VIII.

He went through the expressions which were used in CHAP. the information to describe the offence imputed to the Bishops, and showed that every word, whether adjective 1688. 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

VIII.

CHAP. particular petition before the Court was improperly worded, and was, in the contemplation of law, a libel. 1688. 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 Parlia

ments.

The whole legislative authority would be in the King. "That issue, gentlemen," he said, "I leave to God and to your consciences." *

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

* See the proceedings in the Collection of State Trials. I have taken

some touches from Johnstone, and some from Citters.

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 mes-
senger came from Whitehall to know what was passing.
Voices, high in altercation, were repeatedly heard within
the room but nothing certain was known.*

At first nine were for acquitting and three for con-
vieting.
Two of the minority soon gave way; but
Arnold was obstinate. Thomas Austin, a country gen-
tleman 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.†

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

was a breathless stillness.

CHAP.

VIII.

1688.

Sir Samuel Astry spoke. "Do you find the defend- The ants, or any of them, guilty of the misdemeanour verdict. whereof they are impeached, or not guilty?" Sir Roger Langley answered, "Not guilty." As the words passed Joy of the his lips, Halifax sprang up and waved his hat. At people. that signal, benches and galleries raised a shout. In a moment ten thousand persons, who crowded the great

* Johnstone, July 2. 1688; Letter from Mr. Ince to the Archbishop, dated at six o'clock in the

morning; Tanner MS.; Revolution
Politics.

† Johnstone, July 2. 1688.

VIII.

1688.

CHAP. 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.*

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

State Trials; Oldmixon, 739.;
Clarendon's Diary, June 25. 1688;
Johnstone, July 2.; Citters, July13;

Adda, July.; Luttrell's Diary;
Barillon, July 1

VIII.

hear the decision. He was recognised by his sacerdotal CHAP. 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." *

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.†

The Attorney went with the tidings to Sunderland, who happened to be conversing with the Nuncio. "Never," said Powis, "within man's memory, have

*Citters, July. The gravity with which he tells the story has a comic effect. "Den Bisschop van Chester, wie seer de partie van het hof houdt, om te voldoen aan syne gewoone nieusgierigheyt, hem op dien tyt in Westminster Hall mede hebbende laten vinden, in het uytgaan doorgaans was uytgekreten voor een grypende wolf in schaaps kleederen; en hy synde een heer van hooge stature en vollyvig, spotsgewyse alomme geroepen was dat men voor hem plaats moeste maken, om te laten passen, gelyck ook geschiede, om dat soo sy uytschreeuwden en hem in het aansigt seyden, hy den Paus in syn buyck hadde."

3

Luttrell; Citters, July T 1688. "Soo syn in tegendeel gedagte jurys met de uyterste acclamatie en alle teyckenen van genegenheyt en danckbaarheyt in het door passeren van de gemeente ontvangen. Honderden vielen haar om den hals met alle bedenckelycke wewensch van segen en geluck over hare persoonen en familien, om dat sy haar so heusch en eerlyck buyten verwagtinge als het ware in desen gedragen hadden. Veele van de grooten en kleynen adel wierpen in het wegryden handen vol gelt onder de armen luyden, om op de gesontheyt van den Coning, der Heeren Prelaten, en de Jurys te drincken.”

1688.