supreme power, by other passages, he explains to be the regal

power.

And being apprehensive, that every one that heard him talking in that manner against Resistance, would see plainly he was censuring and condemning the means that brought about the Revolution, and being desirous to cast as heavy reflections as he could upon the memory of king William, he asserts, 'That the Prince of Orange, in his Declaration, utterly disclaimed all manner of Resistance.'

My lords, everybody knows, that knows anything of the Revolution, That the Prince of Orange came over with an armed force; and that in several paragraphs of his Declaration, (the Doctor speaks of) His late Majesty invites and requires all peers of the realm, both spiritual and temporal lords, all gentlemen, citizens, and other commoners, to come in and assist him, in order to the executing that design he had then undertook, against all that should endeavour to oppose him.

Therefore it must be accounted very ridiculous for the Doctor to advance such a position, if he had no further meaning in it, than to give an account of the Prince of Orange's design in coming over here into England.

And this will make it necessary for your lordships to consider what is the true meaning of this assertion: is it not plainly to make the Prince of Orange say one thing, and at the same time do directly another? And can this be done with any other design than to asperse the memory of the late king William ?

Then as to his discourse concerning Passive Obedience and NonResistance, in such latitude as is there mentioned; what could it tend to, but to cast reflections upon that Resistance, which was the means that brought about the Revolution?

For was there any occasion at that time to be so earnest to cry down Resistance and preach up Passive Obedience?

Can any one pretend to say, there were any symptoms of discontent throughout the nation, in any parts thereof?

No: to our comfort be it spoken, no reign, no age, no history, can give a better account of the good dispositions of the people to their sovereign. Therefore, since the preaching these doctrines was needless, it does savour of some wicked design, to be talking so unreasonably of this subject.

If what the doctor very frequently asserts in this sermon be true, That all are false sons of the Church, who assisted in bringing about the Revolution, or that joined in the opposition that was made to the encroachments which were begun by evil ministers in the reign

of king James 2, against our religion and liberties; let the Doctor a little consider, how far his character of a False Brother may be carried!

Everybody knows, that lived in those days that the body of the clergy of the Church of England made a noble stand against the encroachments which were then making, and appeared as active as any of the laity.

And was it not by their writings, preaching, and example, that the nobility and gentry were animated to maintain and defend their rights, religion and liberties?...

Mr. Lechmere. I crave leave to remind your lordships of the condition of things in both kingdoms immediately preceding the late Revolution: the case is stated and recorded, between the late king James and the subjects of both kingdoms, in the several Declarations of the Rights of both nations made by them at that time.

I shall forbear to aggravate the miscarriages of that unhappy prince, further than by saying that it is declared in the preamble to the bill passed in England, That by the assistance of evil counsellors, judges and ministers, employed by him, he did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, the laws and liberties of this kingdom, in the several instances there enumerated. And in that passed in the kingdom of Scotland, it stands declared, That, by the advice of evil counsellors, he did invade the fundamental constitution of that kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited monarchy, to an arbitrary despotic power.

Your lordships, on this occasion, will again consider the ancient legal constitution of the government of this kingdom; from which it will evidently appear to your lordships, that the subjects of this realm had not only a power and right in themselves to make that Resistance, but lay under an indispensable obligation to do it.

The nature of our constitution is that of a limited monarchy, wherein the supreme power is communicated and divided between Queen, Lords, and Commons, though the executive power and administration be wholly in the crown. The terms of such a constitution do not only suppose, but express an original contract between the crown and the people; by which that supreme power was [by mutual consent and not by accident] limited and lodged in more hands than one: and the uniform preservation of such a constitution for so many ages without any fundamental change, demonstrates to your lordships the continuance of the same contract.

The consequences of such a frame of government are obvious: that the laws are the rule to both, the common measure of the

power of the crown, and of the obedience of the subject; and if the executive part endeavours the subversion, and total destruction of the government, the original contract is thereby broke, and the right of allegiance ceases: that part of the government thus fundamentally injured, hath a right to save or recover that constitution in which it had an original interest.

Nay, the nature of such an original contract of government proves, that there is not only a power in the people, who have inherited its freedom, to assert their own title to it, but they are bound in duty to transmit the same constitution to their posterity also.

It is mis-spending your lordships' time to illustrate this: it is an eternal truth, essential to the government itself and not to be defaced or destroyed by any force or device.

That the rights of the crown of England are legal rights, and its power stated and bounded by the laws of the kingdom; that the executive power and administration itself is under the strictest guard for the security of the people; and that the subjects have an inheritance in their ancient fundamental constitutions, and the laws of the land, appears from every branch of this government. It is the tenour of all antiquity; our histories and records afford innumerable proofs of it and when your lordships look back on the history of Magna Charta alone, you cannot doubt of the sense of our ancestors, that they were masters of franchises that were truly their own, and which no earthly power had right to extort from them. Many others, of incontestable authority, are those valuable relicts which our popish ancestors have left us, as proofs of the freedom of our constitution, of the constant claims they made, both in and out of parliament, to their inheritance in their laws against the encroachment of arbitrary power; and when the last extremity called them to it, they never failed to vindicate them by the arms of Resistance.

