Impeachment of the Commons) may. Let the contrivance lie never so deep, be never so artfully wrought, when it strikes at our all, it would be absurd to say, the Commons may not bring it to the bar of justice, and your lordships prevent its dreadful effects, and give it the punishment it deserves. My lords, without that power, your constitution were weak and precarious. The Doctor observes in what manner the Charge against him is supported, not by express sentences of his, but by inferences, and joining independent sentences, (as to that part I have considered it already); and he seems to expect, that if he were guilty of suggesting and maintaining the things charged upon him, the passages might as easily be pointed to in his Sermon, as the doctrine in those he produced; and that bare reading, without a comament, would convict him. No, my lords-Even Doctor Sacheverell is not yet arrived at that pitch, as to arraign the government so directly and openly, as to preach a general doctrine. This fallacy seems very gross. For is it reasonable to think, that a man that intends to unhinge the government, to expose an administration, to fire the people, to raise sedition, should speak directly and plainly? No-he is to cover his design even from those he is to draw in; he is to pretend zeal for religion, insinuate himself by degrees, not shock his hearers at first with a declaration against a queen they are fond of; he must pretend zeal for her majesty, to preserve their good opinion of himself, while he is doing that which by degrees will alienate their affections from her. This he must do, though there were none to punish, and to prevent the dashing his own hopes of success. But when he knows that the power of the administration he is to revile and rail at, is over him, and at hand; that is a farther reason for caution: therefore in such discourses, dark phrases are to be studied, confused descriptions will be frequent, with a perpetual perplexity of expression, between saying what his rancour will not let him with-hold, and withholding what his fear will not let him speak out. Schemes of speech are to be contrived, that have two meanings; the one more obvious and plain, to have its full effect upon the people; and the other (that will occur to nobody else) a reserve to be offered to a court of justice. This is naturally to be expected in seditious discourses. But if your lordships will pass this by, which has spoke infinitely more plain and audaciously than any other (I believe) that ever so publicly dared authority, your lordships may expect to see a new discourse from the Doctor, where sedition, that had but a very thin disguise in this, shall there have none at all. And this may serve for an answer to what is urged from his zealous expressions for the queen; for if the whole discourse have quite another tendency, it is plain that those are only parts of the blind and disguise. He complains, that he is accused for what he has omitted, as if done with design; and his silence is made criminal. My lords, I was the person that took notice of his omissions, but I did not make them a part of his Charge. Indeed, when he in his Answer protested (as now he does more solemnly) his loyalty, I took that profession into consideration, as a part of his Defence, which I ought to take notice of. I had learned that the best way to try the truth or falsity of pretenders to virtue or religion, was by their fruits. Accordingly I considered his management of his text in this Sermon, how agreeable it was to such profession, and to see what fruits of loyalty I could find there. And your lordships will now apply those observations to his solemn appeal to God before your lordships, that his intentions, in that Sermon, were to exert his best endeavour for the security of her majesty. 1 shewed your lordships, that he omitted the only true notion of False Brotherhood in State, which took in the non-jurors and disaffected, though his text led to it; that he had omitted to make the proper use of the doctrine of Passive Obedience, which was to press obedience and submission to her majesty, though the day and the doctrine seemed both to require it. That he had set up another notion of False Brotherhood, which I shewed to be, upon his own principles, wrong. By these I tried bis pretences, and shewed, that if they were sincere, this behaviour was unaccountable; but if he were at heart for the Pretender, I made it manifest that all his procedure was just; nay, that even his notion of False Brotherhood was right to him that was of that mind, and that his application of the first of Lamentations was exact and fine upon that supposition, which is never to be justified or excused on any other. This 1 then pressed no farther, than to shew that his Sermon had in it no fruits of that loyalty which he pretended. But I may make a further use of it now, as a plain contradiction to his solemn declaration. For has he pretended to give any answer to this? Was I wrong in my notion of False Brotherhood, or was he right in his? Has he made that use of Passive Obedience, as to press submission to the queen from it? Has he not let the non-jurors escape, though his text led him to speak against them, and advanced a wrong notion of False Brotherhood merely to fall foul upon those that justify the Resistance in the Revolution, and cut off thereby every colour of title to the Pretender? Or does he offer to reconcile that proceeding with his pretence? No-And then, though bare omission were not a fault, yet I may now ask, is that omission consistent with his protestation of an intention to exert his best endeavour, for security of the queen? Did he exert or intend to exert his best endeavours, that omitted things so very obvious? On the contrary, he has fallen into the methods used by those that are against her majesty, to undermine and weaken her title, and to disparage her government, and to render it odious to the people. He complains that where he presses Obe dience to the queen, we say he means the Pre tender. My lords, it was one of the omissions that I urged against him in the manner I have just mentioned, that he no where presses obedience to the queen. Does he think it had not become him to shew where he did press it, if he could? Or what name does he think is to be given to his taking it for granted, that he had done that, which it was expressly charged he had not done, and which he cannot shew he has? He seems to complain