Chapter IV: , VII (12)

"Though the duke of York was not charged with participation in
the darkest schemes of the popish conspirators, it was evident
that his succession was the great aim of their endeavours, and
evident also that he had been engaged in the more real and
undeniable intrigues of Coleman. His accession to the throne,
long viewed with just apprehension, now seemed to threaten
such perils to every part of the constitution as ought not
supinely to be waited for, if any means could be devised to
obviate them. This gave rise to the bold measure of the
exclusion bill, too bold, indeed, for the spirit of the
country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly
shipwrecked. In the long parliament, full as it was of
pensioners and creatures of court influence, nothing so
vigorous would have been successful. ... But the zeal they
showed against Danby induced the king to put an end [January
24, 1679] to this parliament of seventeen years' duration; an
event long ardently desired by the popular party, who foresaw
their ascendancy in the new elections. The next house of
commons accordingly came together with an ardour not yet
quenched by corruption; and after reviving the impeachments
commenced by their predecessors, and carrying a measure long
in agitation, a test which shut the catholic peers out of
parliament, went upon the exclusion bill [the second reading
of which was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128].

{903}

Their dissolution put a stop to this; and in the next
parliament the lords rejected it [after the commons had passed
the bill, without a division, October, 1680]. ... The bill of
exclusion ... provided that the imperial crown of England
should descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons
successively during the life of the duke of York as would have
inherited or enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead.
... But a large part of the opposition had unfortunately other
objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the
earl of Shaftesbury, "they broke away more and more from the
line of national opinion, till a fatal reaction involved
themselves in ruin, and exposed the cause of public liberty to
its most imminent peril. The countenance and support of
Shaftesbury brought forward that unconstitutional and most
impolitic scheme of the duke of Monmouth's succession. [James,
duke of Monmouth, was the acknowledged natural son of king
Charles, by Lucy Walters, his mistress while in exile at the
Hague.] There could hardly be a greater insult to a nation
used to respect its hereditary line of kings, than to set up
the bastard of a prostitute, without the least pretence of
personal excellence or public services, against a princess of
known virtue and attachment to the protestant religion. And
the effrontery of this attempt was aggravated by the libels
eagerly circulated to dupe the credulous populace into a
belief of Monmouth's legitimacy."

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12._

ALSO IN:
_A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 2, chapter 1._

_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 4-8 (volume 1)._

_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 3, 1679-81._

_Sir W. Temple,
Memoirs,
part 3 (Works, volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1680.
Whigs and Tories acquire their respective names.

"Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely
animated against each other. The very names by which each
party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and
rancour which prevailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer,
appellations which were soon forgotten, this year is
remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets of
Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material
difference, this island has been so long divided. The court
party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the
fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the
name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between
the courtiers and the popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the
appellation of Tory was affixed: and after this manner these
foolish terms of reproach came into public and general use."

_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 68 (volume 6)._

"The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose,
is given in 'A New Ballad' (Narcissus Luttrell's
Collection):--

The word Tory's of Irish Extraction,
'Tis a Legacy that they have left here
They came here in their brogues,
And have acted like Rogues,
In endeavouring to learn us to swear."

_J. Grego,
History of Parliamentary Elections,
page 36._

ALSO IN:
_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 1, chapter 2._

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 2._

For the origin of the name of the 'Whig party,

See WHIGS (WIGGAMORS); also, RAPPAREES.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
The Tory reaction and the downfall of the Whigs.
The Rye-house Plot.

