457. The Trials of Major STEDE BONNET, and Thirty-three others,

at the Court of Vice-Admiralty, at Charles-Town, in South-Caro-

lina, for Piracy, A. D. 1718

...

458. Proceedings of the House of Lords in Ireland against JEFFERY

GILBERT, esq. Lord Chief Baron, JOHN POCKLINGTON,

Esq. and Sir JOHN ST. LEGER, knt. Barons of the Exchequer

there, for issuing Process in the Cause of Annesley and Sherlock,

in opposition to an Order of that House, A. D. 1719

459. The Trial of JOHN MATTHEWS, Printer, for High Treason, for

printing a Libel, entitled, "Ex ore tuo te judico, Vox Populi

"Vox Dei,” at the Sessions House, in the Old Bailey, before the

Lord Chief Justice King, Lord Chief Baron Bury, the Judges

Powis, Blencow, Price, Tracy, Eyre, Montagu, Fortescue, Page,

and Dormer, A. D. 1719 .................................

The Trial of WILLIAM NEWBOLT and EDWARD Buttler,

Printers, for High Treason, in compassing and imagining the

Death of their most sacred Majesties King William and

Queen Mary. [Now first published from the Harleian MSS.

in the British Museum.] [N.]

Page

1231

1302

1323

..... 1404

460. The Trial of the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM HENDLEY, for preaching

a Charity Sermon at Chislehurst, in Kent, for the Charity Chil-

dren of St. Ann's, Aldersgate, London; and of GEORGE

CAMPMAN, ROBERT HICKS, FILIAR HARDING, and

WALTER PRATT, the Schoolmaster, and Trustees for the

Charity Children, for collecting Money for the same; at Roche-

ster Assizes in Kent, before sir Littleton Powys, knt. one of his

Majesty's Justices of the Court of King's-Bench, A. D. 1719...... 1407

A COMPLETE COLLECTION

STATE

OF

TRIALS,

&c. &c.

442. The Trial of HENRY SACHEVERELL, D. D. upon an Impeachment before the House of Lords, for High Crimes and Misdemeanors: 9 ANNE, A. D. 1710.

AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT PASSED MOST
REMARKABLE IN THE SESSIONS OF
PARLIAMENT, 1709, 1710, IN THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS, RELATING
TO THE CASE OF DR. HENRY SA-
CHEVERELL.*

December 15, 1709.

A COMPLAINT being made this day, in the House of Commons, of two printed Books, the One entituled, "The Communication of Sin; a Sermon preached at the Assizes held at Derby, August 15, 1709, by Dr. Henry Sacheverell:" And the other entituled, "The Perils of False Brethren both in Church and State; set forth in a Sermon preached before the right honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, at the cathedral church of St. Paul, on the 5th of November, 1709," preached also by the said Dr. Henry Sacheverell†; and both printed for Henry Clements:

* This very prejudiced account, drawn up, perhaps, by Salmon, is copied from the former editions; in which it was inserted in vol. 8, with a notice that it should be read before the Trial, which had been inserted in vol. 5. Concerning forms of procedure, see what material occurred as to this Case in the Journal, as referred to, 4 Hats. Prec.

+ Upon this occasion bishop Kennet, then dean of Peterborough (see the article Kennet in the Biographia Britannica) published a True Answer to Dr. Sacheverell's Sermon, &c. in a letter addressed to an alderman of the city. It is worth perusal.

The doctrines, concerning the question of Resistance and the Revolution of 1688, which were in this case asserted by the Managers for the Commons, form the ground-work of Mr. VOL. XV.

which Books were delivered in at the table; where several paragraphs in the Epistle Dedicatory, preceding the first mentioned Book, and also several paragraphs in the latter Book,

were read.

Resolved, That a Book entituled, "The Communication of Sin; being a Sermon preached at the Assizes held at Derby, August 15, 1709" and a Book, entituled, "The Perils of False Brethren both in Church and State; set forth in a Sermon preached before the right honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, at the cathedral church of St. Paul, on the 5th of November, 1709," are malicious, scandalous and seditious libels; highly reflecting upon her majesty and government, the late happy Revolution, and the Protestant Succession as by law established, and both Houses of Parliament; tending to alienate the affections of her majesty's good subjects, and to create jealousies and divisions among them,

Ordered, That Dr. Henry Sacheverell, and Henry Clements, do attend at the bar of the House to-morrow.

