JAMES THE SECOND.

191

the Bishops, and had at first refused to receive their retainer:but it had been intimated to him by the whole body of at-torneys who employed him that, if he declined this brief, heshould never have another.*

Sir George Treby, an able and zealous Whig, who hadbeen Recorder of London under the old charter, was on thesame side. Sir John Holt, a still more eminent Whig lawyer,was not retained for the defence, inconsequence, it shouldseem, of some prejudice conceived against him by Sancroft,but was privately consulted on the case by the Bishop of Lon-don.** The junior counsel for the Bishops was a young bar-rister named John Somers. He had no advantages of birthor fortune; nor had he yet had any opportunity of distinguish-ing himself before the eyes of the public: but his genius, hisindustry, his great and various accomplishments, were wellknown to a small circle of friends; and, in spite of his Whigopinions, his pertinent and lucid mode of arguing and theconstant propriety of his demeanour had already secured tohim the ear of the Court of King’s Bench. The importance ofobtaining his services had been strongly represented to theBishops by Johnstone; and Pollexfen, it is said, had declaredthat no man in Westminster Hall was so well qualified to treata historical and constitutional question as Somers.

The jury was sworn; it consisted of persons of highly re-spectable station. The foreman was Sir Roger Langley, abaronet of old and honourable family. With him were joineda knight and ten esquires, several of whom are known to havebeen men of large possessions. There were some Noncon-formists in the number; for the Bishops had wisely resolvednot to show any distrust of the Protestant Dissenters. Onename excited considerable alarm, that of Michael Arnold. Hewas brewer to the palace; and it was apprehended that thegovernment counted on his voice. The story goes that he

* Johnstone, July 2. 1688 . The editor of bevinz’s reports expressesgreat wonder that, aTter the Revolution, bevinz was not replaced on thebench. The facts related by Johnstone may perhaps explain theseeming injustice.

■* I draw this inference from a letter of Compton to Sancroft, datedthe 12th of June.

CHAP.

VIII.

- I68sr