¹ Sharp, T., The Life of John Sharp (1825), i, 366.Google Scholar

² These three bills, dear to the heart of the high Tory leader Lord Nottingham, had been rejected by parliament in January and December 1703 and December 1704.

³ See L[ords] J[ournal]), xviii, 7–8Google Scholar; [Cobbett's] Parl]iamentary] Hist[ory] (1810), vi, 451–4.Google Scholar

⁴ H]istorical] M[anuscripts] C[ommission], Bath, 1, 78–9.Google Scholar

⁵ For a parallel attack in the Commons led by Bromley, and SirSeymour, Edward on 8 Dec. 1705Google Scholar see ‘An anonymous parliamentary diary, 1705–6’, ed. Speck, W. A., Camden Miscellany, xxiii (Royal Historical Society, 1969), 44–9.Google Scholar

⁶ Parl. Hist, vi, 479Google Scholar; [Tullie House Library, Carlisle: Bishop William] Nicolson [of Carlisle], Diary, vi (unfoliated), 30 Nov. 1705; Lord Dartmouth's note to Burnet, Gilbert, A History of His Own Times (1833), v, 242.Google Scholar

⁷ LJ, xviii, 42–3.Google Scholar

⁸ This paragraph is largely based on the H[ouse of] L[ords] R[ecord] O[ffice], Manuscript Journal [of the House of Peers in the 4th of Queen Anne. Begins 14 June 1705. Ends 21 October 1706. (Unfoliated.)], 6 Dec. 1705. It contains the minutes of the Committee of the Whole House, with the divisions and tellers, which are omitted from the printed LJ.

⁹ Nicolson, , Diary, vi, 6 12. 1705.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Her attendance was often an attempt to strengthen the Court party's position. She sat incognita, without her official robes and regalia, see Holmes, G., British Politics [in the Age of Anne] (1967), 390–1.Google Scholar

¹¹ LJ, xviii, 44Google Scholar; Rogers, J. E. T., [A Complete Collection of the] Protests of the Lords (1875), 1, 179.Google Scholar

¹² LJ, xviii, 44.Google Scholar

¹³ Professor G. S. Holmes and I are at present editing this diary for publication. Good printed accounts of this debate can be found in Parl. Hist, vi, 479–507Google Scholar; Boyer, A., [The History of the Life and Reign of] Queen Anne (1722), 215–19Google Scholar; Burnet, , v, 241–4Google Scholar; The Private Diary of William, First Earl Cowper, ed. Hawtrey, E. C. (Roxburghe Club, 1833), pp. 25–6Google Scholar; History and Proceedings of the House of Lords [Timberland] (1742), 11, 154–61.Google Scholar

¹⁴ L[eicester] R[ecord] O[ffice]: Finch MSS, Political Papers 126. It adds nothing to the account printed here. Two other manuscript accounts of this debate exist in the British Library: Additional MSS, 17677 AAA, fos. 572–3, and 28252, fos. 82–9.

¹⁵ The background to the Sacheverell affair has been fully covered in Holmes, G., [The] Trial [of Doctor Sacheverell] (1973).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Holmes, , Trial, p. 33Google Scholar. For a discussion of resistance in the post-Revolution period see Kenyon, J. P., ‘The Revolution of 1688Google Scholar: Resistance and Contract’, in Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society in Honour of J. H. Plumb, ed. McKendrick, N. (1974), pp. 43–69.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Sacheverell was charged by article 3 of his impeachment with asserting that the Church of England was in danger.

