No More Learning

Such an auditory had never before and has never since been
assembled in the Court of King's Bench. Thirty-five temporal peers of
the realm were counted in the crowd. [394]

All the four judges of the Court were on the bench. Wright, who
presided, had been raised to his high place over the heads of many abler
and more learned men solely on account of his unscrupulous servility.
Allybone was a Papist, and owed his situation to that dispensing power,
the legality of which was now in question. Holloway had hitherto been
a serviceable tool of the government. Even Powell, whose character for
honesty stood high, had borne a part in some proceedings which it is
impossible to defend. He had, in the great case of Sir Edward Hales,
with some hesitation, it is true, and after some delay, concurred with
the majority of the bench, and had thus brought on his character a stain
which his honourable conduct on this day completely effaced.

The counsel were by no means fairly matched. The government had required
from its law officers services so odious and disgraceful that all the
ablest jurists and advocates of the Tory party had, one after another,
refused to comply, and had been dismissed from their employments. Sir
Thomas Powis, the Attorney General, was scarcely of the third rank in
his profession. Sir William Williams, the Solicitor General, had
quick parts and dauntless courage: but he wanted discretion; he loved
wrangling; he had no command over his temper; and he was hated and
despised by all political parties. The most conspicuous assistants of
the Attorney and Solicitor were Serjeant Trinder, a Roman Catholic, and
Sir Bartholomew Shower, Recorder of London, who had some legal learning,
but whose fulsome apologies and endless repetitions were the jest of
Westminster Hall. The government had wished to secure the services of
Maynard: but he had plainly declared that he could not in conscience do
what was asked of him. [395]

On the other side were arrayed almost all the eminent forensic talents
of the age. Sawyer and Finch, who, at the time of the accession of
James, had been Attorney and Solicitor General, and who, during the
persecution of the Whigs in the late reign, had served the crown with
but too much vehemence and success, were of counsel for the defendants.
With them were joined two persons who, since age had diminished the
activity of Maynard, were reputed the two best lawyers that could be
found in the Inns of Court: Pemberton, who had, in the time of Charles
the Second, been Chief justice of the King's Bench, who had been removed
from his high place on account of his humanity and moderation, and who
had resumed his practice at the bar; and Pollexfen, who had long been
at the head of the Western circuit, and who, though he had incurred much
unpopularity by holding briefs for the crown at the Bloody Assizes, and
particularly by appearing against Alice Lisle, was known to be at heart
a Whig, if not a republican. Sir Creswell Levinz was also there, a man
of great knowledge and experience, but of singularly timid nature. He
had been removed from the bench some years before, because he was afraid
to serve the purposes of the government. He was now afraid to appear as
the advocate of the Bishops, and had at first refused to receive
their retainer: but it had been intimated to him by the whole body of
attorneys who employed him that, if he declined this brief, he should
never have another. [396]

Sir George Treby, an able and zealous Whig, who had been Recorder of
London under the old charter, was on the same side. Sir John Holt, a
still more eminent Whig lawyer, was not retained for the defence, in
consequence, it should seem, of some prejudice conceived against him
by Sancroft, but was privately consulted on the case by the Bishop of
London. [397] The junior counsel for the Bishops was a young barrister
named John Somers. He had no advantages of birth or fortune; nor had he
yet had any opportunity of distinguishing himself before the eyes of
the public: but his genius, his industry, his great and various
accomplishments, were well known to a small circle of friends; and, in
spite of his Whig opinions, his pertinent and lucid mode of arguing and
the constant propriety of his demeanour had already secured to him
the ear of the Court of King's Bench. The importance of obtaining his
services had been strongly represented to the Bishops by Johnstone; and
Pollexfen, it is said, had declared that no man in Westminster Hall was
so well qualified to treat a historical and constitutional question as
Somers.

The jury was sworn; it consisted of persons of highly respectable
station. The foreman was Sir Roger Langley, a baronet of old and
honourable family. With him were joined a knight and ten esquires,
several of whom are known to have been men of large possessions. There
were some Nonconformists in the number; for the Bishops had wisely
resolved not to show any distrust of the Protestant Dissenters. One name
excited considerable alarm, that of Michael Arnold. He was brewer to the
palace; and it was apprehended that the government counted on his voice.
The story goes that he complained bitterly of the position in which he
found himself. "Whatever I do," he said, "I am sure to be half ruined.
If I say Not Guilty, I shall brew no more for the King; and if I say
Guilty, I shall brew no more for anybody else. " [398]

The trial then commenced, a trial which, even when coolly perused after
the lapse of more than a century and a half, has all the interest of
a drama. The advocates contended on both sides with far more than
professional keenness and vehemence: the audience listened with as much
anxiety as if the fate of every one of them was to be decided by the
verdict; and the turns of fortune were so sudden and amazing that
the multitude repeatedly passed in a single minute from anxiety to
exultation and back again from exultation to still deeper anxiety.

