An account of the proceedings at West Minster-Hall on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688 relating to the tryal and discharge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of S. Asaph, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Ely, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop of Peterborough, and the Bishop of Bristol.

An account of the proceedings at West Minster-Hall on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688 relating to the tryal and discharge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of S. Asaph, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Ely, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop of Peterborough, and the Bishop of Bristol.

Table of contents

Title page

AN ACCOUNT Of the Proceedings at Westminster-Hall, on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688. &c.

[Page]

[Page]

AN ACCOUNT Of the Proceedings at Westminster-Hall, on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688. &c.

THE Indictment when read, was very much excepted against, on the account of its Form, in that it did not mention all the Petition they were Indicted for: there was not either the Title of it expressing to whom it was directed (viz. To the Kings Most Excellent-Majesty, was omitted,) and the prayer afterwards (We therefore pray, &c. was not there; which being closely pursued by the Bishops Council, seemed to invalidate the whole business. Then it was not and could not be proved by the Kings Council, that the Bishops presented the petition to the King. They had in the Court the Original, and subpoena'd some of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops Chaplains, Servants, and others, to prove their hands, which was not done very clearly upon most of them; all the proof of the Kings Council had for the presenting the Petition to His Majesty, did not directly prove it upon them: The most it amounted to, was either that the King told them, he had it from the said Bishops; or, that my Lord Chancellor did ask them, if it were theirs (when they were summon'd before the King and Council,) and that they then express'd an averseness to own it; saying before the King, that if His Majesty did insist on it, and [...]hat it should not be improved to their disadvantage, or produc'd in evidence against them, that they would be plain, and leave it to His Majesty. Upon this the Bishops Council had some reflections which my Lord Chief Justice told them he must not hear. But this did not amount to a full proof of the point. Then the Bishops Council did greatly insist upon the Indictment being laid in a wrong County; for it was proved upon Oath, that the Arch-Bishop was not out of his House for a very considerable [Page] time before he was summon'd to the King in Council. Now what was alledg'd against them, was done at Lambeth, and therefore in Surrey the Indictment ought to have been laid, which seem'd much to affect them. After this, the Bishops Council objected against the term Publishing; whereas what was said to be done by them, was in the privatest way that could be, and given only to the King, which caus'd a long debate between both parties, of things requisite to denominate a Publication; all did still appear favourable on the Bishops side: and here things were going to a conclusion, and the Judge was entered upon summing up the Evidence; but Mr. Finch, (one of the Bishops Council) interrupted my Lord Chief Justice, saying, there was one material Evidence remaining: Whereupon, my Lord desisted, tho with some seeming disatisfaction to the rest of the Bishops Council; For the Judge was going on very favourably for the Bishops cause; some of the Bishops importun'd my Lord Chief Justice to proceed, but he would not; And so it brought on more discourse about the former Subjects, and occasion'd the sending for my Lord President: who came into Court after it had stayed an hour for him: The Evidence that he gave upon Oath, could not fully prove the delivery of the Petition to the King by the Bishops: When before, for the proof of this, the Solicitor did very greatly importune some Witnesse for the King, (that had upon Oath delivered, what they knew about this matter, which was as aforesaid) by putting to them very intricate questions, my Lord Chief Justice reproved him, saying, it was not to be suffered; adding, that if he went on thus, he would let the Bishops council loose on him.

After these things, my L. C. J. ask'd the Bishops council, what else they had to plead; whereupon they proceeded to that part of the Indictment that call'd the Bishops Petiton, A scandalous Seditious Libel, &c. Which occasion'd very great, solemn and most pleasing debates. For, hereupon they entered into and discuss'd the lawfulness of the Declaration and the Dispensing Power, which were harang'd by every one of the Bishops Council in most brisk, home and admirable Speeches, for the space of three hours, shewing the Declaration to be against and contrary to Law, which no power could dispence or abrogate, but that which made it, (viz. a parliament) and that the Ecclesiastical Laws had the same foundation as the Civil, and could be therefore no more dispens'd with, That the Declaration did evacuate the Laws for Sabbath-breaking, Fornication, &c. and let loose the reins to the most extravagant Sects and licentious practices; and that all Laws might be dispens'd with, as well as some: That the Bishops were sworn to maintain the Ecclesiastical Laws; and in representing the Case thus to His Majesty, they [Page] had done both as the Law directed them, and according to prudence, Honour, and Conscience. There were hereupon publickly read several Acts of parliament, Records of the Tower, and parliament Records, among which one Act of parliament was observable; that gave the King power to dispense with a Law for a stated time: So that what Dispensing power he ever had, was both given and bounded by parliament. From what they produc'd out of the parliament Records and otherways they greatly confi [...]m'd what was said in the petition of the Dispensing power, having been often declared illegal in Parliament, and particularly in the years 62 and 72. and in the begining of his Majesties Reign, which was in 85, when the parliament declar'd the Popish Officers could not be dispen [...]'d with, but that it was contrary to Law to do so, tho they were willing by Act of Parliament to indemnifie such as His Majesty should nominate, &c. And they shew'd how the like Dispensing Power upon the same occasion was accounted illegal in 62. and 72. both by Parliament and the King himself, who offered the Seal to be tore off, and gave the testimony of his disowning such a Dispensing Power. To which the Solicitors chief Answer was, that the King then lacked Money, and that such Acts as aforesaid (whatever they might say) did confirm, not give the King's Dispensing Power. In short, the Bishops Council behav'd themselves in this weighty matter with a great deal of gallantry and plainness, no wise inferior to most mens expectations and desires. The chief of the managers for the King, was the Solicitor W. Williams, who as was apprehended, did no great wonders for invaliditating the foregoing Arguments. He was very hot and earnest (if not passionate) in proving it a Libel, saying, It would be so, tho it were done by them to redress a certain grievance: whereupon my L. C. J. asking what course then they should take, or what they should do in such circumstances; he answered, Acquiesce▪ (which occasioned a very great Hiss over the Court) He added farther to prove it Libellous; the insinuating Expressions of gaining the populace, by saying, ‘It was not for want of due tenderness to dissenters, in relation to whom, we are Willing to come to such a temper, as shall be thought fit, when that matter shall be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation, said he, what's the meaning of that?’ But here my L. C. J. gave him a check, and reftrain'd what he seem'd greatly disposed to vent against it. There was not very much said by the rest of the Kings council, at least, nothing more considerable than this. The King's Attorny General was pretty moderate; Sir Barth Shores spoke a little, but was presently silenc'd, (in the vacancy of stay for my Lord president, my L. C. J. said to Sir Barth-Shores, Now Sir Bartholomew, [Page] we have time to hear your Speeches) Serjeant Baldock's Argument against the Bishops, was chiefly upon their refusing, the King requiring such a slender matter so easily to be done; for they were not enjoyned to read, but only to send about and disperse it: Yet this they would not do. It concluded with the Kings Council.

