him (ib. p. 823). In February 1683–4 Williams and Richard Wallop [q. v.] who appeared together in a great many cases, defended the younger Hampden, Laurence Braddon, and Hugh Speke [q. v.], who were tried on charges arising out of the ‘Rye House plot.’ A week later Sir Samuel Barnardiston [q. v.], one of the most active of the city whigs, was also defended by Williams on an absurd charge of having libelled the king and his officers. Most of these cases were tried before Jeffreys, who never lost an opportunity of interrupting Williams and of visiting him with severe castigation for any exceptional boldness of speech. In the great case against monopolies, or the East India Company against Sandys, Williams, in a learned argument delivered in Michaelmas term 1684, questioned the legality of the chartered rights granted to the company, and suggested, much to Jeffreys's indignation, that it was a matter as to which the king should consult parliament. When appearing for the defence of Richard Baxter in May 1685, Williams preferred not to address the chief justice, as that would only irritate him and damage his client's case.
Williams already had a foretaste of the royal displeasure for his uncompromising support of constitutional government. Having counselled resistance to the seizure of municipal charters (e.g. in the case of Oxford in October 1681; Prideaux, Letters, Camden Soc. p. 104), he was removed from the recordership of Chester in 1684. In June of the same year, at Jeffreys's instigation, the attorney-general (Sir Robert Sawyer) exhibited an information against him for having licensed as speaker in 1680 the publication of Dangerfield's libellous ‘Narrative.’
Before the case came on in May 1686 the Duke of York, whose ‘exclusion’ Williams had supported, had ascended the throne, and the elections had resulted in the return of an overwhelmingly tory parliament, in which Williams himself had no seat; his return for the town of Montgomery being cancelled on petition, on the ground that the contributory boroughs had no opportunity of voting. The house therefore took no steps to protect their ex-speaker, or support his defence of parliamentary privilege, in his pending trial for sanctioning the publication of Dangerfield's book. His plea to the jurisdiction of the king's bench was overruled. Under these circumstances Williams withdrew his subsequent plea in bar, and allowed judgment to go against him by default. Deserted by the commons, he decided on making his peace with the king, to whom he sent a petition (copy in Williams's autograph among the Williams Wynn MSS.) The chief justice imposed a fine of 10,000l., and Williams actually paid 8,000l., which was accepted in satisfaction of the full amount (Shower, Reports, ii. 471), the balance being remitted by the king. The suggestion that the prosecution was collusively instituted and that the fine was only ostensibly exacted (Lord Campbell, Speeches, p. 290) derives no support from contemporary authorities. Sir Robert Atkyns [q. v.] prepared an elaborate argument for the defendant, which was not delivered, but was published in 1689 under the title of ‘The Power, Jurisdiction, and Privilege of Parliament’ (Howell, State Trials, xiii. 1380, where it is reprinted). But this trial did not give Williams immunity from further attacks for the same offence. In respect of the publication of Dangerfield's narrative the Earl of Peterborough brought an action of scandalum magnatum against Williams, who pleaded the same pleas as in the previous case, but subsequently compromised the matter by paying 150l., which Peterborough, on James's intervention, accepted in satisfaction. The judgment in the libel action was so flagrant a violation of the principle of parliamentary privilege that three years later (12 July 1689) the House of Commons declared it to be ‘illegal and subversive of the freedom of parliament’ (Commons' Journal, x. 215). The committee charged with drafting the bill of rights (of which Williams was a member) also reviewed these proceedings, with the result that the bill, as adopted by both houses, contained articles (No. 8 of grievances, No. 9 of rights) condemning the prosecution, though not by name (cf. also C. W. Williams Wynn, An Argument upon the Jurisdiction of the House of Commons, 1810; Adolphus and Ellis, Reports, ix. 1–243; Lord Campbell, Speeches, pp. 284–299, 379).
Having made his submission, Williams was, by a new charter granted to Chester in October 1687, restored as alderman and recorder of that city, and in December was made solicitor-general, with a knighthood. 12 Dec. (cf. Verney Memoirs, iv. 412). ‘Though in rank he was only the second law officer, his abilities, knowledge, and energy were such that he completely threw his superior into the shade’ (Macaulay). The one great event associated with his tenure of the office was the part he took in the prosecution of the seven bishops on a charge of publishing a seditious libel in questioning the dispensing power claimed by the king. There was a preliminary skirmish in the court of king's bench on 15 June 1688, when