The information charged the Bishops with having written or published,
in the county of Middlesex, a false, malicious, and seditious libel.
The Attorney and Solicitor first tried to prove the writing. For
this purpose several persons were called to speak to the hands of the
Bishops. But the witnesses were so unwilling that hardly a single plain
answer could be extracted from any of them. Pemberton, Pollexfen, and
Levinz contended that there was no evidence to go to the jury. Two
of the judges, Holloway and Powell, declared themselves of the same
opinion; and the hopes of the spectators rose high. All at once the
crown lawyers announced their intention to take another line. Powis,
with shame and reluctance which he could not dissemble, put into the
witness box Blathwayt, a Clerk of the Privy Council, who had been
present when the King interrogated the Bishops. Blathwayt swore that he
had heard them own their signatures. His testimony was decisive. "Why,"
said judge Holloway to the Attorney, "when you had such evidence, did
you not produce it at first, without all this waste of time? " It soon
appeared why the counsel for the crown had been unwilling, without
absolute necessity, to resort to this mode of proof. Pemberton stopped
Blathwayt, subjected him to a searching cross examination, and insisted
upon having all that had passed between the King and the defendants
fully related. "That is a pretty thing indeed," cried Williams. "Do you
think," said Powis, "that you are at liberty to ask our witnesses any
impertinent question that comes into your heads? " The advocates of the
Bishops were not men to be so put down. "He is sworn," said Pollexfen,
"to tell the truth and the whole truth: and an answer we must and will
have. " The witness shuffled, equivocated, pretended to misunderstand
the questions, implored the protection of the Court. But he was in
hands from which it was not easy to escape. At length the Attorney again
interposed. "If," he said, "you persist in asking such a question, tell
us, at least, what use you mean to make of it. " Pemberton, who, through
the whole trial, did his duty manfully and ably, replied without
hesitation; "My Lords, I will answer Mr. Attorney. I will deal plainly
with the Court. If the Bishops owned this paper under a promise from His
Majesty that their confession should not be used against them, I hope
that no unfair advantage will be taken of them. " "You put on His Majesty
what I dare hardly name," said Williams: "since you will be so pressing,
I demand, for the King, that the question may be recorded. " "What do you
mean, Mr. Solicitor? " said Sawyer, interposing. "I know what I mean,"
said the apostate: "I desire that the question may be recorded in
Court. " "Record what you will, I am not afraid of you, Mr. Solicitor,"
said Pemberton. Then came a loud and fierce altercation, which the Chief
Justice could with difficulty quiet. In other circumstances, he would
probably have ordered the question to be recorded and Pemberton to be
committed. But on this great day he was overawed. He often cast a
side glance towards the thick rows of Earls and Barons by whom he was
watched, and who in the next Parliament might be his judges. He looked,
a bystander said, as if all the peers present had halters in their
pockets. [399] At length Blathwayt was forced to give a full account of
what had passed. It appeared that the King had entered into no express
covenant with the Bishops. But it appeared also that the Bishops might
not unreasonably think that there was an implied engagement. Indeed,
from the unwillingness of the crown lawyers to put the Clerk of the
Council into the witness box, and from the vehemence with which they
objected to Pemberton's cross examination, it is plain that they were
themselves of this opinion.

However, the handwriting was now proved. But a new and serious objection
was raised. It was not sufficient to prove that the Bishops had written
the alleged libel. It was necessary to prove also that they had written
it in the county of Middlesex. And not only was it out of the power of
the Attorney and Solicitor to prove this; but it was in the power of the
defendants to prove the contrary. For it so happened that Sancroft had
never once left the palace, at Lambeth from the time when the Order in
Council appeared till after the petition was in the King's hands. The
whole case for the prosecution had therefore completely broken down; and
the audience, with great glee, expected a speedy acquittal.

The crown lawyers then changed their ground again, abandoned altogether
the charge of writing a libel, and undertook to prove that the Bishops
had published a libel in the county of Middlesex. The difficulties were
great. The delivery of the petition to the King was undoubtedly, in the
eye of the law, a publication. But how was this delivery to be proved?
No person had been present at the audience in the royal closet, except
the King and the defendants. The King could not well be sworn. It was
therefore only by the admissions of the defendants that the fact of
publication could be established. Blathwayt was again examined, but in
vain. He well remembered, he said, that the Bishops owned their hands;
but he did not remember that they owned the paper which lay on the table
of the Privy Council to be the same paper which they had delivered to
the King, or that they were even interrogated on that point. Several
other official men who had been in attendance on the Council were
called, and among them Samuel Pepys, Secretary of the Admiralty; but
none of them could remember that anything was said about the delivery.
It was to no purpose that Williams put leading questions till the
counsel on the other side declared that such twisting, such wiredrawing,
was never seen in a court of justice, and till Wright himself was forced
to admit that the Solicitor's mode of examination was contrary to
all rule. As witness after witness answered in the negative, roars of
laughter and shouts of triumph, which the judges did not even attempt to
silence, shook the hall.

It seemed that at length this hard fight had been won. The case for the
crown was closed. Had the counsel for the Bishops remained silent, an
acquittal was certain; for nothing which the most corrupt and shameless
judge could venture to call legal evidence of publication had been
given. The Chief justice was beginning to charge the jury, and would
undoubtedly have directed them to acquit the defendants; but Finch, too
anxious to be perfectly discreet, interfered, and begged to be heard.
"If you will be heard," said Wright, "you shall be heard; but you do not
understand your own interests. " The other counsel for the defence made
Finch sit down, and begged the Chief justice to proceed. He was about to
do so when a messenger came to the Solicitor General with news that Lord
Sunderland could prove the publication, and would come down to the court
immediately. Wright maliciously told the counsel for the defence that
they had only themselves to thank for the turn which things had taken.
The countenances of the great multitude fell. Finch was, during some
hours, the most unpopular man in the country. Why could he not sit still
as his betters, Sawyer, Pemberton, and Pollexfen had done? His love of
meddling, his ambition to make a fine speech, had ruined everything.

Meanwhile the Lord President was brought in a sedan chair through the
hall. Not a hat moved as he passed; and many voices cried out "Popish
dog. " He came into Court pale and trembling, with eyes fixed on the
ground, and gave his evidence in a faltering voice. He swore that the
Bishops had informed him of their intention to present a petition to
the King, and that they had been admitted into the royal closet for that
purpose. This circumstance, coupled with the circumstance that, after
they left the closet, there was in the King's hands a petition signed by
them, was such proof as might reasonably satisfy a jury of the fact of
the publication.

