Crisis and Revolution, 1678–89 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

The Glorious Revolution

Introduction

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 represented a unique moment in English history when Whigs and Tories, Anglicans and Dissenters united against a common threat. Within three years of ascending the throne, James II's policies alarmed the political nation to such an extent that these normally opposing groups felt compelled to act together. His reign ended not with popular uprising but with a Dutch invasion that forced him into exile.

The reign of James II, 1685-88

Historiographical interpretations of James II

Historiography refers to how historians have interpreted and debated the past. James II remains one of the most contested figures in Stuart history, with his character and intentions generating substantial scholarly disagreement.

Historical interpretations of James II fall into two main camps. Whig historians such as McCauley and Trevelyan portrayed James as an authoritarian figure who would have subjected Britain to Catholic absolutism had he remained in power. This interpretation dominated English historical writing from the eighteenth century through to the early twentieth century. Whig historians viewed both the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution as victories for representative government over a Stuart dynasty that threatened English liberties. In this narrative, James had to be cast as the villain.

More recently, Steve Pincus challenged this interpretation by arguing that James pursued what Pincus terms "Catholic modernity"—a modernised state in which Catholics and Dissenters were both tolerated under a powerful monarchy capable of protecting them from their enemies. Pincus contends that James went far in transforming the English state into a centralised, efficient, and bureaucratic machine. His evidence shows that James ensured both the army and navy possessed the most modern equipment and learned current techniques. Like Louis XIV across the Channel, James's modernisation programme extended deep into society, reaching beyond the State into local government, the army, and the universities.

However, Pincus's interpretation remains contested. Most historians now accept that James did not hope to convert England back to Catholicism by force. Although James became a committed Catholic follower, his conversion had been lengthy. When he came to see Catholicism "established," he meant that Catholics should be afforded the same political and religious freedoms as members of the Church of England, rather than seeing Roman Catholicism immediately replace Anglicanism as the national church. The readiness with which James brutally repressed his rebellious subjects following Monmouth's rebellion betrayed a deeply authoritarian streak in his character that sat paradoxically with his genuine commitment to toleration. Contemporaries noted that in the last years of Charles II's reign it had been James who urged his brother to convert himself more forcefully, telling him that "monarchie must be either more absolute or quite abolished."

The absolutist or moderate debate

The question of whether James was an absolutist ruler in the making remains unresolved. Modern historians have tended to reject the straightforward Whig assertion that James was an absolutist monarch determined to reinstate Catholicism and override Parliament. They point out that James did not attempt to reinstate the Catholic faith; that he intended to work with Parliament; that he respected Magna Carta and the liberties of the subject. These revisionists argue that James was a moderate, an authoritarian certainly, but one with limited aims.

Yet no historian has successfully escaped the fact that much of the political nation—men and women who had acquiesced in Monmouth's failure—was prepared to accept a Dutch Protestant alternative when the opportunity arose. If James really was a moderate interested only in achieving freedom of worship for Catholics and Dissenters alike, then the only escape from this paradox is to argue that he was politically naive. Reaching an informed opinion about James II requires consideration of this question: was James an absolutist ruler in the making?

Another debate concerns whether the events of 1688 constituted a "regime change" at all. It might be more accurate to describe what happened as a "change of personnel," one in which popular revolution played little part. James II was overthrown by a Dutch invasion, not by a national uprising.

The Anglican revolt

James's challenge to the established church

James II began his reign with the Anglican Church as his natural opponent. The Church of England formed the foundation of the political establishment, and James's Catholicism immediately placed him at odds with it. Although James made no secret that he wanted the Test Acts to be repealed, the wake of Monmouth's defeat led him to believe he possessed sufficient strength to push this agenda forward.

The second session of the 1685 Parliament made clear its opposition to any relaxation of the Test Acts, and this Parliament was prorogued after only two weeks. Halifax objected to challenging this legislation from Charles II's reign, and James dismissed him from the Privy Council. James also began "closeting" members of the Court, holding one-to-one interviews to pressurise individuals to convert, though with little success.

The Godden vs. Hales case

Godden vs. Hales was a legal test case concerning the extent of royal dispensing power—the authority to exempt individuals from parliamentary statutes. Sir Edward Hales served as an MP and as one of the Lords of the Admiralty in the 1680s. In 1685 he became a Catholic and thus became subject to the Test Act, which required him to take the oath of supremacy, an oath of allegiance, take Anglican Communion, and declare against the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

The whole affair was deliberately engineered by the Crown to strengthen royal dispensing power in individual cases.