"Shaftesbury's course rested wholly on the belief that the
penury of the Treasury left Charles at his mercy, and that a
refusal of supplies must wring from the King his assent to the
exclusion. But the gold of France had freed the King from his
thraldom. He had used the Parliament [of 1681] simply to
exhibit himself as a sovereign whose patience and conciliatory
temper was rewarded with insult and violence; and now that he
saw his end accomplished, he suddenly dissolved the Houses in
April, and appealed in a Royal declaration to the justice of
the nation at large. The appeal was met by an almost universal
burst of loyalty. The Church rallied to the King; his
declaration was read from every pulpit; and the Universities
solemnly decided that 'no religion, no law, no fault, no
forfeiture' could avail to bar the sacred right of hereditary
succession. ... The Duke of York returned in triumph to St.
James's. ... Monmouth, who had resumed his progresses through
the country as a means of checking the tide of reaction, was
at once arrested. ... Shaftesbury, alive to the new danger,
plunged desperately into conspiracies with a handful of
adventurers as desperate as himself, hid himself in the City,
where he boasted that ten thousand 'brisk boys' were ready to
appear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But
their delays drove him to flight. ... The flight of
Shaftesbury proclaimed the triumph of the King. His wonderful
sagacity had told him when the struggle was over and further
resistance useless. But the Whig leaders, who had delayed to
answer the Earl's call, still nursed projects of rising in
arms, and the more desperate spirits who had clustered around
him as he lay hidden in the City took refuge in plots of
assassination, and in a plan for murdering Charles and his
brother as they passed the Rye-house [a Hertfordshire farm
house, so-called] on their road from London to Newmarket. Both
the conspiracies were betrayed, and, though they were wholly
distinct from one another, the cruel ingenuity of the Crown
lawyers blended them into one. Lord Essex, the last of an
ill-fated race, saved himself from a traitor's death by
suicide in the Tower. Lord Russell, convicted on a charge of
sharing in the Rye-house Plot, was beheaded in Lincoln Inn
Fields. The same fate awaited Algernon Sidney. Monmouth fled
in terror over sea, and his flight was followed by a series of
prosecutions for sedition directed against his followers. In 1683
the Constitutional opposition which had held Charles so long
in check lay crushed at his feet. ... On the very day when the
crowd around Russell's scaffold were dipping their
handkerchiefs in his blood, as in the blood of a martyr, the
University of Oxford solemnly declared that the doctrine of
passive obedience, even to the worst of rulers, was a part of
religion." During the brief remainder of his reign Charles was
a prudently absolute monarch, governing without a Parliament,
coolly ignoring the Triennial Act, and treating on occasions
the Test Act, as well as other laws obnoxious to him, with
contempt. He died unexpectedly, early in February, 1685, and
his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne, as
James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed
to him.

_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, sections 5-6._

{904}

ALSO IN:
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth;
chapters 8-10 (volume 1)._

_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapters 68-69 (volume 6)._

_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 1, chapters 6-11._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.
Accession of James II.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (February).
The new King proclaims his religion.

"The King [James II.] early put the loyalty of his Protestant
friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in
the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory
which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the
doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay
their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the host was
elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The
Roman Catholics fell on their knees: the Protestants hurried
out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace;
and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by
Popish divines."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 4 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (May-July).
Monmouth's Rebellion.

"The Parliament which assembled on the 22nd of May ... was
almost entirely Tory. The failure of the Rye-House Plot had
produced a reaction, which for a time entirely annihilated the
Whig influence. ... The apparent triumph of the King and the
Tory party was completed by the disastrous failure of the
insurrection planned by their adversaries. A knot of exiled
malcontents, some Scotch, some English, had collected in
Holland. Among them was Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, son
of that Marquis of Argyle who had taken so prominent a part on
the Presbyterian side in the Scotch troubles of Charles I.'s
reign. Monmouth had kept aloof from politics till, on the
accession of James, he was induced to join the exiles at
Amsterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of
lofty and moderate views, also repaired. National jealousy
prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions
were determined on,--the one under Argyle, who hoped to find
an army ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of
Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England.
Argyle's expedition set sail on the 2nd of May [1685]. ...
Argyle's invasion was ruined by the limited authority
intrusted to him, and by the jealousy and insubordination of
his fellow leaders. ... His army disbanded. He was himself
taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibition of admirable
constancy, was beheaded. ... A week before the final
dispersion of Argyle's troops, Monmouth had landed in England
[at Lyme, June 11]. He was well received in the West. He had
not been twenty-four hours in England before he found himself
at the head of 1,500 men; but though popular among the common
people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even
the strongest Whigs disbelieved the story of his legitimacy,
and thought his attempt ill-timed and fraught with danger. ...
Meanwhile Monmouth had advanced to Taunton, had been there
received with enthusiasm, and, vainly thinking to attract the
nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his reception
at Bridgewater less flattering. But difficulties already began
to gather round him; he was in such want of arms, that,
although rustic implements were converted into pikes, he was
still obliged to send away many volunteers; the militia were
closing in upon him in all directions; Bristol had been seized
by the Duke of Beaufort, and the regular army under Feversham
and Churchill were approaching." After feebly attempting
several movements, against Bristol and into Wiltshire,
Monmouth lost heart and fell back to Bridgewater. "The
Royalist army was close behind him, and on the fifth of July
encamped about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of
Sedgemoor." Monmouth was advised to undertake a night
surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The
night was not unfitting for such an enterprise, for the mist
was so thick that at a few paces nothing could be seen. Three
great ditches by which the moor was drained lay between the
armies; of the third of these, strangely enough, Monmouth knew
nothing." The unexpected discovery of this third ditch, known
as "the Bussex Rhine," which his cavalry could not cross, and
behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the
enterprise. "Monmouth saw that the day was lost, and with the
love of life which was one of the characteristics of his soft
nature, he turned and fled. Even after his flight the battle
was kept up bravely. At length the arrival of the King's
artillery put an end to any further struggle. The defeat was
followed by all the terrible scenes which mark a suppressed
insurrection. ... Monmouth and Grey pursued their flight into
the New Forest, and were there apprehended in the
neighbourhood of Ringwood." Monmouth petitioned abjectly for
his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July.
"The failure of this insurrection was followed by the most
terrible cruelties. Feversham returned to London, to be
flattered by the King and laughed at by the Court for his
military exploits. He left Colonel Kirke in command at
Bridgewater. This man had learned, as commander at Tangier,
all the worst arts of cruel despotism. His soldiery in bitter
pleasantry were called Kirke's 'Lambs,' from the emblem of
their regiment. It is impossible to say how many suffered at
the hands of this man and his brutal troops; 100 captives are
said by some to have been put to death the week after the
battle. But this military revenge did not satisfy the Court."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 764-768._

