The Growth of Authoritarian Rule, 1681–85 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Growth of Authoritarian Rule, 1681–85
This period marked the final years of Charles II's reign and witnessed a decisive shift towards royal authoritarian government. Following the collapse of the Exclusion Crisis, Charles II exploited his strengthened position to consolidate royal power throughout England. When he died in 1685, James II inherited a monarchy more secure than at any point since the Restoration. However, the methods used to achieve this security—particularly the brutal suppression of dissent—would later feature prominently in justifications for the Glorious Revolution.
The period 1681-85 represents a crucial turning point in English constitutional history. Understanding how Charles II strengthened royal authority during these years is essential for comprehending why the Glorious Revolution occurred just three years after James II's accession.
Understanding absolutism in seventeenth-century England
Absolutism refers to a system of government in which the monarch ruled without institutional challenge, expecting complete obedience from subjects. Most seventeenth-century Englishmen would have termed this 'arbitrary power', meaning government conducted according to the personal will and opinion of the king rather than established law.
The clearest European example was Louis XIV's France. To enact legislation, Louis XIV simply registered royal edicts with the Parlement of Paris. If the Parlement refused, the king could convene a lit de justice (literally 'bed of justice'), forcing compliance through royal authority alone. Other European states followed this continental trend towards absolute monarchies, a development reinforced by the Church's promotion of the Divine Right of Kings—the doctrine that monarchs derived their authority directly from God and answered to no earthly power.
Continental Context
The development of absolutism in England must be understood against the backdrop of European political trends. During the seventeenth century, most continental monarchies were strengthening their power and reducing traditional checks on royal authority. The English Civil War had temporarily reversed this trend in England, but the Restoration period saw renewed pressure towards absolutist government.
England had confronted this threat previously. Charles I probably did not seek to establish full absolutism, but he believed monarchy required strengthening and reform. During the 1680s similar concerns resurfaced. Whilst Charles II remained king, little opposition emerged to growing authoritarian tendencies. However, the accession of a Catholic monarch threatened to make absolutism a pressing reality rather than a theoretical possibility.
Why James II succeeded smoothly to the throne in 1685
An exhausted opposition
In 1663, Parliament replaced the Triennial Act of 1641 with new legislation based on trust rather than compulsion. The revised Act stated that writs for new parliamentary elections should be issued if the king failed to call Parliament every three years. However, this obligation remained implicit rather than legally enforceable. Charles II signed the Act but, following the Oxford Parliament's dissolution in 1681, he never recalled Parliament. Without Parliament in session, no institution possessed authority to enforce the Act or challenge royal decisions.
Financial Independence = Political Independence
The key to Charles II's ability to rule without Parliament was his achievement of financial independence. England was not at war during this period, and Charles had substantially reduced expenditure while receiving secret subsidies from Louis XIV. Scotland and Ireland remained quiet, eliminating any urgent need for parliamentary financial support.
Since the early 1670s, the Crown had collected customs duties directly rather than through intermediaries. The hearth tax (introduced earlier) and the excise tax (established in 1683) provided further evidence of increasingly sophisticated state revenue collection. As trade expanded, Crown revenues from these taxes rose considerably. By 1685, ordinary revenue reached £1,370,750, substantially exceeding the £1.2 million agreed at the Restoration settlement.
Defeat of the Whigs
Shaftesbury and the Whigs had been comprehensively outmanoeuvred during the Exclusion Crisis. Faced with the choice between accepting defeat or pursuing rebellion, MPs selected the only alternative genuinely available and returned home quietly. The Tories successfully discredited their opponents by labelling them Republicans, emphasising connections with the disastrous events of 1649 and the Interregnum. This characterisation gained strength when Charles ordered a declaration read from every church pulpit, reminding congregations of civil war disasters.
By 1685 the Whigs existed in complete disarray. Shaftesbury had fled into exile in Holland, dying there in 1682. That same year, James, Duke of York, returned home from France to a welcoming reception, having remained abroad during the worst phases of the crisis. The opposition had exhausted itself and demonstrably failed.
Strengthening provincial government
The quo warranto campaign
What did 'authoritarian government' actually mean in practice? During the 1670s, Danby had systematically established a Court party in Parliament, introducing a considerably more sophisticated managerial approach to government. Charles II pursued this strategy further by systematically reinforcing Crown authority throughout the provinces—a far more effective policy than his father's approach when issuing the Book of Orders for local magistrates in 1631.
To eliminate political opposition from borough corporations, quo warranto writs (literally meaning 'by what warrant?'—in other words, demonstrate your legal authority) were issued requiring boroughs to prove the legality of their royal charters. Many charters were discovered to contain technical faults. New charters were subsequently issued, granting the Crown power to veto appointments of civic officers.