¹⁸ The articles of impeachment are printed in full in Holmes, , Trial, pp. 279–82.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Holmes, , Trial, p. 47Google Scholar; Holmes, , British Politics, pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

²⁰ At the end of a sermon preached in Oxford in May 1702 in which he had flayed the dissenters and occasional conformists, Sacheverell had ended by urging Anglicans to stand up to the enemies of the Church and to ‘hang out the bloody flag and banner of defiance’. Holmes, , Trial, p. 17.Google Scholar

²¹ For a reconstruction of the debate see Holmes, , Trial, pp. 215–20.Google Scholar

²² The Correspondence of Sir James Clavering, ed. Dickinson, H. T. (Surtees Society, 1967), p. 71.Google Scholar Somerset was, however, absent when Sacheverell was voted guilty on 20 March, and though a Whig he voted for him on the ‘no preferment’ vote on the following day. Holmes, , Trial, pp. 285, 287.Google Scholar

²³ LJ, xix, 108–9; HLRO, Manuscript Journal [the 9th of Queen Anne (unfoliated)], 16 Mar. 1710.Google Scholar

²⁴ This information comes from Lord Nottingham's notes on the debate, see note 28 below.

²⁵ Holmes, , Trial, p. 220.Google Scholar

²⁶ The voting figures were 68 against 52, the tellers being Lords North and Mohun. HLRO, Manuscript Journal, 16 Mar. 1710. See also LJ, xix, 109–10Google Scholar; Rogers, , Protests of the Lords, i, 194–6.Google Scholar

²⁷ Bishop Nicolson, unfortunately, did not attend this session of parliament. The main printed account is Boyer, , Queen Anne, 429–39Google Scholar; but also see Parl. Hist, vi, 831–60Google Scholar; Burnet, , v, 447–9Google Scholar; Timberland, , 11, 242–4 (which merely quotes Burnet)Google Scholar; and other material cited in Holmes, , Trial, p. 323. White Kennett in his journal (B. L. Lansdowne MS 1024, fo. 207) records abstracts of the speeches of the bishops of Salisbury and Oxford and of LordGoogle Scholar Haversham.

²⁸ LRO: Finch MSS, Ecclesiastical Papers 5. Nottingham's account forms part of his notes on debates in both the Lords and Commons on Sacheverell's impeachment.

²⁹ I should like to express my thanks to t h e Trustees of the British Library Board for allowing me to publish this document.

³⁰ Uncle to the queen and a leader of the high-church Tories.

³¹ The Act of Security, passed by the Scottish parliament, in 1704, provided that the Scots should choose a successor to Queen Anne when she died who should be a protestant and of the royal line, but who would not necessarily be the same person as the English chose, unless the English had previously satisfied the Scots on matters of government and trade.

³² A member of the Whig junto. He was later congratulated o n ‘turning their own Canon upon those Persons whose real Grief it has been that the Dangers of the Church, & the Dangers of the Protestant Succession are only Imaginery and Chemerical’, B. L. Egerton MS 929, fo. 90: Chamberlayn, John to Halifax, , 27 February 1705[/6]. Before Halifax stood up to speak, ‘the house sat still a quarter of an hour expecting some body would second him [Rochester]’. B.L. Additional MS 28252, fo. 82.Google Scholar

³³ The Act for Securing the True Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Government, passed in Scotland in 1703, ratified that of 1690 which had re-established presbyterianism as the established religion.

³⁴ The act actually received the royal assent in September 1703, whereas Rochester had resigned in February of that year. The Acts of the Parliament of Scotland (1824), XI, 104.Google Scholar

³⁵ Compton, Henry, bishop of London (1675–1713). A Tory.Google Scholar

³⁶ Hickeringill, Edmund (d. 1708).Google Scholar Vicar of All Saints Church in Colchester. In early life he had been a baptist, quaker and free-thinker. Compton had been in legal conflict with him since 1681, and in November 1705 had brought Hickeringill to the Court of Arches over the indecency of a published work, Survey of the Earth. See Carpenter, E., The Protestant Bishop (1956), pp. 233–5.Google Scholar

³⁷ The Memorial of the State of England, by the well-known deist, John Toland, which preached toleration and praised the ministry for its moderation in religious matters. It was an answer to The Memorial of the Church of England, by the high-church Dr James Drake, published in 1705. This pamphlet denounced Marlborough and Godolphin as renegades and accused the queen of favouring the dissenters. It was ordered by the courts to be burnt by the common hangman.