Confrontation with the bishops

In March 1686, James confronted the Bishop of London, Henry Compton, over his Directions to Preachers—royal instructions designed to prevent clergymen from preaching about provocative doctrinal issues. When a London minister, John Sharp, disobeyed these instructions, the King ordered Compton to discipline him. Compton refused and was suspended by a Court of Ecclesiastical Commission established expressly for this purpose in July 1686.

This policy culminated in a campaign to force Magdalen College, Oxford, to accept a Catholic president in contravention of the university's statutes.

The Dissenters and the turning point

James's appeal to the Dissenters

Faced with Anglican revolt in 1687, James II changed tactics by seeking support from the Dissenters—Protestant Nonconformists who had long suffered persecution alongside Catholics. A new Declaration of Indulgence suspended the Test and Corporation Acts and the penal laws, promising toleration for both Catholics and Protestant Nonconformists.

Some Dissenters welcomed this development, as evidenced by a religious tract from Axminster which marvelled at how "a popish prince was instrumental for easing the burdens of many that did truly fear the Lord." Halifax expressed concern by publishing his "Letter to a Dissenter," in which he observed that "Quakers, from being declared by the Papists not to be Christians, are now made favourites and taken into their particular protection." He warned this was merely divide-and-rule tactics—once Catholicism had been restored, the Quakers and all Dissenters would be suppressed.

In April 1687, James dissolved his first parliament and prepared to summon a new parliament packed with Dissenters. This parliament was never held, because the Glorious Revolution occurred before it could be summoned.

The quo warranto campaign

Quo warranto was a legal writ that challenged the authority by which local magistrates held their positions. What tipped the scales was James's reinvigorated campaign to intimidate the local magistrates. As part of a systematic campaign to manipulate the electoral system to his advantage, James II ordered that all JPs should be asked three questions to assess how they would react to the proposed repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.

A renewed quo warranto campaign then gave James the opportunity to dismiss those magistrates whose replies indicated their opposition to this plan. New JPs were commissioned in their place who would support the repeal of these Acts. As evidence of James's moderation, it has been claimed that by 1686 less than a quarter of JPs and deputy-lieutenants were Catholics. Yet no historian has ever suggested that in the reigns of James I or Charles I, it would have been acceptable for 25 per cent of local magistrates to be Catholic.

The second Declaration of Indulgence and its consequences

In April 1688, James II issued a second Declaration of Indulgence and ordered the clergy to read it from the pulpit. Archbishop Sancroft and six other bishops refused to publish the Declaration on the grounds that the dispensing power had been declared illegal by Parliament. Throughout the country, Anglican clergy refused to read it out to their congregations.

Accused of seditious libel, the seven bishops (including Sancroft) were unexpectedly acquitted by the jury on 30 June, an indication of the strength of popular feeling that the liberties of the Church were being undermined.

The birth of a Catholic heir

If one thing could create a common cause between Anglicans and Dissenters, it was fear of Catholicism. On 10 June 1688, Queen Mary of Modena gave birth to a son, James Francis Edward. The prospect of a secure Catholic dynasty also meant that, for a brief moment, the Tories and Whigs had something in common.

On 30 June, seven Protestants—the Earls of Shrewsbury, Danby and Devonshire, Bishop Compton of London, Lord Lumley, Edward Russell and Henry Sidney—a group that included both Whigs and Tories, wrote to William of Orange offering their support if he brought an army to England to confront James.

The Dutch invasion

Preparations and scale of the invasion

The last successful foreign invasion of England occurred in 1688, not 1066. A vast Dutch fleet, four times the size of the Spanish Armada of 1588, conveyed an army of between 15,000 and 21,000 Dutch soldiers safely from the United Provinces to Torbay, where they landed without opposition.

The English knew they were coming. James had assembled an army of at least 25,000 men outside London, with some 15,000 others manning fortresses and ports. The Royal Navy was fully prepared to intercept the Dutch fleet at sea. James had even installed an enormous weathervane on the roof at Whitehall to indicate when the Dutch fleet might sail.

But sailing in October, the "Protestant wind" that drove the Dutch along the south coast towards Torbay also kept the English fleet bottled up at Chatham and the Thames. The first troops came ashore on 5 November, an auspicious date for Protestants commemorating the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot.

Reception of William's landing

When the Dutch landed, they received an enthusiastic reception. William's secretary and childhood tutor, Sir Constantijn Huygens, used his spare time to record the unusual habits of the local people. He was particularly struck by the fact that Englishwomen seemed to be habitual pipe smokers. At one spot, Huygens recorded in his journal, "there were five women saluting [the Prince], each with a pipe of tobacco in her mouth, as we very often saw, smoking quite shamelessly, even young children of 8 or 9 or 14." Huygens enjoyed studying how these island people lived, and noted how addicted to tobacco they were, observing "men, women, even children" who "couldn't stop laughing when his hostess, 'young and pretty,' breastfed her baby while she smoked a pipe, which she handed to the child when he stopped sucking."

