serted that it had been decided by all the judges that the printing or publication of any newspapers or pamphlets whatsoever was illegal; the act was a manifest intent to break the peace, and it was therefore im material whether it was malicious or not. Scroggs made the same statement in Harris' case (7 St. Tr. 97). The case of the Seven Bishops (12 St. Tr. 183) is hardly a precedent for any legal prop osition. Yet it is safe to say that no action ever tried in an English court more pro foundly stirred the nation. JVloreover the dramatic features of this great political con test through legal forms are interesting in themselves. The seven bishops were pro secuted for their protest against an order of the council requiring James II. 's illegal and obnoxious Declaration of Indulgence to be read for two successive Sundays in all the churches and chapels of the Kingdom. Nothing the king could have done was more obnoxious to the prelates; nothing more certain to hasten to a crisis the ill feel ing of the people could have been devised. After much deliberation as to the course they should pursue, the bishops drew up a petition to the king. In it they disclaimed all disloyalty and intolerance. But Parlia ment had lately declared that the sovereign could not constitutionally dispense with statutes in ecclesiastical matters. Since the Declaration of Indulgence was therefore il legal they could not in conscience be parties to its solemn publication in the manner directed. When the bishops presented their petition the king reproached them with trea son, and vowed that the declaration should be published as directed. But the people were thoroughly in accord with the bishops, and on the appointed Sundays the Declara tion was read in only four churches in Lon don. The king could not recede without humiliation, and at the suggestion of Jef freys a criminal information for seditious libel was filed against the seven bishops who
had signed the petition. By way of prepara tion for their conviction the bishops were summoned before the council and solicited by Jeffreys to admit their signatures. They refused to incriminate themselves unless the king should positively command them, in which event, they said, they would comply in the confidence that a just prince would not suffer what they said in obedience to his orders to be brought in evidence against them. The king at first refused to com mand them. "If you choose to deny your own hands I have nothing more to say to you." Later on, however, he commanded them to answer. He did not expressly en gage that their confession should not be used against them, but they naturally supposed, after what had passed, that such an engage ment was implied, and they thereupon ac knowledged their signatures. Jeffreys then told them that a criminal information would be filed against them, and demanded that they enter into recognizances. As peers of Parliament they refused, and all were ac cordingly imprisoned in the Tower. When, at length, on June 29, 1688, their trial began in Westminister Hall, public feeling was aroused to the highest pitch. The four judges of the King's Bench were Wright, Allybone, Halloway and Powell. Seventy-five years later Lord Camden, in describing "the miser able state of justice in these days," said of them: "Allybone was a rigid and professed Papist; Wright and Halloway, I am much afraid, were placed there for doing jobs; Powell was the only honest man upon the bench." Sir Thomas Powis, the attorney gen eral, Sir William Williams, the solicitor general, Sergeant Trinder, Sir Bartholomew Shower and others appeared for the prosecu tion. The defendants commanded the best legal talent of the period. Pemberton, Saw yer, Finch, Levinz, Treby and Somers. The bishops were charged with having written or published a seditious libel in the county of
