AN ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT WESTMINSTER-HALL, On the 29th, and 30th of June, 1688. Relating to the Trial and Discharge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of S. Asaph, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Ely, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop of Peterborough, and the Bishop of Bristol.  
Edinburgh, reprinted in the Year. 1689.   

AN ACCOUNT Of the Proceedings at Westminster-Hall, on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688. etc.  
THE Indictment when read, was very much excepted against, on the account of its Form, in that it did not mention all the Petition they were Indicted for: there was not either the Title of it expressing to whom it was directed (viz. To the Kings Most Excellent-Majesty, was omitted,) and the prayer afterwards (We therefore pray, etc. was not there; which being closely pursued by the Bishop's Council, seemed to invalidate the whole business. Then it was not and could not be proved by the King's Council, that the Bishops presented the petition to the King. They had in the Court the Original, and subpoena'd some of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops Chaplains, Servants, and others, to prove their hands, which was not done very clearly upon most of them; all the proof of the King's Council had for the presenting the Petition to His Majesty, did not directly prove it upon them: The most it amounted to, was either that the King told them, he had it from the said Bishops; or, that my Lord Chancellor did ask them, if it were theirs (when they were summoned before the King and Council,) and that they then expressed an averseness to own it; saying before the King, that if His Majesty did insist on it, and ●hat it should not be improved to their disadvantage, or produced in evidence against them, that they would be plain, and leave it to His Majesty. Upon this the Bishop's Council had some reflections which my Lord Chief Justice told them he must not hear. But this did not amount to a full proof of the point. Then the Bishop's Council did greatly insist upon the Indictment being laid in a wrong County; for it was proved upon Oath, that the Archbishop was not out of his House for a very considerable time before he was summoned to the King in Council. Now what was alleged against them, was done at Lambeth, and therefore in Surrey the Indictment ought to have been laid, which seemed much to affect them. After this, the Bishops Council objected against the term Publishing; whereas what was said to be done by them, was in the privatest way that could be, and given only to the King, which caused a long debate between both parties, of things requisite to denominate a Publication; all did still appear favourable on the Bishop's side: and here things were going to a conclusion, and the Judge was entered upon summing up the Evidence; but Mr. Finch, (one of the Bishop's Council) interrupted my Lord Chief Justice, saying, there was one material Evidence remaining: Whereupon, my Lord desisted, though with some seeming disatisfaction to the rest of the Bishop's Council; For the Judge was going on very favourably for the Bishop's cause; some of the Bishops importuned my Lord Chief Justice to proceed, but he would not; And so it brought on more discourse about the former Subjects, and occasioned the sending for my Lord Precedent: who came into Court after it had stayed an hour for him: The Evidence that he gave upon Oath, could not fully prove the delivery of the Petition to the King by the Bishops: When before, for the proof of this, the Solicitor did very greatly importune some Witness for the King, (that had upon Oath delivered, what they knew about this matter, which was as aforesaid) by putting to them very intricate questions, my Lord Chief Justice reproved him, saying, it was not to be suffered; adding, that if he went on thus, he would let the Bishop's council loose on him.  
After these things, my L. C. J. asked the Bishop's council, what else they had to plead; whereupon they proceeded to that part of the Indictment that called the Bishop's Petiton, A scandalous Seditious Libel, etc. Which occasioned very great, solemn and most pleasing debates. For, hereupon they entered into and discussed the lawfulness of the Declaration and the Dispensing Power, which were haranged by every one of the Bishop's Council in most brisk, home and admirable Speeches, for the space of three hours, showing the Declaration to be against and contrary to Law, which no power could dispense or abrogate, but that which made it, (viz. a parliament) and that the Ecclesiastical Laws had the same foundation as the Civil, and could be therefore no more dispensed with, That the Declaration did evacuate the Laws for Sabbath-breaking, Fornication, etc. and let lose the reins to the most extravagant Sects and licentious practices; and that all Laws might be dispensed with, as well as some: That the Bishops were sworn to maintain the Ecclesiastical Laws; and in representing the Case thus to His Majesty, they had done both as the Law directed them, and according to prudence, Honour, and Conscience. There were hereupon publicly read several Acts of parliament, Records of the Tower, and parliament Records, among which one Act of parliament was observable; that gave the King power to dispense with a Law for a stated time: So that what Dispensing power he ever had, was both given and bounded by parliament. From what they produced out of the parliament Records and otherways they greatly confirmed what was said in the petition of the Dispensing power, having been often declared illegal in Parliament, and particularly