The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part F.: From Charles II. to James II. — David Hume — John Shaqi
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part F.: From Charles II. to James II.
David Hume · en
The council for the bishops pleaded, that the law allowed subjects,
if they thought themselves aggrieved in any particular, to apply by
petition to the king, provided they kept within certain bounds, which
the same law prescribed to them, and which, in the present petition, the
prelates had strictly observed: that an active obedience in cases
which were contrary to conscience, was never pretended to be due
to government; and law was allowed to be the great measure of the
compliance and submission of subjects: that when any person found
commands to be imposed upon him which he could not obey, it was more
respectful in him to offer his reasons for refusal, than to remain in
a sullen and refractory silence: that it was no breach of duty in
subjects, even though not called upon, to discover their sense of public
measures, in which every one had so intimate a concern: that the bishops
in the present case were called upon, and must either express their
approbation by compliance, or their disapprobation by petition: that
it could be no sedition to deny the prerogative of suspending the laws;
because there really was no such prerogative, nor ever could be, in a
legal and limited government: that even if this prerogative were real,
it had yet been frequently controverted before the whole nation, both in
Westminster Hall and in both houses of parliament; and no one had ever
dreamed of punishing the denial of it as criminal: that the prelates,
instead of making an appeal to the people, had applied in private to his
majesty, and had even delivered their petition so secretly, that, except
by the confession extorted from them before the council, it was found
impossible to prove them the authors: and that though the petition was
afterwards printed and dispersed, it was not so much as attempted to be
proved that they had the least knowledge of the publication.
These arguments were convincing in themselves, and were heard with a
favorable disposition by the audience. Even some of the judges, though
their seats were held during pleasure, declared themselves in favor
of the prisoners. The jury, however, from what cause is unknown, took
several hours to deliberate, and kept, during so long a time, the people
in the most anxious expectation. But when the wished-for verdict, not
guilty, was at last pronounced, the intelligence was echoed through the
hall, was conveyed to the crowds without, was carried into the city, and
was propagated with infinite joy throughout the kingdom.