The information having been read, the first thing was to prove the handwriting of the Bishops, a point not to be established without considerable difficulty. The Counsel for the defence raised the question,—Had the paper been signed in the County of Middlesex, where the venue had been laid? This could not be proved, inasmuch as Sancroft, during the whole business, had remained in his Palace at Lambeth. The case, so far, legally broke down, when the Crown lawyers changed their ground, contending, that the libel, if not written, had been published in Middlesex, by the delivery of it into the King’s hands,—a circumstance proved by the testimony of Sunderland, Lord President of the Council. It now remained for the advocates of the Bishops to defend the document. This they proceeded to do, by representing that, whereas their right reverend clients stood accused of having published a “false, malicious, and seditious libel” against the King, nothing could be further from deserving such epithets than the paper which they had presented, it being couched in the most respectful terms, and presented in the most private manner. It merely asked relief from compliance with a demand which distressed their consciences. Every subject had the right of petition, and Bishops ought not to be deprived of this common privilege, they being principally charged with the care and execution of laws concerning the Church’s welfare; but the main stress of the defence rested on the illegality of dispensing with penal laws.[228]

The managers of the prosecution urged, that the King was entitled to the prerogative which he claimed; that what took place in the years 1662 and 1672 did not amount to any authoritative decision on the subject, but merely expressed the opinion of Parliament, to which His Majesty, under the circumstances, gave way, without a permanent surrender of his regal power. The libel of the Bishops was malicious and full of sedition, casting the greatest reflection on the Government. The tendency of their conduct was to inflame the public mind, and, though they had the right of petition, it could be no excuse for publishing a reproachful and scandalous attack upon the King’s Majesty. The Chief Justice, in summing up, pronounced the petition to be libellous; Justice Allybone took the same view; but the other two, Holloway and Powell, dissented from such a judgment,—an act of independence which cost them their seats on the Bench as soon as the term was over.[229] Evening had come, when the exhausted Jury retired to consider their verdict. They remained closeted all night without fire or candle, but basins of water and towels were furnished for their use. At about three o’clock in the morning, so it is reported, they were overheard in vehement debate with one another; and, at six, they sent word they had come to a conclusion, upon which, the prisoners being brought into Court, the foreman pronounced the verdict—“Not Guilty.” The effect was electric, the joy of the multitude burst out in a triumphant shout; “one would have thought,” said the Earl of Clarendon, who was present, “the Hall had cracked.” Now, as before, the people on their knees made a lane from the King’s Bench to beg a blessing as the Bishops passed; the crowd shook hands with the Jurymen, crying, “God bless you, and prosper your families, you have saved us all to-day;” noblemen flung money out of their coach windows for the mob to drink the health of the King, the Bishops, and the Jury; churches were crowded with people to pour forth their gratitude to God, for the delivery of His servants; and the prelates themselves, immediately after their acquittal, went to Whitehall Chapel, and thence proceeded to their respective homes, followed by the acclamations of delighted multitudes. An illumination succeeded in the evening, seven candles,—the middle one longer than the others, representing the Primate,—gleamed in thousands of windows; bells rang, bonfires blazed, rockets and squibs burst in all directions, the populace burnt an effigy of the Pope dressed in pontificals, as he appears in his chair at St. Peter’s, and Protestant demonstrations of various kinds continued all that night, until the church bells on Sunday morning called the people to worship and to rest. The joy of London repeated itself in the provinces, and vainly did the authorities forbid the outburst of gladness which rolled from shore to shore.

James was at Hounslow, reviewing the troops, when, on hearing a great noise, he asked what was the matter: “Nothing but the soldiers shouting for the acquittal of the Bishops.” “Call you that nothing,” he might well ask, and then insanely added, “but so much the worse for them.” It certainly proved so much the worse for him.

The popularity of the seven Bishops in 1688, appears in striking contrast with the unpopularity of the thirteen Bishops in 1642. There had been a number of circumstances, operating from the period of the Restoration, which contributed to the favourable impression now produced. The reaction against the rigours of Puritan rule, and the reverence, as well as the resentments kindled by clerical sufferings, the effect of the abolition of the Star Chamber and of the High Commission Court, the cessation of that troublesome zeal for ritualism, which had so harassed the country in the days of Laud, and the firm hold which the Episcopal Church had taken on the majority of the nation—these circumstances, and others, probably prepared for that gush of enthusiasm which greeted the Bishops on the day of their trial.

Also, a change had come over the clergy. In 1677, they supported absolutism; then their opposition was chiefly directed against Protestant Nonconformity, and their resistance of the encroachments of Popery seemed lukewarm: but, before 1688, they opened their eyes to the intolerance of Romanism, and to the dark omens of its establishment in England. Alarmed at the impending evil, they warmly engaged in controversy, and many of them, seeing that the united strength of all Protestants had become needful to meet the emergency, proceeded to alter their conduct towards their long-despised Dissenting brethren. Convinced at last of the mischiefs connected with arbitrary rule, whatever subtle theories some might have respecting passive obedience and non-resistance, they now opposed, under the pressure of circumstances, the despotic policy of the Crown. Some saw the folly of their former course in exalting the Royal prerogative, with the idea of thereby defending the Church; now they discovered the unconstitutional power which they had conceded to the Sovereign to be an instrument capable of inflicting mischief on themselves. The ghost which they had raised, they now sought to lay; the monster which they had created or nourished, they now strove to crush. Ten years had produced a change in the clergy; and the change in the clergy had made them popular with the nation.

One great cause of the popularity of the Bishops may be found in the men themselves, in their unmistakeable honesty of purpose, in their zeal for Constitutional Government, in their professions of liberality towards other Protestant denominations, and certainly not a little, in their social virtues and their Christian piety. Their advocacy of the Reformed faith carried all its disciples along with them, their readiness to suffer for the Established religion inspired with affection the bosom of Churchmen, and their overtures of reconciliation touched the hearts of Nonconformists. The release of the Bishops proved a proud day for the Church of England, and the man must be of a cynical temper and of narrow sympathies, who cannot enter warmly into the triumphs of that occasion. Notwithstanding, historical justice requires, and the utmost generosity does not forbid us to remember the treatment which Nonconformists for twenty-seven years had endured at the hands of the English priesthood, through their steady refusal the whole of that time, to grant or to encourage either comprehension or liberty. Nor can we forget the prevalence of thorough irreligion, of frivolous scepticism, of downright immorality, and of disgusting vice, which blackened the last two Stuart reigns, and which the Church did so little to overcome or to diminish. Her laxity and time-serving, her want of missionary earnestness and love, her neglect of faithful and pointed preaching, and of pastoral diligence, her indifference to the education and well-being of the lower classes, at the time of which we treat, are in conspicuous contrast to her activity in these respects at the present day. There are few of her most devoted sons who would think of vindicating her from the reproaches now expressed, however they may value her formularies, rejoice in her Constitution, and join in celebrating the ovation of her seven Bishops.