The commons presented another address of thanks to her majesty for her gracious answer to their first remonstrance.

They took this occasion to declare, that the prosecution of the commons against Dr.Henry Sacheverel proceeded only from the indispensable obligation they lay under to vindicate the late happy revolution, the glory of their royal deliverer, her own title and administration, the present established and protestant succession, together with the toleration and the quiet of the government.

When the doctor's counsel had finished his defence, he himself recited a speech, wherein he solemnly justified his intentions towards the queen and her government, and spoke in the most respectful terms of the revolution and the protestant succession.

He maintained the doctrine of "non-resistance" in all cases whatsoever, as a maxim of the church in which he was educated, and by many pathetical expressions endeavoured to excite the compassion of the audience.

He was surrounded by the queen's chaplains, who encouraged and extolled him as the champion of the church; and he was privately favoured by the queen herself, who could not but relish a doctrine so well calculated for the support of regal authority.
DEBATES UPON IT IN THE LORDS.
On the tenth day of March, the lords being adjourned to their own house, the earl of Nottingham proposed the following question:--"Whether, in prosecutions by impeachments for high crimes and misdemeanors, by writing or speaking, the particular words supposed to be criminal are necessary to be expressly specified in such impeachments ?" The judges being consulted, were unanimously of opinion, that, according to law, the grounds of an indictment or impeachment ought to be expressly mentioned in both.