³⁸ An unsavoury Whig society, which celebrated the anniversary of Charles I's execution by drinking toasts to the regicides from ‘a calf's skull, filled with wine or other liquor‘. The Harleian Miscellany (1810), vi , 600.Google Scholar

³⁹ A sermon preached before the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London on 29 Sept. 1705 by Benjamin Hoadly, in which he argued against non-resistance, claiming that the subject's submission was ended when a prince acted contrary to the public good. Hoadly was accused by Bromley in the Commons of’ preaching rebellion’. See Bingham, E. R., ‘The political apprenticeship of Benjamin Hoadly’, Church History, xvi (1947), 157–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Burnet, Gilbert, bishop of Salisbury (1689–1715). A Whig.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Compton had not only signed the invitation to William of Orange in 1688 asking him to invade, but had played an active part in conveying the Princess Anne from London to Nottingham. In 1689 he had officiated at the coronation of William and Mary. See Carpenter, , The Protestant Bishop, pp. 116–40Google Scholar; Hosford, D. H., ‘Bishop Compton and the Revolution of 1688’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xxiii (1972), 209–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² The Nature and Necessity of Religious Resolution, in defence and support of a good cause in times of danger and trial, by William Tilly, preached at the assizes and before the university of Oxford on 19 July 1705. According to Thomas Hearne, ‘he [Tilly] brought in the same thing of occasional conformity, and his sermon was very much approv'd of by the high church dons. After its publication on 10 August, Hearne noted ‘that the Whigg Members of Parliament [are] much displeas'd…and that they will order it to be burnt’. [Remarks and Collections of Thomas] Hearne, ed. Doble, C. E. (1885), 1, 10, 27, 70, 92Google Scholar; Parl. Hist, vi, 492.Google Scholar

⁴³ A sermon on John v, 14, preached before the university of Oxford on 29 May 1705 on the anniversary of Charles II's Restoration, by John Mather. It was in print by 22 Nov. 1705. Hearne, 1, 311; Parl. Hist, vi, 492.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The college was Corpus Christi, where both Tilly and Mather were fellows (Hearne, 1, 311). The ‘noble peer’ was almost certainly Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, Lord Rochester's elder non-juring brother. He was steward of the university from 1686 until his death in 1709, and was on good terms with the president of Corpus, Thomas Turner, who was a known friend to non-jurors. Turner's brother was the non-juring bishop of Ely, Francis Turner, who remained close to Clarendon during the Revolution of 1688. The Correspondence of Henry Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, ed. Singer, S. W. (1828), 11, 142–332 passim, but especially p. 271Google Scholar; Fowler, T., The History of Corpus Christi College (Oxford, 1893), pp. 265–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Henry Dodwell (1641 -1711) and Charles Leslie (1650–1722). Both non-jurors, they were effective writers on the non-juring controversy, and against occasional conformity and dissenters.

⁴⁶ Sharp, John, archbishop of York (1691–1714). A ToryGoogle Scholar, and the ecclesiastical adviser of Queen Anne. For another account of this speech see Sharp, T., Life of John Sharp, 1, 363–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Hooper, George, bishop of Bath and Wells (1703–1727). A Tory.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ According to Nicolson, ‘after a Rambling (but elaborate and sett) Discourse upon Nothing, he [Bath and Wells] concluded with a proposeal - That the Church might be secured by a Revival of the Occasional Bill’. Nicolson, , Diary, vi, 6 12. 1705.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Patrick, Simon, bishop of Ely (1691–1707). A Whig. Nicolson omits this speech from his account.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ In May 1705, when the court candidates were defeated and supporters of the ‘Tack’ were returned, see Speck, W. A., Tory and Whig (1970), pp. 100–1, 107.Google Scholar

⁵¹ A leader of the high-church Tories. His notes for this speech are in the LRO: Finch MSS, Political papers 126.

⁵² Hough, John, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1699–1717). A Whig.Google Scholar

⁵³ Staunch Whig and member of the junto.