Publication in Middlesex was then proved. But was the paper thus
published a false, malicious, and seditious libel? Hitherto the matter
in dispute had been whether a fact which everybody well knew to be true
could be proved according to technical rules of evidence; but now the
contest became one of deeper interest. It was necessary to inquire into
the limits of prerogative and liberty, into the right of the King to
dispense with statutes, into the right of the subject to petition
for the redress of grievances. During three hours the counsel for
the petitioners argued with great force in defence of the fundamental
principles of the constitution, and proved from the journals of the
House of Commons that the Bishops had affirmed no more than the truth
when they represented to the King that the dispensing power which he
claimed had been repeatedly declared illegal by Parliament. Somers rose
last. He spoke little more than five minutes; but every word was full of
weighty matter; and when he sate down his reputation as an orator and a
constitutional lawyer was established. He went through the expressions
which were used in the information to describe the offence imputed
to the Bishops, and showed that every word, whether adjective or
substantive, was altogether inappropriate. The offence imputed was a
false, a malicious, a seditious libel. False the paper was not; for
every fact which it set forth had been proved from the journals of
Parliament to be true. Malicious the paper was not; for the defendants
had not sought an occasion of strife, but had been placed by the
government in such a situation that they must either oppose themselves
to the royal will, or violate the most sacred obligations of conscience
and honour. Seditious the paper was not; for it had not been scattered
by the writers among the rabble, but delivered privately into the hands
of the King alone: and a libel it was not, but a decent petition such
as, by the laws of England, nay, by the laws of imperial Rome, by the
laws of all civilised states, a subject who thinks himself aggrieved may
with propriety present to the sovereign.

The Attorney replied shortly and feebly. The Solicitor spoke at great
length and with great acrimony, and was often interrupted by the
clamours and hisses of the audience. He went so far as to lay it down
that no subject or body of subjects, except the Houses of Parliament,
had a right to petition the King. The galleries were furious; and the
Chief justice himself stood aghast at the effrontery of this venal
turncoat.

At length Wright proceeded to sum up the evidence. His language showed
that the awe in which he stood of the government was tempered by the
awe with which the audience, so numerous, so splendid, and so strongly
excited, had impressed him. He said that he would give no opinion on the
question of the dispensing power, that it was not necessary for him to
do so, that he could not agree with much of the Solicitor's speech, that
it was the right of the subject to petition, but that the particular
petition before the Court was improperly worded, and was, in the
contemplation of law, a libel. Allybone was of the same mind, but, in
giving his opinion, showed such gross ignorance of law and history as
brought on him the contempt of all who heard him. Holloway evaded the
question of the dispensing power, but said that the petition seemed to
him to be such as subjects who think themselves aggrieved are entitled
to present, and therefore no libel. Powell took a bolder course. He
avowed that, in his judgment, the Declaration of Indulgence was a
nullity, and that the dispensing power, as lately exercised, was utterly
inconsistent with all law. If these encroachments of prerogative
were allowed, there was an end of Parliaments. The whole legislative
authority would be in the King. "That issue, gentlemen," he said, "I
leave to God and to your consciences. " [400]

It was dark before the jury retired to consider of their verdict. The
night was a night of intense anxiety. Some letters are extant which were
despatched during that period of suspense, and which have therefore an
interest of a peculiar kind. "It is very late," wrote the Papal Nuncio;
"and the decision is not yet known. The judges and the culprits have
gone to their own homes. The jury remain together. Tomorrow we shall
learn the event of this great struggle. "

The solicitor for the Bishops sate up all night with a body of servants
on the stairs leading to the room where the jury was, consulting. It was
absolutely necessary to watch the officers who watched the doors; for
those officers were supposed to be in the interest of the crown, and
might, if not carefully observed, have furnished a courtly juryman
with food, which would have enabled him to starve out the other eleven.
Strict guard was therefore kept. Not even a candle to light a pipe was
permitted to enter. Some basins of water for washing were suffered to
pass at about four in the morning. The jurymen, raging with thirst, soon
lapped up the whole. Great numbers of people walked the neighbouring
streets till dawn. Every hour a messenger came from Whitehall to know
what was passing. Voices, high in altercation, were repeatedly heard
within the room: but nothing certain was known. [401]

At first nine were for acquitting and three for convicting. Two of
the minority soon gave way; but Arnold was obstinate. Thomas Austin, a
country gentleman of great estate, who had paid close attention to the
evidence and speeches, and had taken full notes, wished to argue
the question. Arnold declined. He was not used, he doggedly said, to
reasoning and debating. His conscience was not satisfied; and he should
not acquit the Bishops. "If you come to that," said Austin, "look at me.
I am the largest and strongest of the twelve; and before I find such a
petition as this a libel, here I will stay till I am no bigger than a
tobacco pipe. " It was six in the morning before Arnold yielded. It was
soon known that the jury were agreed: but what the verdict would be was
still a secret. [402]

At ten the Court again met. The crowd was greater than ever. The jury
appeared in their box; and there was a breathless stillness.

Sir Samuel Astry spoke. "Do you find the defendants, or any of them,
guilty of the misdemeanour whereof they are impeached, or not guilty? "
Sir Roger Langley answered, "Not guilty. " As the words passed his
lips, Halifax sprang up and waved his hat. At that signal, benches and
galleries raised a shout. In a moment ten thousand persons, who crowded
the great hall, replied with a still louder shout, which made the old
oaken roof crack; and in another moment the innumerable throng without
set up a third huzza, which was heard at Temple Bar. The boats which
covered the Thames, gave an answering cheer. A peal of gunpowder was
heard on the water, and another, and another; and so, in a few moments,
the glad tidings went flying past the Savoy and the Friars to London
Bridge, and to the forest of masts below. As the news spread,
streets and squares, market places and coffeehouses, broke forth into
acclamations. Yet were the acclamations less strange than the weeping.
For the feelings of men had been wound up to such a point that at length
the stern English nature, so little used to outward signs of emotion,
gave way, and thousands sobbed aloud for very joy. Meanwhile, from the
outskirts of the multitude, horsemen were spurring off to bear along all
the great roads intelligence of the victory of our Church and nation.
Yet not even that astounding explosion could awe the bitter and intrepid
spirit of the Solicitor. Striving to make himself heard above the din,
he called on the judges to commit those who had violated, by clamour,
the dignity of a court of justice. One of the rejoicing populace was
seized. But the tribunal felt that it would be absurd to punish a single
individual for an offence common to hundreds of thousands, and dismissed
him with a gentle reprimand. [403]

