Chap. party spirit; and no fitter man could be found for XXXVII. the Episcopate to which he was now promoted. 1702-1705. Of Bishop Of Bishop Hooper. The appointment of Dr. Wake, Dean of Exeter, to the See of Lincoln, was also one to which only his controversial adversaries could take exception. He had confessedly produced the most learned treatise on the Convocation question, and in every way he was a leading man among his contemporaries. But if the appointment of Wake and Beveridge might seem to indicate that the Queen was favouring the moderate party, the advancement of Dr. Hooper, Dean of Canterbury, to Bath and Wells,* might fairly be pointed at as proving her impartiality. Dr. Hooper had been the Prolocutor in the first Convocation, in which the Lower House had battled so strongly for its rights, he was the close and intimate friend of Bishop Ken, to whom his appointment might be regarded as a delicate mark of respect. It was known that the deprived bishop himself might have been reinstated had his conscience now allowed him to take the oaths, but he preferred to resign his rights in favour of his friend Hooper, and thus this judicious selection opened a door for the healing of the great Nonjuring schism. Yet in spite of these promotions, the party which had anticipated an immediate repeal of the Toleration Act could not be appeased. It Dr. Kidder who had succeeded to the See after the deprivation of Ken, was killed, together with his wife, in the Palace at Wells, by the fall of a stack of chimneys during the great storm in November, 1703. 1702-1705. was seen that not only this was safe, but that the Chap. Bill against Occasional Conformity could not be XXXVII. carried. Hence the exasperation which prompted them to raise the cry of the "Church in danger,” and which made them so eagerly solicitous to return a House of Commons which might equal or exceed the last in devotion to their cause. Chap. XXXVIII. 1705-1710. The Whigs in the ascendant. CHAPTER XXXVIII. The Whigs in the ascendant-Attempt to stop the alarmistsDebate in the House of Lords-Resolution of Parliament — Benjamin Hoadly-His sermon before the Lord Mayor-The first Session of the Convocation of 1705-The two Houses differ on the Address-The Moderate party in the Lower House protests-The Queen's letter-Dangers to the Church from the Union-Convocation prorogued to prevent their opposition-Representation of the Lower House-Queen's second letter-Doubtful propriety of this proceeding-Convocation not allowed to meet-Turn in the state of affairsPromotion of Sir William Dawes and Offspring BlackhallModerate promotions-Controversy between Blackhall and Hoadly-The question of the lawfulness of ResistanceGrowing popularity of the High Church notions-Dr. Henry Sacheverell His sermon at St. Paul's-Proceedings taken in Parliament-Impolicy of the prosecution-The trial-The defence-Debates in the House of Lords-Dr. Sacheverell voted guilty-His sentence-Popular sympathy during the trialRejoicings in the country-Effects of the trial. N spite of the strenuous efforts made by the Tories and High Churchmen to influence the elections, it was discovered when Parliament met, that the Whigs were in a considerable majority. They were able to carry the choice of a speaker against the Tory candidate, and to defeat other projects of their opponents. The Queen now became more Chap. 1705-1710. favourably disposed to them than she had been before, principally through the strange impolicy of XXXVIII. the Tories in proposing that the Electress of Hanover should be invited to reside in England.* It appears to have been hoped that their opponents would second this, and propose it to the Queen, to whom the plan was known to be very distasteful; but the Whigs managed to oppose it without losing their credit with the country, and the whole displeasure of the Queen fell upon the Tories. alarmists. In her Majesty's speech at the opening of Parlia- Attempt to ment, she mentioned with warmth some who had stop the been so very malicious as even in print to suggest that the Church of England was in danger. am willing to hope," said she, "not one of my subjects can really entertain a doubt of my affection to the Church, or so much as suspect that it will not be my chief care to support it, and leave it secure after me; and therefore we may be certain that they who go about to insinuate things of this nature must be mine and the kingdom's enemies, and can only mean to cover designs which they dare not publicly own, by endeavouring to distract us with unreasonable and groundless distrusts and jealousies." Notwithstanding, however, this severe reproof directed against the alarmists, Lord Rochester, in the debate on the Regency Bill, spoke of the danger of the Church, and his words being taken up by Lord Halifax, a day was appointed to discuss the question, whether or no the Church was in danger. *See Account of the Conduct of Duchess of Marlborough, pp. 148, 159. Tindal's Continuation, iv., 189, sq. † Parliamentary History, vi., 452. Chap. Lord Rochester attempted to make good his XXXVIII. words by pointing to the Act of Security in Scot1705-1710. land, which established the Presbyterian Church the House of without a toleration for Episcopalians; by dwelling Debate in Lords. upon the fact that the Heir Presumptive to the Crown was a stranger to the country, and not of the religion of the Church of England; and by referring to the continual rejection of the Occasional Conformity Bill, which, he said, was in itself so reasonable, and the Church's request in it so small, that the industry in opposing it gave great ground for suspicion. Lord Rochester was answered by Lord Halifax, who introduced into his speech a very effective taunt against his opponent by referring to the times when, as he said, the Church was really in danger, in the reign of James II., from the High Commission Court, of which Lord Rochester was a member. The Bishop of London replied to Lord Halifax, and maintained that the Church was in danger from the licentiousness of the press. A most vile book, he said, had been published by a clergyman in his diocese, Mr. Hickeringill, whom he had endeavoured to punish, but had been unable; and a sermon, striking at the root of all civil authority, had just been preached before the Lord Mayor by another London clergyman, Mr. Benjamin Hoadly. Then Bishop Burnet spoke, and after defending the principles of Mr. Hoadly's sermon, more especially addressed himself * * Mr. Hickeringill was the Rector of All Saints', Colchester, and the author of divers scurrilous satires upon Tories and High Churchmen. |