of some expressions that have been used against him by the managers, as not becoming this place, or his order. My lords, I hope we shall always demean ourselves with just respect towards your lordships. And as to him, he is to consider that there is a wide difference between what a private man says of others, much more of his governors, in conversation, or in popular assemblies, and what is spoke of an accused person at his trial. In the former case, it is not fit to speak ill of them, that which is true; in the other, the crime is to be represented as it is, and the person is to have no respect paid him that shall any way tend to prevent shewing the full enormity of the crime in all its true colours. And if any thing has been said, which otherwise his orders would have secured him from, let him remember that his crime deprives him at this time of that protection; where it is one aggravation, that he has abused his holy function; which it was the business of the mana gers both to say and to make out. He complains that there is no allowance made to a minister rebuking vice and irreligion with zeal, when he happens thereby to be carried into an expression not well-guarded. My lords, his zeal is levelled more at persons than crimes, he mentions not false doctrines to confute them, nor the faults of those that hear him, that they may amend them; but rails at persons absent to expose them; and raise the passions of his auditory against them; his zeal leads to hunt out faults, for an occasion of complaint; to magnify whatever is amiss, and charge all home upon the government; departing from the office of an ambassador of the Prince of Peace, and preaching sedition and rebellion. And in such case, his orders are so far from being an excuse, that they are an aggravation; when he who ought to preach peace, longsuffering, gentleness and submission, foments divisions, creates jealousies, heightens animosities, and disturbs the government. But where there is a Sermon truly tending to promote religion and virtue, God forbid that any incautious expressions in it, though justly exceptionable, should be laid hold on as an occasion to punish the preacher; it has not been done, nor, I think, ought to be. Yet when a minister presumes to go out of his way, and to meddle with the government, he ought to be more than ordinarily wary in his expressions, since his character gives his reflections greater weight and force with the people, and his errors will therefore do the greatest mischief. And this man that professes to preach politics, and laughs at those that tell him it is his duty to preach peace, and is inflaming the people against their sovereign, must not think himself entitled to that favour. I own I am very well pleased to hear the Doctor's declaration in favour of the Succession in the House of Hanover, and his earnest prayer for perpetuating it. Because, whenever our sins shall be the occasion of our losing the best of queens, the security of our religion and liberties for our posterity depends upon it. But I a little wonder, that he appeals to God, that in this Sermon he had sincere intentions to exert his best endeavours for the security of the queen, and the Protestant Succession. I hope he is hearty for both, but sure his best endeavours for them are not exerted in this Sermon. As for the queen, I have spoke already. As for the Succession, I own myself entirely at a loss, in what part of the Sermon it is, that he has exerted any endeavour at all for the security of the Protestant Succession: I do not find any thing that I apprehend can concern it, except that place where he ridicules the notion of any right to the crown but an hereditary right. The counsel having in great measure declined that head about wresting and perverting divers texts and passages of Holy Scripture, and seeming to promise that the Doctor should give satisfaction therein; I was in great expectation of his performance there; but am miserably disappointed, and cannot but be in some confusion for the Doctor, though he seems to have entire satisfaction in himself. His conduct upon this clause, from first to last, amazes me. His Answer put in before your lordships to the Charge of the Commons, is throughout evasive and reflecting; but in this part of it there is a master piece of equivocation and malice, to avoid either confessing or denying the Charge, and to cast an odium on the Commons as persecutors of the clergy. The words are these: "Hard is the lot of the ministers of the gospel, if, when they cite the Word of God in their general exhortations to piety and virtue; or in reproof of men's trangressions, or where they are lamenting the difficulties and conflicts with which the Church of Christ, whilst militant here on earth, must always struggle; the several texts and passages by them cited, shalf be said to have been by them meant of particular persons and things, and shall be considered in the most criminal sense, and be made by such construction, one ground of an Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors." These are the words of his Answer; and, give me leave to ask, do they deny, or do they confess the charge? Neither But are an appeal to the passions of the people, amongst whom it has been so industriously and irregularly dispersed. Yet I dare say every unwary reader took the Doctor to have denied this Charge, and felt some indignation against the Commons for making it. My lords, he has now come upon his trial, he has been charged home upon this head. And permit me to say, there cannot be a heavier charge upon a minister of the gospel, nor more affecting to any one that has not abandoned all pretence to common honesty. Give me leave to mention some of those solemn words, wherein a priest receives his orders. "Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his Sacraments, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This crime therefore, when committed by a priest, is betraying that sacred trust reposed in him with his holy orders; it is forging the authority of God, it is assuming a superiority over the inspired writers, if not over him that inspired them. The Doctor therefore, that is sensible (as he says) of the load of guilt and infamy the Charge of the Commons lays upon him, and whereof this is surely the heaviest part; what does he say to this? He says, If he be guilty he is to answer it at another tribunal, where he is to be judged by those scriptures. My lords, so