It was vain to think of passing at that moment to any other business.
Indeed the roar of the multitude was such that, for half an hour,
scarcely a word could be heard in court. Williams got to his coach
amidst a tempest of hisses and curses. Cartwright, whose curiosity was
ungovernable, had been guilty of the folly and indecency of coming to
Westminster in order to hear the decision. He was recognised by his
sacerdotal garb and by his corpulent figure, and was hooted through the
hall. "Take care," said one, "of the wolf in sheep's clothing. " "Make
room," cried another, "for the man with the Pope in his belly. " [404]

The acquitted prelates took refuge from the crowd which implored their
blessing in the nearest chapel where divine service was performing.
Many churches were open on that morning throughout the capital; and many
pious persons repaired thither. The bells of all the parishes of the
City and liberties were ringing. The jury meanwhile could scarcely
make their way out of the hall. They were forced to shake hands with
hundreds. "God bless you," cried the people; "God prosper your families;
you have done like honest goodnatured gentlemen; you have saved us all
today. " As the noblemen who had appeared to support the good cause drove
off, they flung from their carriage windows handfuls of money, and bade
the crowd drink to the health of the King, the Bishops, and the jury.
[405]

The Attorney went with the tidings to Sunderland, who happened to be
conversing with the Nuncio. "Never," said Powis, "within man's memory,
have there been such shouts and such tears of joy as today.
" [406] The
King had that morning visited the camp on Hounslow Heath. Sunderland
instantly sent a courier thither with the news. James was in Lord
Feversham's tent when the express arrived. He was greatly disturbed, and
exclaimed in French, "So much the worse for them. " He soon set out for
London. While he was present, respect prevented the soldiers from giving
a loose to their feelings; but he had scarcely quitted the camp when he
heard a great shouting behind him. He was surprised, and asked what that
uproar meant. "Nothing," was the answer: "the soldiers are glad that the
Bishops are acquitted. " "Do you call that nothing? " said James. And then
he repeated, "So much the worse for them. " [407]

He might well be out of temper. His defeat had been complete and most
humiliating. Had the prelates escaped on account of some technical
defect in the case for the crown, had they escaped because they had
not written the petition in Middlesex, or because it was impossible to
prove, according to the strict rules of law, that they had delivered
to the King the paper for which they were called in question, the
prerogative would have suffered no shock. Happily for the country, the
fact of publication had been fully established. The counsel for the
defence had therefore been forced to attack the dispensing power.
They had attacked it with great learning, eloquence, and boldness.
The advocates of the government had been by universal acknowledgment
overmatched in the contest. Not a single judge had ventured to declare
that the Declaration of Indulgence was legal. One Judge had in the
strongest terms pronounced it illegal. The language of the whole town
was that the dispensing power had received a fatal blow. Finch, who had
the day before been universally reviled, was now universally applauded.
He had been unwilling, it was said, to let the case be decided in a way
which would have left the great constitutional question still doubtful.
He had felt that a verdict which should acquit his clients, without
condemning the Declaration of Indulgence, would be but half a victory.
It is certain that Finch deserved neither the reproaches which had
been cast on him while the event was doubtful, nor the praises which he
received when it had proved happy. It was absurd to blame him
because, during the short delay which he occasioned, the crown lawyers
unexpectedly discovered new evidence. It was equally absurd to suppose
that he deliberately exposed his clients to risk, in order to establish
a general principle: and still more absurd was it to praise him for what
would have been a gross violation of professional duty.

That joyful day was followed by a not less joyful night. The Bishops,
and some of their most respectable friends, in vain exerted themselves
to prevent tumultuous demonstrations of joy. Never within the memory
of the oldest, not even on that evening on which it was known through
London that the army of Scotland had declared for a free Parliament,
had the streets been in such a glare with bonfires. Round every bonfire
crowds were drinking good health to the Bishops and confusion to
the Papists. The windows were lighted with rows of candles. Each row
consisted of seven; and the taper in the centre, which was taller than
the rest, represented the Primate. The noise of rockets, squibs, and
firearms, was incessant. One huge pile of faggots blazed right in front
of the great gate of Whitehall. Others were lighted before the doors of
Roman Catholic Peers. Lord Arundell of Wardour wisely quieted the mob
with a little money: but at Salisbury House in the Strand an attempt at
resistance was made. Lord Salisbury's servants sallied out and fired:
but they killed only the unfortunate beadle of the parish, who had come
thither to put out the fire; and they were soon routed and driven back
into the house. None of the spectacles of that night interested the
common people so much as one with which they had, a few years before,
been familiar, and which they now, after a long interval, enjoyed once
more, the burning of the Pope. This once familiar pageant is known to
our generation only by descriptions and engravings. A figure, by no
means resembling those rude representations of Guy Faux which are still
paraded on the fifth of November, but made of wax with some skill, and
adorned at no small expense with robes and a tiara, was mounted on a
chair resembling that in which the Bishops of Rome are still, on some
great festivals, borne through Saint Peter's Church to the high altar.
His Holiness was generally accompanied by a train of Cardinals and
Jesuits. At his ear stood a buffoon disguised as a devil with horns
and tail. No rich and zealous Protestant grudged his guinea on such an
occasion, and, if rumour could be trusted, the cost of the procession
was sometimes not less than a thousand pounds. After the Pope had
been borne some time in state over the heads of the multitude, he was
committed to the flames with loud acclamations. In the time of the
popularity of Oates and Shaftesbury this show was exhibited annually in
Fleet Street before the windows of the Whig Club on the anniversary of
the birth of Queen Elizabeth. Such was the celebrity of these grotesque
rites, that Barillon once risked his life in order to peep at them from
a hiding place. [408] But, from the day when the Rye House Plot was
discovered, till the day of the acquittal of the Bishops, the ceremony
had been disused. Now, however, several Popes made their appearance in
different parts of London. The Nuncio was much shocked; and the King was
more hurt by this insult to his Church than by all the other affronts
which he had received. The magistrates, however, could do nothing. The
Sunday had dawned, and the bells of the parish churches were ringing
for early prayers, before the fires began to languish and the crowds
to disperse. A proclamation was speedily put forth against the rioters.
Many of them, mostly young apprentices, were apprehended; but the bills
were thrown out at the Middlesex sessions. The magistrates, many of whom
were Roman Catholics, expostulated with the grand jury and sent them
three or four times back, but to no purpose. [409]

