2

CHAPTER XII.

HENRY SACHEVERELL was grandson of a Presbyterian Minister at Wincaunton and son of a clergyman of Low-Church principles, the incumbent of a church at Marlborough. For himself on entering Holy Orders he attached himself to the school of Archbishop Laud. After some years of obscurity in a country retirement and as Fellow of Magdalen College at Oxford, he attained the rank of Doctor in Divinity, and also by popular election the benefice of St. Saviour's in Southwark. There he could preach to large congregations his favourite doctrines of non-resistance and passive obedience. In the discussions which these occasioned among the London people he was commonly pitted against Mr. Benjamin Hoadley, then Rector of St. Peter-le-Poer in the City, who carried the opposite doctrine to the very furthest extreme. But in the eyes of al discerning judges Sacheverell was on these occasions, and on every other, far more distinguished by zeal and noise than by either ability or learning.

It so chanced that in the August of this year Dr. Sacheverell had preached before the judges at the summer assizes of Derbyshire. The subject of this sermon was described by himself as the "Communication of Sin." On the 5th of November following he preached before the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of

London at St. Paul's, and this second discourse he entitled "the perils of false brethren both in Church and State." In both these sermons, but in the latter more especially, he gave the rein to his hostility against the principles of the Revolution, by denying that resistance was lawful to any form of tyranny. He inveighed with bitterness against the Dissenters, and still more against what he termed "the toleration of the Genevan discipline." And he argued that, in consequence of such toleration to Calvinists, the Church of England was "in a condition of great peril and adversity" even in Her Majesty's reign. Nor did he refrain from personal allusions, glancing above all at the Lord Treasurer under his well-known nickname, as the Old Fox or Volpone.

The Lord Mayor of London at this time, himself an ardent High Tory, greatly admired these sentiments as he heard them delivered from the pulpit at St. Paul's. He invited the Doctor to dinner that same afternoon, carrying him home in his coach, gave him thanks for his good sermon, and told him that he hoped to see it in print. “I am afraid" said Sacheverell "that I have spoken some bold truths which might displease some people." The Lord Mayor nevertheless undertook to propose to the Court of Aldermen that they should return Sacheverell thanks for his sermon, and desire him to print it. The motion so made was rejected by the Court of Aldermen. But Sacheverell, relying on the Lord Mayor's connivance, proceeded to publish the sermon, as also his former discourse at Derby. The one at St. Paul's, being greatly the superior in audacity, excited far the most attention. It was disseminated far and wide by those who wished well to its doctrines,

and, as was commonly computed, the number of copies sold or sent round amounted to 40,000.

The Whigs were much incensed, and justly so. They apprehended the popular impression which might be made, and they rejoiced that the preacher had by his publication brought himself within reach of their resentment. The Ministers meeting in Cabinet discussed the question in the first days of December. Somers with his usual sagacity advised, that if the sermon were noticed by the Government at all it should only be by prosecution according to the ordinary forms of law. In this counsel he was, after some hesitation, supported by Marlborough. But Sunderland came forward with the more vigorous proposal, that Sacheverell should be made the subject of an impeachment by the House of Commons and a trial by the House of Lords.

It was this last proposal which commended itself to the judgment of Godolphin. Like many timid men he would sometimes rush into the very rashest courses as a relief from his own fears. He seems to have looked upon Sacheverell as so dangerous a monster that no means could be too potent to subdue him. Moreover he was stung to the quick by the nickname of Volpone. Under this affront, or, as Lord Macaulay says of him, "inflamed with all the zeal of a new-made Whig," he pressed for the most vindictive measures, and by his influence as Prime Minister appears to have turned the scale.

The determination thus taken was promptly carried out. On the 13th of December Mr. John Dolben,

1 On the War of the Succession in Spain. Collected Essays, or Edinburgh Review; No. cxii p. 534.

seconded by Mr. Spencer Cowper, made complaint in the House of Commons of the two published discourses, some paragraphs from which were at their desire read forth by the Clerk at the Table. After some debate the House resolved that these sermons were "malicious, scandalous, and seditious libels, highly reflecting upon Her Majesty and her government, the late happy Revolution, and the Protestant Succession." It was further ordered that Dr. Henry Sacheverell and Henry Clements his printer should attend at the Bar of the House next day.

came.

Next day accordingly the Doctor and the printer Sacheverell freely owned the authorship of the two sermons, said that he was very sorry to have fallen under the displeasure of the House, but expressed no contrition for his doctrines. Under these circumstances Clements was allowed to slip through. As to Sacheverell on the contrary the House resolved that he should be impeached by them of high crimes and misdemeanours. A Committee comprising Mr. Secretary Boyle and other Ministers was appointed to draw up the Articles of Impeachment, and it was ordered that the Doctor should be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.2

The House of Commons in the same sitting gave another token of its resentment against Sacheverell by a recommendation of his rival. It was moved and carried that the Rev. Benjamin Hoadley had done good service in often justifying the principles of the late happy Revolution; and that the Queen should be

2 Compare the Commons Jour- The Parliamentary History (vol. nals, Dec 13 and 14, 1709, with vi. p. 805) is here very inaccurate. Howell's State Trials, vol. xv. p. 1.

entreated to bestow some dignity in the Church upon him.

A few days later Sacheverell sent a petition to the House praying to admit him to bail that he might have an opportunity of making his defence. This request was referred to the Committee upon the Impeachment to search for precedents, and some such appeared; nevertheless after sharp debate the prayer of the Petition was rejected by 114 votes against 79.

While these things were passing in the Commons the first days of the new year were troubled by a conflict at Court. The Earl of Essex having died, there fell vacant two offices that he held as Constable of the Tower and Colonel of the 2nd Regiment of Dragoons. In disposing of these Her Majesty evinced her continued alienation from her principal Ministers. Without consulting them she bestowed the place of Constable upon Earl Rivers, a General Officer of merit and service but on no terms of confidence with Marlborough. The Duke was much mortified, but after some strong remonstrances submitted. As regards the regiment, the Queen next commanded him to confer it upon Colonel Hill the brother of her favourite. Here Marlborough conceived that he might make a stand. Having first through the Duchess assured himself of the support of his Whig colleagues, he asked an audience of the Queen and pointed out the prejudice which would ensue to the Service by promoting so young an officer as Colonel Hill over others of superior rank. He added that he should feel it a personal mortification, as a sign of his own declining influence, were he forced to bestow that or any other favour on a brother of Mrs. Masham. But the Queen received his representations very coldly. She adhered to her request and closed the interview