A COMPLETE COLLECTION

OF

STATE 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.

John Dolben, esq. made the first motion against the two Sermons, and was seconded by Spencer Cowper, esq. [See his Case, vol. 13, p. 1105.]

They were opposed by several gentlemen; who said, they did not perceive there was any

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 hath

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

be in danger; not from her majesty's administration, but from Papists on the one hand, and Fanatics on the other; from these her professed enemies, and from False Brethren.' It was owned, there were some warm expressions in the Sermon preached at St. Paul's: as the basis of his administration, the duty of obedience follows of course; and therefore the apostle adds in the very next verse: • Wherefore we must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.'

lation to it. What concerned both Houses of Parliament, was supposed to be the Vote passed four or five years before, about the Church being in danger: and as to that, it was affirmed, the Church was then in danger, was still in danger, and, it was to be feared, would always to civil liberty as tyranny itself. For civil liberty,rightly understood, consists in protecting the rights of individuals by the united force of society: society cannot be maintained, and of course can exert no protection, without obedience to some sovereign power: and obedience is an empty name, if every individual has a right to decide how far he himself shall obey." Dr. Tucker, the celebrated dean of Glouces ter, thus expresses himself in his ' Treatise concerning Civil Government:

"Hooker certainly was no favourer of the debasing doctrine of absolute and unlimited passive obedience and non-resistance: and if that is sufficient to denominate a man a Lockian, I too, must humbly request to be inrolled among their number, for I maintain the right of resisting in certain cases of extreme necessity as warmly as any modern patriot whatever."

And again: As to public grievances and well founded national complaints; what would have been the gospel doctrine concerning the extent of passive obedience, or that degree of patient submission, which ought to be paid to the higher powers, in case they were to be notoriously guilty in the abuse of their trust: this question was never started: Therefore the gospel of Christ is totally silent on that head. And perhaps it would always be the better, and the safer course, to leave these points, as the gospel has left them, totally undecided.-I say it would be the better and the safer course; because, as obedience is a general duty, and disobedience or resistance only an excepted case, on some extraordinary emergence, the natural sense and feelings of mankind are seldom or ever wanting to apprize them in any point, where a duty is to be relaxed. Nay, it is well if they are not too quick-sighted, and more officious than they ought to be in suggesting exeeptions and dispensations.

"On this principle it is, that kings and magistrates are reputed God's vicegerents: On this principle it is, that their authority is desubjects cannot even fear God, in the manner rived from him: And consequently that their they ought to do, without honouring his ministers and representatives here on earth.

"But supposing that these vicegerents should act contrary to their commission: Supposing that they should no longer conduct themselves as the ministers of God for good. In such a case, what is to be done? I answer it is very apparent from the terms of their commission, that they are no longer entitled to the obedience of the subject, as a point of duty and conscience. But nothing farther can be inferred from the mere words of Scripture; all the rest being left to men's natural feelings and discretion, to do the best they can in such an unhappy situation: Only we should always bear in mind this necessary caution, that though we are free, we ought not to use our liberty as a cloak for maliciousness, but to behave as the servants of God.'

"And as the Holy Scriptures are thus averse to the giving any countenance to popular tumults and insurrections, it is very observable, that the English constitution acts with the like eaution and reserve. For the boundary line between resistance and obedience is no more marked out by the laws of England, than it is in the gospel of Christ:-Cases and exceptions there undoubtedly are, in which it would be right not to obey, and even to repel force by force. But nevertheless the English constitution doth not point out those cases, for fear mankind should make a bad use of such an interpretation; for fear crafty and designing men should mislead the giddy populace, to deem that to be legal liberty, which in truth and reality is no better than a rampant licentiousness, and lawless anarchy; and which therefore must, in the course of things, end in the despotism and tyranny of some cunning bold usurper."

"It is true, the precepts in Scripture, which require obedience to the higher powers, urge such motives, as by a natural construction may imply, that where such motives are wanting, there lies no obligation to obey. And I freely grant, that such an inference may be fairly made: But nevertheless the Scriptures are silent about it: They make no such inference, but leave the relaxation of this duty to those whom it in a 30th of January Sermon, preached be[This last topic had been very well treated may concern. Thus, for example, the reasons for obeying the civil magistrate, as alleged by fore the House of Lords, by the admirable St. Paul, are,Because he is a terror to evil bishop Butler, to whom dean Tucker had been doers, and for the praise of them that do well; chaplain.] See more as to the doctrine of Nonbecause he is the minister of God for good, at-resistance, in vol. 8, p. 1016, vol. 11, p. 1171, tending continually on this very thing; for and the places there referred to. which purpose he beareth not the sword in vain, being a revenger to execute wrath on them that do evil.' Now this being supposed

Bolingbroke, in his Letter to sir William Windham, speaks of what he calls the violent prosecution of Sacheverell,' as "one of the un

I observe that after the period of Sacheverell's silence had expired, he preached before the House of Commons, on the 29th of May 1713, and on the next day he received the thanks of the House for his sermon, and was desired to print it.