Meanwhile the glad tidings were flying to every part of the kingdom,
and were everywhere received with rapture. Gloucester, Bedford, and
Lichfield, were among the places which were distinguished by peculiar
zeal: but Bristol and Norwich, which stood nearest to London in
population and wealth, approached nearest to London in enthusiasm on
this joyful occasion.

The prosecution of the Bishops is an event which stands by itself in our
history. It was the first and the last occasion on which two feelings
of tremendous potency, two feelings which have generally been opposed to
each other, and either of which, when strongly excited, has sufficed to
convulse the state, were united in perfect harmony. Those feelings were
love of the Church and love of freedom. During many generations every
violent outbreak of High Church feeling, with one exception, has been
unfavourable to civil liberty; every violent outbreak of zeal for
liberty, with one exception, has been unfavourable to the authority and
influence of the prelacy and the priesthood. In 1688 the cause of the
hierarchy was for a moment that of the popular party. More than nine
thousand clergymen, with the Primate and his most respectable suffragans
at their head, offered themselves to endure bonds and the spoiling
of their goods for the great fundamental principle of our free
constitution. The effect was a coalition which included the most zealous
Cavaliers, the most zealous Republicans, and all the intermediate
sections of the community. The spirit which had supported Hampden in the
preceding generation, the spirit which, in the succeeding generation,
supported Sacheverell, combined to support the Archbishop who was
Hampden and Sacheverell in one. Those classes of society which are most
deeply interested in the preservation of order, which in troubled times
are generally most ready to strengthen the hands of government, and
which have a natural antipathy to agitators, followed, without scruple,
the guidance of a venerable man, the first peer of the realm, the first
minister of the Church, a Tory in politics, a saint in manners, whom
tyranny had in his own despite turned into a demagogue. Those, on the
other hand, who had always abhorred episcopacy, as a relic of Popery,
and as an instrument of arbitrary power, now asked on bended knees the
blessing of a prelate who was ready to wear fetters and to lay his aged
limbs on bare stones rather than betray the interests of the Protestant
religion and set the prerogative above the laws. With love of the Church
and with love of freedom was mingled, at this great crisis, a third
feeling which is among the most honourable peculiarities of our national
character. An individual oppressed by power, even when destitute of all
claim to public respect and gratitude, generally finds strong sympathy
among us. Thus, in the time of our grandfathers, society was thrown
into confusion by the persecution of Wilkes. We have ourselves seen the
nation roused almost to madness by the wrongs of Queen Caroline. It
is probable, therefore, that, even if no great political and religious
interests had been staked on the event of the proceeding against the
Bishops, England would not have seen, without strong emotions of pity
and anger, old men of stainless virtue pursued by the vengeance of a
harsh and inexorable prince who owed to their fidelity the crown which
he wore.

Actuated by these sentiments our ancestors arrayed themselves against
the government in one huge and compact mass. All ranks, all parties, all
Protestant sects, made up that vast phalanx. In the van were the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal. Then came the landed gentry and the clergy,
both the Universities, all the Inns of Court, merchants, shopkeepers,
farmers, the porters who plied in the streets of the great towns, the
peasants who ploughed the fields. The league against the King included
the very foremast men who manned his ships, the very sentinels who
guarded his palace. The names of Whig and Tory were for a moment
forgotten. The old Exclusionist took the old Abhorrer by the hand.
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, forgot their long
feuds, and remembered only their common Protestantism and their common
danger. Divines bred in the school of Laud talked loudly, not only
of toleration, but of comprehension. The Archbishop soon after
his acquittal put forth a pastoral letter which is one of the most
remarkable compositions of that age. He had, from his youth up, been
at war with the Nonconformists, and had repeatedly assailed them with
unjust and unchristian asperity. His principal work was a hideous
caricature of the Calvinistic theology. [410] He had drawn up for the
thirtieth of January and for the twenty-ninth of May forms of prayer
which reflected on the Puritans in language so strong that the
government had thought fit to soften it down. But now his heart was
melted and opened. He solemnly enjoined the Bishops and clergy to have a
very tender regard to their brethren the Protestant Dissenters, to
visit them often, to entertain them hospitably, to discourse with them
civilly, to persuade them, if it might be, to conform to the Church,
but, if that were found impossible, to join them heartily and
affectionately in exertions for the blessed cause of the Reformation.
[411]

Many pious persons in subsequent years remembered that time with bitter
regret. They described it as a short glimpse of a golden age between
two iron ages. Such lamentation, though natural, was not reasonable. The
coalition of 1688 was produced, and could be produced, only by tyranny
which approached to insanity, and by danger which threatened at once
all the great institutions of the country. If there has never since been
similar union, the reason is that there has never since been similar
misgovernment. It must be remembered that, though concord is in itself
better than discord, discord may indicate a better state of things than
is indicated by concord. Calamity and peril often force men to combine.
Prosperity and security often encourage them to separate.