in the years 62 and 72. and in the beginning of his Majesty's Reign, which was in 85, when the parliament declared the Popish Officers could not be dispensed with, but that it was contrary to Law to do so, though they were willing by Act of Parliament to indemnify such as His Majesty should nominate, etc. And they showed how the like Dispensing Power upon the same occasion was accounted illegal in 62. and 72. both by Parliament and the King himself, who offered the Seal to be tore off, and gave the testimony of his disowning such a Dispensing Power. To which the Solicitors chief Answer was, that the King then lacked Money, and that such Acts as aforesaid (whatever they might say) did confirm, not give the King's Dispensing Power. In short, the Bishops Council behaved themselves in this weighty matter with a great deal of gallantry and plainness, no wise inferior to most men's expectations and desires. The chief of the managers for the King, was the Solicitor W. Williams, who as was apprehended, did no great wonders for invaliditating the foregoing Arguments. He was very hot and earnest (if not passionate) in proving it a Libel, saying, It would be so, though it were done by them to redress a certain grievance: whereupon my L. C. J. ask what course then they should take, or what they should do in such circumstances; he answered, Acquiesce▪ (which occasioned a very great Hiss over the Court) He added farther to prove it Libellous; the insinuating Expressions of gaining the populace, by saying, It was not for want of due tenderness to dissenters, in relation to whom, we are Willing to come to such a temper, as shall be thought fit, when that matter shall be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation, said he, what's the meaning of that? But here my L. C. J. gave him a check, and reftrained what he seemed greatly disposed to vent against it. There was not very much said by the rest of the King's council, at least, nothing more considerable than this. The King's Attorney General was pretty moderate; Sir Barth Shores spoke a little, but was presently silenced, (in the vacancy of stay for my Lord precedent, my L. C. J. said to Sir Barth-shores', Now Sir Bartholomew, we have time to hear your Speeches) Sergeant Baldock's Argument against the Bishops, was chiefly upon their refusing, the King requiring such a slender matter so easily to be done; for they were not enjoined to read, but only to send about and disperse it: Yet this they would not do. It concluded with the King's Council.  
Then my Lord Chief Justice summing up the business, was favourable to the Bishops in the former part of the Trial, and could not say the matter of Fact was fully proved upon them, but was inclined to make the Petition a Libel; because of its accusing the King of Flaws in Government. He said but little to oppose what had been brought by the Bishop's Council against the Declaration and Dispensing Power. After him spoke Judge Holloway, and very much in the Bishop's behalf; giving it as his judgement, that it could not be a Libel, being done from a conviction of Conscience by such Persons in such an humble modest manner. Then Judge Power spoke to the same effect, giving it as his opinion, that it could not be a Libel, being the only way to redress themselves: He had also some smart expressions to confirm what the Bishop's Council had urged against the Declaration and Dispensing Power, So that Judge Powel gave his opinion also in favours of the Bishops. Then Judge Allibon standing up, professed he would not meddle with the Dispensing Power (though it had been so much canvased and pleaded against) but would only speak to the business of the Paper being a Libel; and he did accordingly, urging it to be so, not barely because it was a Petition: For, said he, any one under grievance may Petition his Majesty, but not about affairs of Government, for that would tend to very bad consequences, and promote Discontents, or worse in the Nation. Nor (as he added) can the pretended fairness, as to the manner of it, be an excuse; For the more it hath that way, so much the worse; and so concluded it in his sense a Libel. But urging a Precedent to confirm what he had said, he was partly mistaken in it, as Judge Powel and the Bishop's Council showed him, and he himself acknowledged.  
Then the Court broke up, the Jury went together, and the Bishops with all the privacy they could, to their respective abodes; but wherever the people met with them, they huzzaed and hummed them in a great abundance. There was a prodigious full Court and Hall, a very great many of the Peers and Nobility present, and also the Bishop of Chester, of whom they took no kind of notice: The Bishop of Rochester did not meet with much better regard.  
The Jury sat up all night, though they were very soon unanimous in their Verdict, which they prudently resolved to give in open Court; and accordingly, next day about Nine or Ten they brought them in  
Not Guilty.  

The Names of the Lord Bishop's Counsellors.  
Sir Francis Pemberton.  
Sir Creswell Levins.  
Sir Robert Sawyer.  
Mr. Finch.  
Mr. Pollixfin.  
Mr. Treby.  
Mr. Summer.   

The Names of the JURY Sworn.  
Sir Roger Langly of Westminster.  
Sir William Hill of Tedington.  
Robert Jennings of Hayes, Esquire.  
Thomas Harriot of Islington, Esquire.  
Jeoffry Nightingale of S. Giles Cripplegate, Esquire.  
William Withers of the same, Esquire.  
William Avery of Enfield, Esquire.  
Thomas Austin of South-Myms, Esquire.  
Nicholas Grice of Neston, Esquire.  
Michael Arnold of Westminster, Esquire.  
Thomas Done of S. Giles in the Field, Esquire.  
Richard Shore ditch of Ickenham, Esquire.   
FINIS.