soldiers. In one or two places they seemed as though they would make a stand; but on any attempt of the guards to charge them they flew like leaves before the wind. The queen, on finding that several of her own guards, trumpeters, and watermen were taken amongst the mob, declared that she would repair all the damage they had done at her own cost, and that the offenders should stand their trials without any favour on her part. The men, however, showed no concern whatever. Like the mob, they were persuaded that they had only been rioting for the queen and Dr. Sacheverel; and the next day some of the implicated guards declared that the same demonstrations would be made all over the kingdom. Cunningham, the historian, was so disgusted with what he called the inconsistency of the queen in at once countenancing and discountenancing these popular demonstrations, that he breaks forth into a fierce tirade against the rule of women altogether, declaring that it is nothing wonderful that women should be inconsistent, since their wills are nothing but humour or fancy, which is rendered peevish by old age, and apt to turn to revenge on an affront; and he highly praises France for barring them from the throne by the Salic law.
The guards, however, were doubled the next day at the palace, and the train-bands of Westminster were ordered to remain under arms during the trial. The commons prayed her majesty to take all necessary measures for securing the public peace against papists, non-jurors, and other enemies of the crown and realm. The rioters who were seized were tried, and two of them condemned to death, but both were reprieved.
The trial lasted for three weeks, and every day the same crowds assembled, the same hurraing of Sacheverel, the same appeals to the queen on behalf of God, the church, and Dr. Sacheverel, a strange trinity, were shouted by the mob. No one scarcely dared to appear abroad without an artificial oak-leaf in his hat, which was considered the badge of restored monarchy, and all the time the doctor carried the air of a conqueror. The punishment, if rigorously carried out, in case of conviction, might deprive him of his ears, and shut him up in prison for some years. Eight years after this, when the whigs were in power, another clergyman, Mr. Bisse, was set twice in the pillory, imprisoned four years, and fined six hundred pounds for seditious sermons, and Defoe had lost his ears for much less. But none of these things troubled the doctor, who revelled in the glory of his popularity. The duchess of Marlborough has left us one of her sharply marked sketches of him during the trial, which is worth preserving. "It must be owned that a person more fitted for a tool could not have been picked out of the whole nation, for he had not learning enough to write or speak true English, as all his compositions witness, but a heap of bombast, ill-connected words at command, which do excellently well with such as he was to move. He had so little sense as even to design and effect that popularity, which now became his portion, and which a wise and good man knows not how to bear with. He had a haughty, insolent air, which his friends found occasion after to complain of; but it made his presence more graceful in public. His person was framed well for the purpose, and he dressed well. A good assurance, clean gloves, white handkerchief well managed, with other suitable accomplishments, moved the hearts of many at his appearance; and the solemnity of the trial added much to a pity and concern which had nothing in reason or justice to support them. The weaker part of the ladies were more like mad or bewitched than like persons in their senses. A speech, exquisitely contrived to move pity, was put into his mouth, full of an impious piety, denying the greater part of the charge, which the man had been known to boast of before, with solemn appeals to God, and such applications of scripture as would make any serious person tremble."
At length, on the 10th of March, the lords adjourned to their own house to consider this point, raised by the counsel for Sacheverel, whether in prosecutions by impeachments, the particular words supposed to be criminal should be expressly specified in such impeachments. The question was referred to the judges, who decided that the particular words ought to be so specified. It was objected that the judges had decided according to the rules of Westminster Hall, and not according to the usages of parliament, and it was resolved to adhere to the usages of parliament, lest it should become a practice for the judges to decide on questions of parliamentary right and privilege. On the 16th of March the lords came to the consideration of their judgment, and the queen attended incognita to hear the debate, which was long and earnest. The great point was that which had been raised by Sacheverel's sermons, how far revolution and resistance were justifiable. Many of the tory lords and bishops thought the less said about the revolution the better. Of this opinion, especially, was the earl Ferrars, and Hooper, bishop of Bath and Wells, who thought that resistance might be resorted to in some extraordinary cases, but that the maxim should be concealed from the people, who were naturally only too apt to resist. That the revolution was not a thing to be boasted of, but rather for a mantle to be thrown over, and that it had better be called a vacancy or an abdication. Others again took lower ground, unwilling to discuss the great principles, but contended that Sacheverel had said many foolish things, which, however, did not amount to a misdemeanour, or if they did, should be tried at common law. Amongst these were the archbishop of York, the duke of Buckingham, the earl Ferrars, and other tory leaders. On the other hand lord Wharton and the duke of Leeds defended the revolution in the fullest manner. Wharton said that the doctor's speech was a full condemnation of his sermon. That all that he had advanced about non-resistance and unlimited obedience, were false and sheer nonsense. That the churchmen had shown plain enough, when there was occasion, that passive obedience was not their practice; and that if the revolution was not lawful, members in that house, and a vast number without, were guilty of murder and bloodshed, and that the queen herself was no sovereign, for her title was founded altogether on the revolution.
The duke of Leeds, in an eloquent speech, exclaimed, "What, king William set down in sermons as a usurper! The revolution a rebellion! If that enterprise had not succeeded, then, indeed, both these assertions would have been made, and the judges would have pronounced all of us who then stood up in defence of our country, our religion, and