⁵⁴ Sharp admitted, in a speech which Nicolson records as immediately following Wharton's, but which is not recorded in this account (see note 57), that he had ‘had a Son with Mr Ellis of Thistleworth’ but ‘that (whenhefoundthat person obstinately refused to comply with the Government) he removed his Child; who had now been, for a good while instructed elsewhere’. Nicolson, , Diary, vi, 6 12. 1705.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Nicolson noted in an aside, ‘meaning, as supposed, a Sermon of the present Prolocutor's [of the lower house of Convocation]’. Ibid. William Binkes, high-church dean of Lichfield (1703–12), had been elected prolocutor in October 1705. On 30 Jan. 1701, he had preached before the lower house of Convocation a sermon in which he not only drew a parallel between the execution of Charles I and the crucifixion of Christ, but asserted that the former was the greater crime as Christ had not claimed any temporal powers. The sermon was printed and brought before the Lords who voted it a ‘just scandal and offence to all Christian people’. Parl. Hist, vi, 22–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Duke of Buckingham, earl of Rochester and earl of Nottingham.

⁵⁷ After Wharton's speech Nicolson records a reply by the archbishop of York (see note 54).

⁵⁸ Moore, John, bishop of Norwich (1691–1707). A Whig.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The Prussian, Daniel Jablonski hoped to unite the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Brandenburg by their acceptance of the Anglican liturgy and the restoration of episcopacy. The scheme was favoured by the high-church party, and Jablonski's chief supporter in England was Sharp of York. See Sykes, N., Daniel Jablonski and the Church of England (London, 1950).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ A Tory. Nicolson failed to record this speech.

⁶¹ According to Nicolson, , the bishop of Norwich seconded Archbishop Sharp's motion. Diary, vi, 6 Dec. 1705.Google Scholar

⁶² Sidney, , Lord Godolphin, lord treasurer (1702–1710), and a Court Tory. Nicolson omits this speech.Google Scholar

⁶³ Nicolson records a speech here by North, Lord and Grey, . Diary, vi, 6 12 1705.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The leader of the Whig junto.

⁶⁵ A high Tory.

⁶⁶ Peregrine Osborne, son of the duke of Leeds who, though he sat in the Lords by virtue of his own title of Baron Osborne, was known by his father's courtesy title of marquess of Carmarthen. A Tory. Nicolson omits this speech.

⁶⁷ The previous two sentences are inserted from B.L. Lansdowne MS 1034, fo. 5.

⁶⁸ Nicolson records Nottingham as concluding the debate with the words,‘ If the latter part of this Question stands [that whoever suggests and insinuates that the Church is in danger under her Majesty's administration is an enemy to the queen, the Church and the kingdom], some of us have nothing to do but to Goe home and say our prayers.’ Diary, vi, 6 Dec. 1705, Nicolson's italics.

⁶⁹ There is no known list of those who voted in this debate, but some idea can be gained of those who voted that the Church was in danger by noting the 26 peers who signed the subsequent protest on the vote (LJ, xviii, 44). Sharp is not listed as protesting, but his son recorded him as voting the Church in danger (Sharp, T., Life of John Sharp, 1, 364)Google Scholar, and Parl. Hist, vi, 508 states that Sharp and the bishop of Rochester ‘protested after’. The question actually put was that the Church was safe under the present administration, so that the Contents were 61 and the Not Contents 30. The tellers were the Earl Rivers and the earl of Denbigh. HLRO, Manuscript Journal, 6 Dec. 1705.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Wharton listed the association at Exeter, the seizing of York and Oxford, and the raising of regiments against the king's command. He went on to state that resistance was a necessary preliminary to the Revolution, that it was agreeable to the natural laws of government, that the archbishops of York and Dublin had reconciled resistance to the practices of churchmen, and that the queen's title depended on the Revolution. LRO: Finch MSS, Ecclesiastical Papers 5.