Of the Doctor's mathematical knowledge, the following proof is stated in the Encyclopædia Britannica, (art. Sorcery') to occur in one of his compositions. "They concur like parallel lines meeting in one common centre." The same thing is related in Number 59, of the "Review of the State of the British Nation," for the year 1709, written I suppose by De Foe, and elsewhere in animadversions upon Sacheverell's conduct and his trial. In this work the blunder is exposed in the following epigram, such as it is:

and no wonder that a true son of the Church | the Church, her doctrines and ministers, to of England should express himself with some blaspheme the name of God, and to insult, and warmth and vehemence against the liberties treat with contempt, every thing that is sacred. that were taken, and with impunity, to revile To this little was returned, besides bitter invec popular measures, which might create the oc- man, with a very small measure of religion, casion, and encourage the queen in the resolu- virtue, learning, or good sense, but he resolved tion, to change her parliament and ministry in to force himself into popularity and prefer1710." Swift, vol. 5, p. 81. See also Swift, ment, by the most petulant railings at Disvol. 22, p. 62, vol. 23, p. 150. senters, and Low-Churchmen, in several Sermons and Libels, wrote without either chasteness of stile, or liveliness of expression: all scurrilous language. When he had pursued was one unpractised strain of indecent and this method for several years without effect, he was at last brought up by a popular election to a church in Southwark, where he began to make great reflections on the ministry, representing that the Church was in danger, being neglected by those who governed, while they favoured her most inveterate enemies. At the assizes in Derby (where he preached before the judges) and on the fifth of November (preaching at St. Paul's in London) he gave a full vent to his fury, in the most virulent declamation, that he could contrive, upon these words of St. Paul's, Perils from false brethren;' in which, after some short reflections upon Popery, he let himself loose into such indecencies, that both the man and the Sermon were universally condemned: he asserted the doctrine of Non-Resistance in the highest strain possible, and said, that to charge the Revolution with Resistance, was to cast black and odious imputations on it; pretending, that the late king had disowned it, and cited for the by which he vindicated himself from a design proof of that, some words in his Declaration, of conquest. He poured out much scorn and scurrility on the Dissenters, and reflected severely on the Toleration; and said the Church was violently attacked by her enemies, and loosely defended by her pretended friends: he animated the people to stand up for the defence of the Church, for which he said he sounded the trumpet, and desired them to put In Swift's Correspondence is a Letter from on the whole armour of God. The court of Sacheverell, dated January 31, 1712, by which aldermen refused to desire him to print his it appears that Swift had been pleased to unSermon ; but he did print it, pretending it was dertake the generous office of soliciting my upon the desire of Garrard, then lord mayor, good lord treasurer's favour" in Sacheverell's to whom he dedicated it, with an inflaming behalf. The writer also says, "I should be epistle at the head of it. The party, that opproud of an opportunity of expressing my gra-mon, that, as was generally reckoned, about posed the ministry, did so magnify the Sertitude to that eminent patriot" [Mr. Secretary St. John,]" for whom no one that wishes for the welfare of his church or country, can have too great a veneration."

As brother Creech bung in the sacred twine,
So may it please this reverend wise divine
To hang himself, 'twould make a parallel line.
Then my credit, and all but my soul, I would ven-
ture,

If the Scriptures are true, they will meet in the

centre:

O how it would please our modern phanatics,
To see high-church hanging in such mathematics."
Of this Trial of Sacbeverell, Swift in his
"Enquiry into the Behaviour of the Queen's
last Ministry," says, that "it was a general
muster of both parties." And in his "Consi-
derations upon the Death of the Queen," he
says, that "it drew the populace as one man
into the party against the ministry and parlia-

ment."

The following is Burnet's account of the proceedings against Sacheverell:

"The great business of this session, that took up most of their time, and that had great effects in conclusion, related to Dr. Sacheverell: this being one of the most extraordinary transactions in my time, I will relate it very copiously. Dr. Sacheverell was a bold insolent

40,000 of them were printed, and dispersed over the nation. The queen seemed highly offended at it, and the ministry looked on it as an attack made on them, that was not to be that it was next to the naming him, so a pardespised. The lord treasurer was so described, Eyre, then solicitor general, and others, thought liamentary impeachment was resolved on; the short way of burning the Sermon, and keeping him in prison during the session, was the better method; but the more solemn way was unhappily chosen.

"There had been, ever since the queen