One of the lords having suggested that the judges had delivered their opinions according to the rules of Westminster-hall, and not according to the usage of parliament, the house resolved, that in impeachments they should proceed according to the laws of the land, and the law and usage of parliament.

On the sixteenth day of the month, the queen being in the house incognita, they proceeded to consider whether or not the commons had made good the articles exhibited against Dr.
Sacheverel.

The earl of Wharton observed, that the doctor's speech was a full confutation and condemnation of his sermon: that all he had advanced about non-resistance and unlimited obedience was false and ridiculous: that the doctrine of passive obedience, as urged by the doctor, was not reconcileable to the practice of churchmen: that if the revolution was not lawful, many in that house, and vast numbers without, were guilty of blood, murder, rapine, and injustice; and that the queen herself was no lawful sovereign, since the best title she had to the crown was her parliamentary title, founded upon the revolution.

He was answered by the lord Haversham in a long speech.

Lord Ferrers said, if the doctor was guilty of some foolish unguarded expressions, he ought to have been tried at common law.