CHAPTER IX

Change in the Opinion of the Tories concerning the Lawfulness of
Resistance--Russell proposes to the Prince of Orange a Descent on
England--Henry Sidney--Devonshire; Shrewsbury; Halifax--Danby--Bishop
Compton--Nottingham; Lumley--Invitation to William despatched--Conduct
of Mary--Difficulties of William's Enterprise--Conduct of James after
the Trial of the Bishops--Dismissions and Promotions--Proceedings of
the High Commission; Sprat resigns his Seat--Discontent of the Clergy;
Transactions at Oxford--Discontent of the Gentry--Discontent of
the Army--Irish Troops brought over; Public
Indignation--Lillibullero--Politics of the United Provinces; Errors of
the French King--His Quarrel with the Pope concerning Franchises--The
Archbishopric of Cologne--Skilful Management of William--His Military
and Naval Preparations--He receives numerous Assurances of Support
from England--Sunderland--Anxiety of William--Warnings conveyed to
James--Exertions of Lewis to save James--James frustrates them--The
French Armies invade Germany--William obtains the Sanction of the
States General to his Expedition--Schomberg--British Adventurers at the
Hague--William's Declaration--James roused to a Sense of his Danger;
his Naval Means--His Military Means--He attempts to conciliate his
Subjects--He gives Audience to the Bishops--His Concessions ill
received--Proofs of the Birth of the Prince of Wales submitted to
the--Privy Council--Disgrace of Sunderland--William takes leave of
the States of Holland--He embarks and sails; he is driven back by
a Storm--His Declaration arrives in England; James questions the
Lords--William sets sail the second Time--He passes the Straits--He
lands at Torbay--He enters Exeter--Conversation of the King with the
Bishops--Disturbances in London--Men of Rank begin to repair to the
Prince--Lovelace--Colchester; Abingdon--Desertion of Cornbury--Petition
of the Lords for a Parliament--The King goes to Salisbury--Seymour;
Court of William at Exeter--Northern Insurrection--Skirmish at
Wincanton--Desertion of Churchill and Grafton--Retreat of the Royal Army
from Salisbury--Desertion of Prince George and Ormond--Flight of the
Princess Anne--Council of Lords held by James--He appoints Commissioners
to treat with William--The Negotiation a Feint--Dartmouth refuses
to send the Prince of Wales into France--Agitation of London--Forged
Proclamation--Risings in various Parts of the Country--Clarendon joins
the Prince at Salisbury; Dissension in the Prince's Camp--The Prince
reaches Hungerford; Skirmish at Reading; the King's Commissioners arrive
at Hungerford--Negotiation--The Queen and the Prince of Wales sent to
France; Lauzun--The King's Preparations for Flight--His Flight

THE acquittal of the Bishops was not the only event which makes the
thirtieth of June 1688 a great epoch in history. On that day, while the
bells of a hundred churches were ringing, while multitudes were busied,
from Hyde Park to Mile End, in piling faggots and dressing Popes for
the rejoicings of the night, was despatched from London to the Hague an
instrument scarcely less important to the liberties of England than the
Great Charter.

The prosecution of the Bishops, and the birth of the Prince of Wales,
had produced a great revolution in the feelings of many Tories. At
the very moment at which their Church was suffering the last excess of
injury and insult, they were compelled to renounce the hope of peaceful
deliverance. Hitherto they had flattered themselves that the trial to
which their loyalty was subjected would, though severe, be temporary,
and that their wrongs would shortly be redressed without any violation
of the ordinary rule of succession. A very different prospect was
now before them. As far as they could look forward they saw only
misgovernment, such as that of the last three years, extending through
ages. The cradle of the heir apparent of the crown was surrounded by
Jesuits. Deadly hatred of that Church of which he would one day be the
head would be studiously instilled into his infant mind, would be the
guiding principle of his life, and would be bequeathed by him to his
posterity. This vista of calamities had no end. It stretched beyond the
life of the youngest man living, beyond the eighteenth century. None
could say how many generations of Protestant Englishmen might hive to
bear oppression, such as, even when it had been believed to be short,
had been found almost insupportable. Was there then no remedy? One
remedy there was, quick, sharp, and decisive, a remedy which the Whigs
had been but too ready to employ, but which had always been regarded by
the Tories as, in all cases, unlawful.