Worked Example: The London Quo Warranto Case
The most consequential quo warranto action targeted the City of London itself:
Step 1: The Crown issued a quo warranto writ challenging London's charter (1681)
Step 2: Legal proceedings extended nearly three years as London defended its traditional privileges
Step 3: Royal victory was achieved—the Crown gained approval rights over key appointments (1684)
Result: The lord mayor, sheriffs, and other significant office-holders henceforth required the King's approval before taking office
Impact: Following London's loss, numerous boroughs voluntarily surrendered their charters rather than face similar legal challenges
Between 1681 and 1685, 51 new charters were granted. During the first three months of James II's reign, another 47 followed. This campaign against municipal independence successfully entrenched Tories in local government structures whilst providing the additional advantage of securing Tory dominance in future parliamentary elections.
Persecution of dissenters
The campaign to consolidate royal authority adopted other forms beyond constitutional manipulation. Charles II finally abandoned attempts to promote religious toleration, committing instead to full support for persecuting both Catholic and Protestant dissenters. By attaching Church power to monarchical authority, the Crown at last secured the public opinion campaign it had long pursued. Loyal addresses to the King attracted thousands of signatures.
The judiciary was mobilised to suppress Whig opposition. Throughout the seventeenth century, defendants in criminal trials faced considerable difficulty proving innocence. Several prominent Whigs were executed for alleged involvement in conspiracies, including Algernon Sidney and William Lord Russell in 1683. Shaftesbury himself had been arrested on treason charges in 1681, imprisoned in the Tower, but survived because a grand jury selected by Whig sheriffs acquitted him. As noted above, he subsequently died in exile in 1682.
The Rye House Plot
The Rye House Plot involved an alleged Whig conspiracy to assassinate Charles II during his journey to the Newmarket races. Several prominent Whigs were convicted of treason and executed following the plot's discovery. The plot's discovery provided the Crown with justification for further persecution of opposition figures.
Charles II died aged 58 in 1685, attended by his physician Dr Scarborough. Contemporary medical theory held that Scarborough probably hastened death by attempting to balance the humours within Charles's body. Physicians believed the body contained four elements termed humours or fluids. Illness resulted when a person possessed a 'temperate' imbalance. Treatment involved reducing blood volume, either through applying leeches or opening veins in the foot or arm.
For ten years Charles had worked to ensure the Crown transferred to his lawful heir, his Catholic brother. These efforts achieved vindication: the monarchy James inherited appeared stronger and more secure than at any time since the Restoration.
Succession of James II and initial stability
When James, Duke of York, succeeded to the throne in February 1685, virtually no opposition materialised. The new king announced clearly his intention to govern 'in a parliamentary way' and promised to respect the Anglican Church settlement as established by law. His first parliament, assembling in May 1685, was dominated by Tories and Anglicans—hardly surprising given recent political developments.
The Whigs' failure during the Exclusion Crisis left Tories with a substantial advantage. The quo warranto campaign of the early 1680s had deprived many Whigs of their borough constituencies. The 1685 election itself was carefully orchestrated to produce a parliament reflecting Tory landed interests.
Like most seventeenth-century parliaments, it demanded enforcement of penal laws against Catholics and declared support for the Established Church of England. However, Parliament clearly possessed no intention of contesting James's authority to rule, instead demonstrating hope for harmonious relations by granting the King more than sufficient revenue through customs duties.
The only indications of serious difficulty emerged from two poorly conceived and inadequately coordinated rebellions: one in Scotland led by the Duke of Argyll, the other in the West Country led by the Duke of Monmouth.
Monmouth's Rebellion, June 1685
In June 1685, Monmouth landed at Lyme Regis in Dorset with a pitifully inadequate force. His plan involved marching through the West Country, gathering local support sufficient to trigger wider rebellion. The rebellion failed to attract substantial backing. Soon the King's army advanced upon Monmouth's forces near Weston Zoyland on the Somerset Levels.
Monmouth attempted a surprise assault, but the element of surprise evaporated during the Battle of Sedgemoor when his troops tried crossing a water-filled ditch. In the subsequent fighting, his forces suffered easy defeat. Monmouth himself was captured and beheaded.
Why did Monmouth's rebellion fail to generate wider support?
Reasons for the Rebellion's Failure
Several critical factors explain why Monmouth's rebellion failed to gain widespread support:
-
Distant succession threat: At the time of rebellion, James II possessed no Catholic heir—only his Protestant daughter Mary. Consequently, the prospect of Catholic succession seemed distant, making it preferable to await developments rather than assume unnecessary risks.