Then my Lord Chief Justice summing up the business, was favourable to the Bishops in the former part of the Tryal, and could not say the matter of Fact was fully proved upon them, but was inclin'd to make the Petition a Libel; because of its accusing the King of Flaws in Government. He said but little to oppose what had been brought by the Bishops Council against the Declaration and Dispensing Power. After him spoke Judge Holloway, and very much in the Bishops behalf; giving it as his judgment, that it could not be a Libel, being done from a conviction of Conscience by such Persons in such an humble modest manner. Then Judg Power spake to the same effect, giving it as his opinion, that it could not be a Libel, being the only way to redress themselves: He had also some smart expressions to confirm what the Bishops Council had urged against the Declaration and Dispensing Power, So that Judge Powel gave his opinion also in favours of the Bishops. Then Judge Allibon standing up, professed he would not meddle with the Dispensing Power (tho it had been so much Canvass'd and pleaded against) but would only speak to the business of the Paper being a Libel; and he did accordingly, urging it to be so, not barely because it was a Petition: For, said he, any one under grievance may Petition his Majesty, but not about affairs of Government, for that would tend to very bad consequences, and promote Discontents, or worse in the Nation. Nor (as he added) can the pretended fairness, as to the manner of it, be an excuse; For the more it hath that way, so much the worse; and so concluded it in his sense a Libel. But urging a Precedent to confirm what he had said, he was partly mistaken in it, as Judge Powel and the Bishops Council shew'd him, and he himself acknowledged.

Then the Court broke up, the Jury went together, and the Bishops with all the privacy they could, to their respective abodes; but wherever the people met with them, they huzza'd and humm'd them in a great abundance. There was a prodigious full Court and Hall, a very great many of the Peers and Nobility present, and also the Bishop of Chester, of whom [Page] they took no kind of notice: The Bishop of Rochester did not meet with much better regard.

The Jury sat up all night, tho they were very soon unanimous in their Verdict, which they prudently resolved to give in open Court; and accordingly, next day about Nine or Ten they brought them in

Not Guilty.

The Names of the Lord Bishops Counsellors.

[Page]Sir Francis Pemberton.

Sir Creswell Levins.

Sir Robert Sawyer.

Mr. Finch.

Mr. Pollixfin.

Mr. Treby.

Mr. Summers.

The Names of the JƲRY Sworn.

Sir Roger Langly of Westminster.

Sir William Hill of Tedington.

Robert Jennings of Hayes, Esquire.

Thomas Harriot of Islington, Esquire.

Jeoffry Nightingale of S. Giles Cripplegate, Esquire.

William Withers of the same, Esquire.

William Avery of Enfield, Esquire.

Thomas Austin of South-Myms, Esquire.

Nicholas Grice of Neston, Esquire.

Michael Arnold of Westminster, Esquire.

Thomas Done of S. Giles in the Field, Esquire.

Richard Shore ditch of Ickenham, Esquire.

FINIS.

[Page]

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

AN ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT WESTMINSTER-HALL, On the 29th, and 30th of June, 1688. Relating to the Tryal and Discharge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of S. Asaph, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Ely, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop of Peterborough, and the Bishop of Bristol.

Edinburgh, Re-printed in the Year. 1689.

Information about this book

Title statement

An account of the proceedings at West Minster-Hall on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688 relating to the tryal and discharge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of S. Asaph, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Ely, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop of Peterborough, and the Bishop of Bristol.

Edition statement

1689

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A25782

ID [STC]

Wing A364

ID [STC]

ESTC R23617

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

07869520

ID [OCLC]

ocm 07869520

ID [VID]

40164

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A25782)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 40164)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1194:3)

Source

— An account of the proceedings at West Minster-Hall on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688 relating to the tryal and discharge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of S. Asaph, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Ely, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop of Peterborough, and the Bishop of Bristol.,

Extent

8 p.

[s.n.],. Edinburgh :: 1689.. (Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.