The greatest Anglican doctors of that age had maintained that no breach
of law or contract, no excess of cruelty, rapacity, or licentiousness,
on the part of a rightful King, could justify his people in withstanding
him by force. Some of them had delighted to exhibit the doctrine of
nonresistance in a form so exaggerated as to shock common sense and
humanity. They frequently and emphatically remarked that Nero was at
the head of the Roman government when Saint Paul inculcated the duty
of obeying magistrates. The inference which they drew was that, if an
English King should, without any law but his own pleasure, persecute his
subjects for not worshipping idols, should fling them to the lions in
the Tower, should wrap them up in pitched cloth and set them on fire to
light up Saint James's Park, and should go on with these massacres till
whole towns and shires were left without one inhabitant, the survivors
would still be bound meekly to submit, and to be torn in pieces or
roasted alive without a struggle. The arguments in favour of this
proposition were futile indeed: but the place of sound argument was
amply supplied by the omnipotent sophistry of interest and of passion.
Many writers have expressed wonder that the high spirited Cavaliers of
England should have been zealous for the most slavish theory that
has ever been known among men. The truth is that this theory at first
presented itself to the Cavalier as the very opposite of slavish. Its
tendency was to make him not a slave but a freeman and a master. It
exalted him by exalting one whom he regarded as his protector, as his
friend, as the head of his beloved party and of his more beloved Church.
When Republicans were dominant the Royalist had endured wrongs and
insults which the restoration of the legitimate government had enabled
him to retaliate. Rebellion was therefore associated in his imagination
with subjection and degradation, and monarchical authority with liberty
and ascendency. It had never crossed his imagination that a time might
come when a King, a Stuart, would persecute the most loyal of the clergy
and gentry with more than the animosity of the Rump or the Protector.
That time had however arrived. It was now to be seen how the patience
which Churchmen professed to have learned from the writings of Paul
would stand the test of a persecution by no means so severe as that of
Nero. The event was such as everybody who knew anything of human nature
would have predicted. Oppression speedily did what philosophy and
eloquence would have failed to do. The system of Filmer might have
survived the attacks of Locke: but it never recovered from the death
blow given by James. That logic, which, while it was used to prove
that Presbyterians and Independents ought to bear imprisonment and
confiscation with meekness, had been pronounced unanswerable, seemed to
be of very little force when the question was whether Anglican Bishops
should be imprisoned, and the revenues of Anglican colleges confiscated.
It has been often repeated, from the pulpits of all the Cathedrals in
the land, that the apostolical injunction to obey the civil magistrate
was absolute and universal, and that it was impious presumption in man
to limit a precept which had been promulgated without any limitation
in the word of God. Now, however, divines, whose sagacity had been
sharpened by the imminent danger in which they stood of being turned out
of their livings and prebends to make room for Papists, discovered flaws
in the reasoning which had formerly seemed so convincing. The ethical
parts of Scripture were not to be construed like Acts of Parliament, or
like the casuistical treatises of the schoolmen. What Christian really
turned the left cheek to the ruffian who had smitten the right? What
Christian really gave his cloak to the thieves who had taken his coat
away? Both in the Old and in the New Testament general rules were
perpetually laid down unaccompanied by the exceptions. Thus there was a
general command not to kill, unaccompanied by any reservation in favour
of the warrior who kills in defence of his king and country. There was a
general command not to swear, unaccompanied by any reservation in favour
of the witness who swears to speak the truth before a judge. Yet the
lawfulness of defensive war, and of judicial oaths, was disputed only by
a few obscure sectaries, and was positively affirmed in the articles of
the Church of England. All the arguments, which showed that the Quaker,
who refused to bear arms, or to kiss the Gospels, was unreasonable and
perverse, might be turned against those who denied to subjects the right
of resisting extreme tyranny by force. If it was contended that
the texts which prohibited homicide, and the texts which prohibited
swearing, though generally expressed, must be construed in subordination
to the great commandment by which every man is enjoined to promote the
welfare of his neighbours, and would, when so construed, be found not
to apply to cases in which homicide or swearing might be absolutely
necessary to protect the dearest interests of society, it was not easy
to deny that the texts which prohibited resistance ought to be construed
in the same manner. If the ancient people of God had been directed
sometimes to destroy human life, and sometimes to bind themselves by
oaths, they had also been directed sometimes to resist wicked princes.
If early fathers of the Church had occasionally used language which
seemed to imply that they disapproved of all resistance, they had also
occasionally used language which seemed to imply that they disapproved
of all war and of all oaths. In truth the doctrine of passive obedience,
as taught at Oxford in the reign of Charles the Second, can be deduced
from the Bible only by a mode of interpretation which would irresistibly
lead us to the conclusions of Barclay and Penn.

It was not merely by arguments drawn from the letter of Scripture
that the Anglican theologians had, during the years which immediately
followed the Restoration, laboured to prove their favourite tenet. They
had attempted to show that, even if revelation had been silent, reason
would have taught wise men the folly and wickedness of all resistance to
established government. It was universally admitted that such resistance
was, except in extreme cases, unjustifiable. And who would undertake to
draw the line between extreme cases and ordinary cases? Was there any
government in the world under which there were not to be found some
discontented and factious men who would say, and perhaps think, that
their grievances constituted an extreme case? If, indeed, it were
possible to lay down a clear and accurate rule which might forbid men
to rebel against Trajan, and yet leave them at liberty to rebel against
Caligula, such a rule might be highly beneficial. But no such rule had
even been, or ever would be, framed. To say that rebellion was
lawful under some circumstances, without accurately defining those
circumstances, was to say that every man might rebel whenever he thought
fit; and a society in which every man rebelled whenever he thought fit
would be more miserable than a society governed by the most cruel and
licentious despot. It was therefore necessary to maintain the great
principle of nonresistance in all its integrity. Particular cases might
doubtless be put in which resistance would benefit a community: but it
was, on the whole, better that the people should patiently endure a bad
government than that they should relieve themselves by violating a law
on which the security of all government depended.