-
War-weariness: The political nation remained unprepared for this type of confrontation. Memories of civil war republicanism remained vivid, and most sought to dissociate themselves from armed insurrection.
-
Elite opposition: The City of London stayed quiet throughout the uprising. Both Parliament and provincial civic corporations were dominated by propertied men who regarded any challenge to legitimate inheritance with deep suspicion.
The 'Bloody Assize' of Lord Chief Justice Jeffries
Monmouth's failed rebellion was followed by an exceptionally harsh persecution throughout the West Country, conducted by Lord Chief Justice Jeffries. Village after village witnessed hundreds condemned on minimal evidence. Many were hanged, or subjected to the full horror of being hanged, drawn and quartered. At Norton St Philip, for instance, several men were taken to the courtyard of The George Inn whilst still living to have their bodies dismembered.
The Brutality of the Bloody Assizes
Jeffries' victims consisted predominantly of low-born men and women, boys and girls—elderly and young alike—individuals of no particular social standing who represented little genuine threat. To convict individuals not apprehended 'red-handed' at Sedgemoor, authorities dangled the prospect of pardon before those who confessed, only to execute them summarily for treason.
Alongside the executions, hundreds of prisoners were transported to indentured servitude—a system transporting convicts to the West Indies where they were compelled to labour on plantations for specified periods. To all practical purposes, these indentured servants existed as slaves, though theoretically they might anticipate eventual release.
The 'Bloody Assizes' became embedded within the martyrology surrounding the Glorious Revolution. Whig historians (nineteenth-century historians who interpreted the past as a heroic conflict between Parliament and Crown, viewing representative government as the outcome of this struggle) later presented the West Country trials as evidence of James II's absolutist intentions. The episode may be understood as another manifestation of the authoritarian trend that had developed since 1681.
Key figure: The Duke of Monmouth
James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, was the illegitimate son of Charles II and Lucy Walter. Lucy Walter claimed to be Charles's wife; if true, this would have established Monmouth as legitimate heir to the throne. At the Restoration, Monmouth arrived in London and quickly became one of the King's favourites at Court.
Two developments transformed this favoured illegitimate son into a dangerous political adversary:
- First: Charles's failure to produce children with Catherine of Braganza created a succession problem
- Second: James, Duke of York's conversion to Catholicism raised the prospect of a Catholic monarch
During the Exclusion Crisis, the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Whigs promoted Monmouth as a potential alternative heir. Throughout and following the Exclusion Crisis, Monmouth toured remote English regions with transparent intention of advancing his own succession claims. In 1685, he landed in Dorset attempting to provoke general rebellion against James II, an enterprise that ended in comprehensive failure and his execution.
Key dates: The growth of authoritarian rule, 1681–85
1681
- March: Oxford Parliament dissolved
- July: Shaftesbury arrested on treason charges
- November: Shaftesbury acquitted
1682
- November: Shaftesbury fled to Holland and died in exile
1683
- Rye House Plot discovered
1684
- Charles II refused to summon new parliament
- Danby released from imprisonment
- James, Duke of York, restored to the Privy Council
1685
- February: Death of Charles II; accession of James II
- May: First session of James's first parliament
- July: Argyll's rebellion defeated in Scotland; Monmouth's rebellion defeated at Battle of Sedgemoor; 'Bloody Assizes' conducted by Judge Jeffries
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Charles II exploited the Whigs' defeat during the Exclusion Crisis to establish increasingly authoritarian government between 1681 and 1685, ruling without Parliament and strengthening royal control over provincial government through the quo warranto campaign.
-
The Crown achieved financial independence through customs duties, the hearth tax, and excise tax, with ordinary revenue reaching £1,370,750 by 1685—eliminating the need to recall Parliament for subsidies.
-
The quo warranto campaign forced boroughs to prove charter legitimacy, resulting in 51 new charters between 1681 and 1685 that gave the Crown veto power over local appointments, thereby entrenching Tory control of municipal and parliamentary representation.
-
James II succeeded smoothly in February 1685 because the Whig opposition had been exhausted, the Tories dominated Parliament and local government, and England's propertied classes feared republicanism more than a Catholic king who had a Protestant heir.
-
Monmouth's Rebellion (June 1685) failed to attract widespread support and was easily crushed at the Battle of Sedgemoor, followed by Lord Chief Justice Jeffries' 'Bloody Assizes' which executed and transported hundreds with minimal evidence—an episode later used by Whig historians as proof of James II's absolutist ambitions.