Burke's Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs.' At the present period, the unqualified doctrine of Non-Resistance appears to be abandoned; though much difference of opinion may subsist, as to the cases in which Resistance is justifiable. Blackstone's observations on the matter are well worthy of attention:

"As to such public oppressions as tend to dissolve the constitution, and subvert the fundamentals of government, they are cases, which the law will not, out of decency, suppose: being incapable of distrusting those, whom it bas invested with any part of the supreme power; since such distrust would render the exercise of that power precarious and impracticable. For, wherever the law expresses its distrust of abuse of power, it always vests a superior coercive authority in some

B

thing in the Sermons malicious, scandalous, or seditious; nor reflecting on her majesty and government, the late happy Revolution, and the Protestant Succession as by law established; of which they did not observe any mention; neither had the paragraphs the least re

latent) powers of society, which no climate, no time, no constitution, no contract, can ever destroy or diminish."

And again :

"After what has been premised in this chapter, I shall not (I trust) be considered as an advocate for arbitrary power, when I lay it down as a principle, that in the exertion of lawful prerogative, the king is and ought to be absolute; that is, so far absolute, that there is no legal authority that can either delay or resist him. He may reject what bills, may make what treaties, may coin what money, may create what peers, may pardon what offences he pleases: unless where the constitution bath

other hand to correct it; the very notion of which destroys the idea of sovereignty. If therefore (for example) the two Houses of Parliament, or either of them, had avowedly a right to animadvert on the king, or each other, or if the king had a right to animadvert on either of the Houses, that branch of the legislature, so subject to animadversion, would instantly cease to be part of the supreme power; the balance of the constitution would be overturned; and that branch or branches, in which this “jurisdiction resided, would be completely sovereign. The supposition of law therefore is, that neither the king nor either House of Parliament (collectively taken) is capable of doing any wrong; since in such cases the law feels itself incapable of furnishing any adequate re-expressly, or by evident consequence, laid down medy. For which reason all oppressions, which may happen to spring from any branch of the sovereign power, must necessarily be out of the reach of any stated rule, or express legal provision: but, if ever they unfortunately happen, the prudence of the times must provide new remedies upon new emergencies.

some exception or boundary; declaring, that thus far the prerogative shall go and no farther. For otherwise the power of the crown would indeed be but a name and a shadow, insufficient for the ends of government, if, where its jurisdiction is clearly established and allowed, any man or body of men were permitted to disobey "Indeed, it is found by experience, that it, in the ordinary course of law: I say, in the whenever the unconstitutional oppressions, even ordinary course of law; for I do not now speak of the sovereign power, advance with gigantic of those extraordinary recourses to first princistrides and threaten desolation to a state, man- ples, which are necessary when the contracts kind will not be reasoned out of the feelings of of society are in danger of dissolution, and the humanity; nor will sacrifice their liberty by a law proves too weak a defence against the vioscrupulous adherence to those political maxims, lence of fraud or oppression. And yet the which were originally established to preserve want of attending to this obvious distinction has it. And therefore, though the positive laws occasioned these doctrines, of absolute power are silent, experience will furnish us with a in the prince and of national resistance by the very remarkable case, wherein nature and people, to be much misunderstood and pervertreason prevailed. When king James the 2ded by the advocates for slavery on the one invaded the fundamental constitution of the realm, the convention declared an abdication, whereby the throne was rendered vacant, which induced a new settlement of the crown. And so far as this precedent leads, and no farther, we may now be allowed to lay down the law of redress against public oppression. If therefore any future prince should endeavour to subvert the constitution by breaking the original contract between king and people, should violate the fundamental laws, and should withdraw himself out of the kingdom; we are now authorised to declare that this conjunction of circumstances would amount to an abdication, and the throne would be thereby vacant. But it is not for us to say, that any one, or two, of these ingredients would amount to such a situation; for there our precedent would fail us. In these therefore, or other circumstances, which a fertile imagination may furnish, since both law and history are silent, it becomes us to be silent too; leaving to future generations, whenever necessity and the safety of the whole shall require it, the exertion of those inherent (though

hand, and the demagogues of faction on the other. The former, observing the absolute sovereignty and transcendent dominion of the crown laid down (as it certainly is) most strongly and emphatically in our law-books, as well as our homilies, have denied that any case can be excepted from so general and positive a rule; forgetting how impossible it is, in any practical system of laws, to point out beforehand those eccentrical remedies, which the sudden emergence of national distress may dictate, and which that alone can justify. On the other hand, over zealous republicans, feeling the absurdity of unlimited passive obedience, have fancifully (or sometimes factiously) gone over to the other extreme: and, because resistance is justifiable to the person of the prince when the being of the state is endangered, and the public voice proclaims such resistance necessary, they have therefore allowed to every individual the right of determining this expedience, and of employing private force to resist even private oppression. A doctrine productive of anarchy, and (in consequence) equally fatal