Backlash by Rachel Carnell

Author:Rachel Carnell
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: IDENTIFIER: Carnell
Publisher: University of Virginia Press
Published: 2020-09-01T00:00:00+00:00

The prosecution was represented by Sir Joseph Jekyll, who spoke for almost an hour about the “clear sense and meaning” of the most disturbing passages in Sacheverell’s sermon. He also pointed out the dangers posed to the very foundation of government implicit in Sacheverell’s challenge to the legality of the Revolution of 1688. As he explained, “if the Justice of the Revolution be establish’d,” then there could be differences of opinion about religious toleration: some would rejoice in it, others might object, but it would be accepted or “acquiesc’d in by all.” While there might still be disagreement between different political parties, he argued, there would not be the level of “Disputes and Factions” as would follow, in Jekyll’s estimation, if the validity of the Revolution were denied. When that validity was denied, as in Sacheverell’s sermon, the level of disagreement and dispute between parties was bound to rise to such a degree that “a total Subversion of our Constitution” would follow. Jekyll also made clear that the requirement of passive obedience of “Submission” was not only to the monarch, as Sacheverell would have it, but also to the rule of law. Jekyll praised the “Temper and Prudence” of those who in 1688–89 articulated the foundation of the nation’s government as resting “not only on Royal but on Legislative Authority.” He also praised both Parliament and William III for implicitly condoning the resistance to James II that brought about the Revolution. Thus, in “condemning” that “Resistance,” Sacheverell “cast Black and Odious Colours on the late King and the Revolution.”32

Jekyll was followed by Robert Eye, solicitor-general, who detailed the weakness of Sacheverell’s written answer to the impeachment, insisting that in that Answer, Sacheverell once again was reiterating the doctrine of nonresistance. He pointed out that “if the Resistance at the Revolution was illegal,” then “the Revolution settled in Usurpation.” If William and Mary and now Queen Anne were now usurpers to the crown, then “the Friends of the Pretender” would be emboldened to “advance his Title to the Crown, and call him King.”33 Although it may seem counterintuitive that disallowing the right of resistance could result in the overthrow of the current monarch, that was, in essence, the prosecution’s rallying cry.

Then the comptroller of the household gave a “short but effective speech,” and the MP Robert Walpole followed with remarks that were “robust, combative, well-honed” and “spiced here and there with mordant humour.”34 He began by acknowledging the strangeness of his (and the Whig position), which was to assert that as “a Loyal Subject and Faithful Servant of the best of Queens,” he was in an awkward situation “in speaking in Defence of the Necessary and Commendable Resistance used at the Revolution,” since “his Arguments may be misconstrued, and misrepresented, as maintaining Antimonarchical Schemes.” As he continued in his address to the judges, Walpole ironically echoed Sacheverell’s own insulting prose style in the string of adjectives he deployed when he expressed his hope that their “Judgment in this Case will convince

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.