Such was the genius of the people, whose government was built on that noble foundation, not to be bound by laws to which they did not consent: that muffled up in darkness and superstition, as our ancestors were, yet that notion seemed engraven on their minds, and the impressions so strong, that nothing could impair them.

Upon the Reformation of religion, when all foreign power was abolished, and the supremacy of the crown was restored to its height by many acts of parliament, your lordships will always find declarations at the same time made of the rights of the people; particularly that of 25th of H. 8, where it is said, That the realm of England is free from any man's laws, but such as have been devised, made and ordained within the same, for the wealth of it; or such other, as the

people of the realm have taken at their free will and consent, and by long use have bound themselves to, as the ancient established laws of the realm, and none otherwise.

Your lordships will, I doubt not, consider those laws made at that time, to be fresh and remarkable declarations and ratifications of the original contract . . .

My lords, I take the liberty to acquaint your lordships, that the Commons conceive, that the laws and statutes of the realm, and the order and peace of government, necessarily enjoin it as a duty upon all private subjects, to represent their sense of the nation's grievances in a course of law and justice, and not otherwise; and whenever the oppressions become national or public, they claim it as the peculiar right of their own body, to pursue the evil instruments of them, till public vengeance be done; and at the same time the Commons assure your lordships, that they will account it their indispensable duty to her majesty and their country to assert the justice and wisdom of her administration, against the enemies of both.

I have thus stated to your lordships the nature of this cause; wherein, I persuade myself you perceive many points of the highest moment to the peace and welfare of the kingdom.

The tendency of the crimes, of which the prisoner stands accused, lies open and apparent. But yet I beg your patience, to draw the scene a little closer.

Your lordships will perceive the necessary consequence of a position meant and expounded so as to persuade the world, that the glorious work of the Revolution was the fruit of rebellion, and the work of traitors. Does it not declare the late reign to be one of continued usurpation? And under what better circumstances does it bring the present?

Is the Act of Toleration condemned with any other tendency than to weaken so great a support of the Revolution itself? And I entreat your lordships to consider the certain fatal effects of a universal dissatisfaction of the people, in things that concern them nearest, the safety of the Church of England, and the Protestant interest, and the security of themselves and their prosperity.

It is true, my lords, that, considered at a distance, there seems a repugnancy in this gentleman's system. How comes it to pass, that absolute Non-Resistance and the spirit of rebellion stand so well together, and are made so suitable, in the same discourse?

But, if your lordships should discern, in any part of his Sermon, any dark hints, or disguised opinions, of a sole Hereditary Right of Succession to the crown, that will show your lordships the true con

sistency of the whole; your lordships will find, that in his opinion, the duty of absolute Non-Resistance is owing to him only that has the divine commission to govern; and from thence your lordships cannot fail of knowing against what queen, what government, what establishment, he encourages the taking up the arms of Resistance.

...

Mr. Walpole. My lords, the Commons are now making good their Charge against Doctor Henry Sacheverell contained in the first Article, wherein he is accused for suggesting and maintaining, that the necessary means used to bring about the happy Revolution were odious and unjustifiable, and that to impute Resistance to the Revolution, is to cast black and odious colours on his late Majesty and the Revolution.

By what has been already offered to your lordships, I make no doubt but you are fully convinced how injurious these positions must be to the peace and quiet of the kingdom, and how highly they deserve, and loudly call for, your lordships' speedy and exemplary justice.

The great licentiousness of the press, in censuring and reflecting upon all parts of the government, has of late given too just cause of offence; but when any pamphlets and common libels are matters of complaint; when none but mercenary scribblers, and the hackney pens of a discontented party, are employed to vent their malice, it is fit to leave them to the common course of the law, and to the ordinary proceeding of the courts below. But, my lords, when the trumpet is sounded in Sion; when the pulpit takes up the cudgels; when the cause of the enemies of our government is called the cause of God, and of the Church; when this bitter and poisonous pill is gilded over with the specious name of loyalty, and the people are taught, for their soul's and conscience's sake, to swallow these pernicious doctrines: when, instead of sound religion, divinity, and morality, factious and seditious discourses are become the constant entertainments of some congregations; the Commons cannot but think it high time to put a stop to this growing evil, and for the authority of a parliament to interpose, and exert itself, in defence of the Revolution, the present government, and the Protestant succession. All which the Commons think so materially concerned in this question, that if the doctrines advanced by Doctor Sacheverell are not criminal in the highest degree, it will follow that the necessary means used to bring about the Revolution were illegal, and consequently that the present establishment, and Protestant succession, founded upon that Revolution, are void and of no effect.