⁷¹ For details of his speech see Boyer, , Queen Anne, pp. 429–32. In the opinion of William Bromley, it was ‘far beyond those the Bishops have published’. Levens Hall MSS: Bromley to James Grahme, 1 Sept. 1710. Haversham was a former Whig who now sided with the Tories.Google Scholar

⁷² A Tory.

⁷³ According to Nottingham Lord Ferrers was followed by Lord Seafield (see note 88), the bishop of Oxford and the duke of Argyll. Nottingham's notes on this debate end with Argyll's speech. LRO: Finch MSS, Ecclesiastical Papers 5.

⁷⁴ Talbot, William, bishop of Oxford (1699–1715). A Whig.Google Scholar His speech was printed, see Parl. Hist, vi, 837–46, for a copy.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ A Scot who sat in the Lords by virtue of his English peerage as earl of Greenwich (cr. 1705) and not as a representative Scottish peer. A Whig. Though he voted Sacheverell guilty on 20 March, he voted for the Doctor in the ‘no preferment’ vote on the following day. Holmes, Trial, pp. 226–7.

⁷⁶ A reference to Bishop Manningham of Chichester's fast day sermon before the Lords preached on 15 March (LJ, xix, 108), in which he said that formerly the clergy were respected and advanced to high posts of honour, but now the reverse was true. The remedy lay, he went on, in restoring the abbey lands to the Church. Manningham was a Whig, and he was probably using hyperbole to make Sacheverell's case look ridiculous. While he was being reproved by Argyll in the debate, Manningham turned to Burnet of Salisbury and asked who Argyll meant. Burnet patted him on the forehead and replied, ‘Who should it be, but thou child’. The Correspondence of Sir James Clavering, p. 71.

⁷⁷ According to Boyer, , Queen Anne, p. 439, several peers spoke to this effect, including the bishops of London, Rochester and Llandaff, though the latter is not recorded as having attended the debate (LJ, six, 108).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ A Tory.

⁷⁹ The MS notes of Lord North and Grey's speech are in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: MS North a. 3, fos. 135–44.

⁸⁰ Treasurer of the household (1708–13), and a Court Whig.

⁸¹ As earl of Danby, the duke of Leeds was one of the main English conspirators in the period before the Revolution, and when William of Orange landed at Torbay Danby raised Yorkshire on his behalf.

⁸² For notes on Nottingham's speeches at the time of the impeachment and a draft refutation of the whig assertions of the legitimacy of resistance see LRO: Finch MSS, Ecclesiastical Papers 5.

⁸³ Burnet had been in Holland in the years leading up to the Revolution and had accompanied William in 1688. His speech was printed, see Boyer, , Queen Anne, pp. 434–9 for a copy.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Jewel, John, bishop of Salisbury (1559–1571).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ A Whig who had signed the invitation to William of Orange, yet he voted the Doctor not guilty.

⁸⁸ A Whig junto lord who voted guilty.

⁸⁷ A Court Tory who sat as a Scottish representative peer.

⁸⁸ A Scottish representative peer who voted with the Court. According to Nottingham, Lord Seafield's main point was that the ‘Dr n[ot] impeachd [for] preaching non resist[an]ce but [for] reviling revolu[ti]on’. LRO: Finch MSS, Ecclesiastical Papers 5.

⁸⁹ William, , Lord Cowper, lord chancellor (1707–1710). A Whig.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ A reference to the riot of the night of 1/2 Mar. 1710 in which the London mob had destroyed several meeting-houses of the dissenters. See Holmes, , Trial, pp. 156–78.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Court Tory and cousin of Lord Nottingham.

⁹² A high Tory.

⁹³ Sir Samuel Garrard, the lord mayor of London, had denied in the Commons that he had asked Sacheverell to print the sermon, but few had believed him. See Holmes, , Trial, pp. 70–2, 91–3.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ A Whig.

⁹⁵ A Court Whig.

⁹⁶ Westminster Hall where the trial was being conducted.

⁹⁷ Godolphin.

⁹⁸ A Whig.