fellows, being cited before the ecclesiastical commissioners for this contumacy, brought allegagations against Farmer of such a nature, that the court did not deem it expedient to insist upon their nomination. But affirming that the college ought to have shown more respect to the king's letter than to proceed to an election in opposition to it, the commissioners took upon them to declare Hough's election null, and to put the house under suspension; and a new mandate was issued in favor of Parker, an abject tool of the court, and lately created bishop of Oxford. The college humbly represented, "that a president having been already legally chosen, it was not in their power to deprive him of his office, or to substitute any other in his place-that, even in case of a vacancy, Parker did not possess the statutable qualifications which by oath they were bound to observe; and, as their loyalty had been ever conspicuous, they entreated his majesty to believe that their present opposition to his royal will arose solely from their inability to conform to it." No impression however was made on the haughty and inflexible disposition of the king by these arguments; and, in a visit which he made to the university not long afterwards, he sent for the president and fellows to attend him in person, and in high and menacing language commanded them without further excuse or delay to choose

Parker for their president. As the college still refused to degrade themselves by compliance, the new president was at length ejected by actual violence. The doors of his house were broken open, and Parker, by a forcible seizure, put into possession. The fellows, excepting two who were base enough to submit, were likewise deprived of their fellowships, which were without any process of law bestowed upon men entirely devoted to the king's will and pleasure; and who, on the sudden death of Parker, choose one Gifford, a doctor of the Sorbonne, as their president, who was also nominated to the vacant see of Oxford.

This act of undisguised despotism inflamed the minds of all ranks and orders of men with anger and indignation. Fellowships being, by the universal consent of the lawyers, of the nature of freeholds, it was evident that no man's property was secure, and that nothing less than the absolute subversion of the whole frame and constitution of government was to be apprehended. Popery could only be established by tyranny; and the nation began now in earnest to consider of the means of resistance; and the eyes of all seemed fixed as with one consent on the consent on the prince of Orange, from whom alone timely and effectual relief could be expected in this season of difficulty and danger. This daring outrage, however, was quickly followed by a transaction still more extra

3

Declara

tion of In

1688.

ordinary, and which displayed the infatuation and extravagance of the king in colors still more striking and vivid.

A second declaration of indulgence was pubdulgence. lished in terms not materially different from the former and to this declaration an order was subjoined, that it should be read in all the churches throughout the kingdom, immediately after the celebration of divine service. This mandate being justly regarded by the clergy as a direct and flagrant insult upon their order, by virtually making them the instruments of the ruin of that church of which they were ordained the ministers, they almost unanimously resolved, notwithstanding their rooted prejudices in favor of royalty, to refuse obedience to this injunction. Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, a man of high monarchical principles, but of inflexible integrity, after consulting such of his brethren as he could convene on this emergency, agreed with them to present a petition to the king against the declaration of indulgence; stating in the most submissive terms their reasons why they could not as they expressed themselves, "in prudence, honor, or conscience, so far make themselves parties to it, as a distribution of it all over the nation, and the solemn publication of it, once and again, even in God's house and in the time of divine service, must amount to in common and reasonable con

struction" The king received this petition with vehement marks of indignation. He told them " he was their king, and would be obeyed, and that they should feel what it was to dispute his authority."

the Tower

After the delay of a fortnight, during which Seven Bishops cominterval the most moderate even of the catholics mitted to attempted in vain to soften and abate the anger of the king, the bishops, who were seven in number, were cited to appear before the privy council. The petition being produced, they were asked whether they would acknowledge it as their petition. To this, after some hesitation, they answered in the affirmative; upon which a warrant was made for their commitment to the Tower, and the crown lawyers received orders to prosecute them as the authors of a seditious and scandalous libel. The passions of the people were now completely roused; and when the day fixed for the trial of these venerable confessors arrived, the result of it was expected with inexpressible ardor and anxiety. According to the positions maintained by the generality of lawyers, a verdict ought to have been found against the bishops without hesitation: for it is affirmed that the law of England allows jurors to be judges only of the fact, and leaves all questions of law to be determined by the courts of law. The fact in

this case was indubitable; the bishops had expressly avowed themselves the authors of the petition and if the question of law, whether it were seditious or libellous in its tendency, were referred to the court, it may easily be conjectured in what manner it would have been decided. Happily, to the sophistry and subtlety of legal refinement common sense may be ever successfully opposed; and this best of all instructors teaches us, that when the question of law is so involved and blended with the matter of fact, that the fact itself, as containing a criminal allegation, can only be ascertained by deciding upon the point of law, then it is not merely the privilege but the duty of a jury, according to the best lights which they are able to attain, to include both in one general verdict; otherwise juries in such cases become wholly superfluous, insignificant, and con-. temptible. "The traitorous or evil intent," says sir Matthew Hale in his Pleas of the Crown, "is the very gist of an indictment, and must be an-swered by the plea of not guilty and the jury are bound to take notice of the defensive matter adduced to disprove the allegation, and to give their verdict accordingly.-It would be," adds this great magistrate, "a most unhappy case even for the judge himself, if the defendant's or prisoner's fate depended upon his directions.

Un