Such reasoning easily convinced a dominant and prosperous party, but
could ill bear the scrutiny of minds strongly excited by royal injustice
and ingratitude. It is true that to trace the exact boundary between
rightful and wrongful resistance is impossible: but this impossibility
arises from the nature of right and wrong, and is found in almost every
part of ethical science. A good action is not distinguished from a bad
action by marks so plain as those which distinguish a hexagon from a
square. There is a frontier where virtue and vice fade into each other.
Who has ever been able to define the exact boundary between courage and
rashness, between prudence and cowardice, between frugality and avarice,
between liberality and prodigality? Who has ever been able to say how
far mercy to offenders ought to be carried, and where it ceases to
deserve the name of mercy and becomes a pernicious weakness? What
casuist, what lawyer, has ever been able nicely to mark the limits of
the right of selfdefence? All our jurists bold that a certain quantity
of risk to life or limb justifies a man in shooting or stabbing an
assailant: but they have long given up in despair the attempt to
describe, in precise words, that quantity of risk. They only say that
it must be, not a slight risk, but a risk such as would cause serious
apprehension to a man of firm mind; and who will undertake to say
what is the precise amount of apprehension which deserves to be called
serious, or what is the precise texture of mind which deserves to be
called firm. It is doubtless to be regretted that the nature of words
and the nature of things do not admit of more accurate legislation: nor
can it be denied that wrong will often be done when men are judges in
their own cause, and proceed instantly to execute their own judgment.
Yet who would, on that account, interdict all selfdefence? The right
which a people has to resist a bad government bears a close analogy to
the right which an individual, in the absence of legal protection, has
to slay an assailant. In both cases the evil must be grave. In both
cases all regular and peaceable modes of defence must be exhausted
before the aggrieved party resorts to extremities. In both cases an
awful responsibility is incurred. In both cases the burden of the proof
lies on him who has ventured on so desperate an expedient; and, if
he fails to vindicate himself, he is justly liable to the severest
penalties. But in neither case can we absolutely deny the existence
of the right. A man beset by assassins is not bound to let himself be
tortured and butchered without using his weapons, because nobody has
ever been able precisely to define the amount of danger which justifies
homicide. Nor is a society bound to endure passively all that tyranny
can inflict, because nobody has ever been able precisely to define the
amount of misgovernment which justifies rebellion.

But could the resistance of Englishmen to such a prince as James be
properly called rebellion? The thoroughpaced disciples of Filmer,
indeed, maintained that there was no difference whatever between the
polity of our country and that of Turkey, and that, if the King did not
confiscate the contents of all the tills in Lombard Street, and send
mutes with bowstrings to Sancroft and Halifax, this was only because His
Majesty was too gracious to use the whole power which he derived from
heaven. But the great body of Tories, though, in the heat of conflict,
they might occasionally use language which seemed to indicate that they
approved of these extravagant doctrines, heartily abhorred despotism.
The English government was, in their view, a limited monarchy. Yet how
can a monarchy be said to be limited if force is never to be employed,
even in the last resort, for the purpose of maintaining the limitations?
In Muscovy, where the sovereign was, by the constitution of the state,
absolute, it might perhaps be, with some colour of truth, contended
that, whatever excesses he might commit, he was still entitled to
demand, on Christian principles, the obedience of his subjects. But here
prince and people were alike bound by the laws. It was therefore James
who incurred the woe denounced against those who insult the powers
that be. It was James who was resisting the ordinance of God, who was
mutinying against that legitimate authority to which he ought to have
been subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake, and who
was, in the true sense of the words of Jesus, withholding from Caesar
the things which were Caesar's.

Moved by such considerations as these, the ablest and most enlightened
Tories began to admit that they had overstrained the doctrine of passive
obedience. The difference between these men and the Whigs as to the
reciprocal obligations of Kings and subjects was now no longer a
difference of principle. There still remained, it is true, many
historical controversies between the party which had always maintained
the lawfulness of resistance and the new converts. The memory of the
blessed Martyr was still as much revered as ever by those old Cavaliers
who were ready to take arms against his degenerate son. They still spoke
with abhorrence of the Long Parliament, of the Rye House Plot, and of
the Western insurrection. But, whatever they might think about the past,
the view which they took of the present was altogether Whiggish: for
they now held that extreme oppression might justify resistance, and they
held that the oppression which the nation suffered was extreme. [412]

It must not, however, be supposed that all the Tories renounced, even at
that conjuncture, a tenet which they had from childhood been taught to
regard as an essential part of Christianity, which they had professed
during many years with ostentatious vehemence, and which they had
attempted to propagate by persecution. Many were kept steady to their
old creed by conscience, and many by shame. But the greater part,
even of those who still continued to pronounce all resistance to the
sovereign unlawful, were disposed, in the event of a civil conflict,
to remain neutral. No provocation should drive them to rebel: but, if
rebellion broke forth, it did not appear that they were bound to fight
for James the Second as they would have fought for Charles the First.
The Christians of Rome had been forbidden by Saint Paul to resist the
government of Nero: but there was no reason to believe that the Apostle,
if he had been alive when the Legions and the Senate rose up against
that wicked Emperor, would have commanded the brethren to fly to arms
in support of tyranny. The duty of the persecuted Church was clear: she
must suffer patiently, and commit her cause to God. But, if God, whose
providence perpetually educes good out of evil, should be pleased,
as oftentimes He bad been pleased, to redress her wrongs by the
instrumentality of men whose angry passions her lessons had not been
able to tame, she might gratefully accept from Him a deliverance which
her principles did not permit her to achieve for herself. Most of
those Tories, therefore, who still sincerely disclaimed all thought of
attacking the government, were yet by no means inclined to defend it,
and perhaps, while glorying in their own scruples, secretly rejoiced
that everybody was not so scrupulous as themselves.

The Whigs saw that their time was come. Whether they should draw the
sword against the government had, during six or seven years, been, in
their view, merely a question of prudence; and prudence itself now urged
them to take a bold course.

In May, before the birth of the Prince of Wales, and while it was still
uncertain whether the Declaration would or would not be read in the
churches, Edward Russell had repaired to the Hague. He had strongly
represented to the Prince of Orange the state of the public mind, and
had advised his Highness to appear in England at the head of a strong
body of troops, and to call the people to arms.

William had seen, at a glance, the whole importance of the crisis. "Now
or never," he exclaimed in Latin to Dykvelt. [413] To Russell he held
more guarded language, admitted that the distempers of the state were
such as required an extraordinary remedy, but spoke with earnestness of
the chance of failure, and of the calamities which failure might bring
on Britain and on Europe. He knew well that many who talked in high
language about sacrificing their lives and fortunes for their country
would hesitate when the prospect of another Bloody Circuit was brought
close to them.