The image of William's invasion proceeding smoothly with no visible opposition raises questions about whether these sources provide objective accounts or should be understood as Dutch propaganda designed to suggest the English welcomed William's arrival.

International context of William's invasion

William of Orange's motive in "descending" on England was primarily diplomatic. For several years he had been trying to build a European coalition of nations to confront Louis XIV's military aggression. At first, circumstances had counted against him, but in 1685 Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had guaranteed toleration for French Protestants since 1598.

Suddenly there were thousands of Huguenot refugees in the United Provinces and in England, bringing with them tales of persecution that stirred public opinion against France. In 1686, William constructed the League of Augsburg, joined by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1687 after his forces defeated the Turks at the Battle of Mohacs. But England, with its powerful navy and formidable financial resources, still remained neutral. William's motive was mainly to gain England's support in the struggle against France.

The flight of James II

Factors contributing to William's success

Several factors explain the success of William's invasion. Skilful diplomacy had minimised the risk that Louis XIV would attack the United Provinces during the invasion and had provided for a defence of the Dutch borders. The logistical preparations for assembling the fleet and the invading army had been thorough, a fact that was ultimately impossible to conceal from James's envoys.

The Dutch also launched a propaganda campaign to undermine loyalty to James II, focused on the unfounded rumour that James's new-born son was illegitimate. William issued a declaration to this effect on 10 October, in which he also claimed that James's autocratic pro-Catholic government of Ireland was his intended model for England's subjugation.

The army William brought to England was small but consisted of the United Provinces' best troops, veteran battalions with years of experience. Unlike Monmouth three years earlier, William was not relying on a popular uprising, although in places throughout England uprisings occurred. The largest was a northern rebellion, led by Lord Delamere and the Earl of Devonshire, that succeeded in capturing York, Scarborough and Hull. Elsewhere, corporations, towns and individuals also declared for William. In London and Norwich, anti-Catholic rioting suggested that William's arrival had created a "now or never" moment.

Military failures and collapse of support

England's failure to rally behind its legitimate king against the invader proved at least as important as William's careful preparations. In this respect, the invasion crisis revealed the same systemic problems in mobilising military force that had been revealed by the Bishops' Wars in the 1630s.

When James II realised that William was about to invade, he frantically made concessions to win back support from Tory Anglicans that he had alienated through his policies. But it was too late to undo the damage he had inflicted on his own natural supporters. His campaign of intimidation of chartered towns to "pack" the next parliament now backfired as officials responsible for raising the county militias refused to co-operate. The army itself was demoralised and riddled with officers ready to defect to William.

James's decision to flee

James's first instinct was to fight, and with that in mind he and his army moved to intercept William's army in Wiltshire. At Salisbury, however, he decided not to fight. The first army units sent to locate William's army defected to the Dutch. In heavy snowfall, James decided to fall back on London, at which point his second-in-command, John Churchill, went over to William.

James also suffered a prolonged nosebleed at Salisbury that may have sapped his resolve. As William's army moved slowly and steadily on London, James II decided to flee to France, but was captured and brought back to London. Neither William nor the Whigs or Tories wanted to see another King of England put on trial, and James was allowed to slip away into exile.

Key dates: The Glorious Revolution, 1685-88

1686

• March: James II issued Directions to Preachers to suppress anti-Catholic sermons
• May: Bishop Compton of London refused to suspend John Sharp for disobeying the Directions to Preachers
• June: Godden vs. Hales case—judges ruled in favour of James II's dispensing power
• September: Bishop Compton of London suspended by the new Court of Ecclesiastical Commission

1687

• April: James II tried to force Magdalen College, Oxford, to appoint a Catholic president; James's first Declaration of Indulgence
• Summer: Halifax published his "Letter to a Dissenter" warning Dissenters not to ally with the King
• October: JPs ordered to answer three questions to assess their reactions to the idea of repealing the Test and Corporation Acts

1688

• William of Orange decided to invade England
• April: James's second Declaration of Indulgence; Archbishop Sancroft and six other bishops refused to publish the Declaration
• June 10: Birth of James Francis Edward, son of James II and Mary of Modena
• June 30: Archbishop Sancroft and six bishops acquitted; seven Whigs and Tories invited William of Orange to invade England
• November 5: William of Orange landed at Torbay; provincial risings broke out in his support; James II retreated to London from Wiltshire
• December: James II fled to France