he is to answer at that great tribunal for every branch of this present Charge. But is this all? Is he negligent of his reputation in no other instance but this, that is the tenderest and most affecting? Or will he thus give himself up for a falsifier of the Word of God, and yet have the confidence to hope for any reputation, or any capacity of doing good in preaching it? Is it thus the dignity of the sacred order is to be supported? Is this the cause of the Church, and of Christianity? And are they wound up in the fate of an impostor and false prophet? Pardon the warmth of expression; his not saying a word to the Charge, owns all this. My lords, it is true (as the Doctor has said) the Sacred Order, the Church and Christianity are concerned in this cause; but it is, that they may be cleared from the reproach brought upon them by this unhappy man. But if he be self-condemned, if he dare not open his mouth on this subject, how dare he declare his hopes, that those of your lordships, whose studies more particularly lead that way, should acquit him? My lords, he has made an appearance before your lordships in a manner very extraordinary, not only as in a defence of a prosecution, but as in a most solemn act of devotion, before the most august judicature on earth, appealing to a yet greater in heaven. But with what sincerity! what candour! or what sense of that which he has done! I am amazed, that a person in holy orders, in his distinguished habit, before this awful assembly, should dare to take the tremendous name of God into his lips, and appeal to him for the sincerity and integrity of his heart, at that very time when he stands charged with this black crime, and is neither able to repel it, nor has the sincerity and honesty to repent, to take shame upon himself in the most public manner, and to ask pardon of God and the world for it. But while he can thus, with such assurance as your lordships have seen, and now see, face out such a crime, and be equivocating and playing double with your lordships, with God Almighty, and bis own conscience; what regard is to be had to his most solemn protesta tions? His manifest insincerity in this plain point leaves him no credit in any thing; and his having taken the Abjuration Oath, gives me not the least difficulty, after what I have observed of his more solemn oath before your lordships. My lords, the just veneration we owe to the divine majesty, (for the Doctor's behaviour has made that now part of the case) the honour of Christianity, the Church and its holy orders, the security of the present establishment and the Protestant Succession, the safety of her majesty's person, the quiet of her government, the duty we owe to her as our sovereign, the gratitude for her most gracious administration, the honour of our prelates, the obligations we are under to prevent seditions and tumults, to undeceive the people, to quiet the minds of the Protestant Dissenters, and convince them the Toleration allowed them by law is not to be taken away from them, to secure at present, and transmit to our posterity (as far as in us lies) our religion and liberties, and vindicate the Revolution (which is the foundation on which they stand), and the glory of our late royal Deliverer, to whom, under God, we owed it; and to banish sedition from the pulpit, which is, and ever ought to be sacred to divine purposes, require the Commons to demand your lordships' judgment on this offender. But, my lords, he observes so far rightly, that his punishment is not all we aim at. No, my lords, What we expect from your lordships justice, is, the supporting our establishment, the preventing all attempts to sap its foundation, and answering those other great purposes I have mentioned; and I hope the clergy will be instructed, not to preach the VOL. XV. doctrine of submission in such manner as to prepare the way to rebellion, but to follow the advice and example of my lord archbishop of York, rather than tread in the steps of Dr. Sacheverell: And we doubt not, but that those to whom our proceedings have been so industriously misrepresented, will see and own the favour shewn to this man, in the manner of the Charge; and our care for the honour of the Church and clergy, in singling out for an example for these impious attempts against his country, him that now plainly appears the shame of his own order. Lord Nottingham. My lords, I desire your opinion, whether I may propose a question to the judges here? Thereupon the Lords, being moved to adjourn, adjourned to the House of Lords; and being returned, and seated as before, proclamation was made for silence. Note, during this adjournment, the Lords on debate agreed, that the question should be proposed in Westminster-hall. Lord Nottingham. My lords, the question I noble lord on the woolsack may propose to the humbly propose to your lordships, that my England, and constant practice in all prosecureverend judges, is, Whether by the law of tions, by indictment or information for crimes the particular words, supposed to be criminal, and misdemeanors, by writing or speaking, must not be expressly specified in such indict ment or information? [Then the Lords were moved to adjourn, and accordingly adjourned to the House of Lords; and being returned, and seated as before, proclamation was made for silence.] Lord Chancellor. I take it, the question that your lordships are of opinion to ask the judges for them to give an answer to, is, Whether by the law of England, and constant practice in all prosecutions, by indictment or information for crimes and misdemeanors, by writing or speaking, the particular words, supposed to be criminal, must not be expressly specified in such indictment or information? Baron Lovell. My lords, I have always taken it to be so, and by constant experience we have practised it so, that all words and writings, which are supposed to be criminal, ought to be expressly mentioned in the infor mation or indictment. Just. Dormer. My lords, I am of opinion, that by the laws of England, and constant practice in all prosecutions, by indictment or information for crimes and misdemeanors, in writing or speaking, the particular words supposed to be criminal, ought to be specified in * As to this, see 4 Hats. Prec. 281 (title Impeachment, chap. 3, art. 12,) and the Note. See, also, in this Collection, vol. 7, p. 143; vol. 13, p. 10, 11; and the Case of Warren Hastings as referred to by Mr. Hatsell in hie Note. 2 H |