The number of Monmouth's men killed is computed by some at
2,000, by others at 300; a disparity, however, which may be
easily reconciled by supposing that the one account takes in
those who were killed in battle, while the other comprehends
the wretched fugitives who were massacred in ditches,
cornfields, and other hiding places, the following day."

_C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapters 13-28 (volumes 1-2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (September).
The Bloody Assizes.

"Early in September, Jeffreys [Sir George Jeffreys, Chief
Justice of the Court of King's Bench], accompanied by four
other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will
last as long as our race and language. ... At Winchester the
Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not
been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished rebels
had, like their leader, fled thither." Two among these had
been found concealed in the house of Lady Alice Lisle, a widow
of eminent nobility of character, and Jeffreys' first proceeding
was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical reason of the
concealment.
{905}
She was tried with extraordinary brutality of manner on the
part of the judge; the jury was bullied into a verdict of
guilty, and the innocent woman was condemned by the fiend on
the bench to be burned alive. By great exertion of many
people, the sentence was commuted from burning to beheading.
No mercy beyond this could be obtained from Jeffreys or his
fit master, the king. "In Hampshire Alice Lisle was the only
victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys
reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which
Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The
court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet;
and this innovation seemed to the multitude to indicate a
bloody purpose. ... More than 300 prisoners were to be tried.
The work seemed heavy; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for
making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance
of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty.
Twenty-nine persons, who put themselves on their country and
were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The
remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and
ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged
in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four. From Dorchester
Jeffreys proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed
the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few
persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat
of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most
fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three
prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn and quartered. At
every spot where two roads met, on every market place, on the
green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with
soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and
quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the
traveller sick with horror. ... The Chief Justice was all
himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went
on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that
many thought him drunk from morning to night. ... Jeffreys
boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his
predecessors together since the Conquest. ... Yet those rebels
who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of
the survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable
to bring home the charge of high treason were convicted of
misdemeanours and were sentenced to scourging not less
terrible than that which Oates had undergone. ... The number
of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and
forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who
suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on
persons who enjoyed favour at court. The conditions of the
gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as
slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and
that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian
island. ... It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average,
each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from
ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry
competition for grants. ... And now Jeffreys had done his
work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor
from the West, leaving carnage, mourning and terror behind
him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of
Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. ... But at the
court Jeffreys was cordially welcomed. He was a judge after
his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit with
interest and delight. ... At a later period, when all men of
all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the
wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate
themselves by throwing the blame on each other."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 5._

ALSO IN:
_Sir James Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution
in England, chapter 1._

_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 100 (volume 3)._

_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 29-31 (volume 2)._

See, also, TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1686.
Faithless and tyrannical measures against
the New England colonies.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687;
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1689.
The Despotism of James II. in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The Court of High Commission revived.

"James conceived the design of employing his authority as head
of the Church of England as a means of subjecting that church
to his pleasure, if not of finally destroying it. It is hard
to conceive how he could reconcile to his religion the
exercise of supremacy in an heretical sect, and thus sanction
by his example the usurpations of the Tudors on the rights of
the Catholic Church. ... He, indeed, considered the
ecclesiastical supremacy as placed in his hands by Providence
to enable him to betray the Protestant establishment. 'God,'
said he to Barillon, 'has permitted that all the laws made to
establish Protestantism now serve as a foundation for my
measures to re-establish true religion, and give me a right to
exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes
possess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their dominions.' He
found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading
the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and
re-affirming the abolition of the Court of High Commission],
under the futile pretext that they forbade only a court vested
with such powers of corporal punishment as had been exercised
by the old Court of High Commission; and in conformity to
their pernicious counsel, he issued, in July, a commission to
certain ministers, prelates, and judges, to act as a Court of
Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes. The first purpose of
this court was to enforce directions to preachers, issued by
the King, enjoining them to abstain from preaching on
controverted questions."

_Sir James Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 5, chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of New England under a royal
Governor-General.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1687.
Riddance of the Test Act by royal dispensing power.

"The abolition of the tests was a thing resolved upon in the
catholic council, and for this a sanction of some kind or
other was required, as they dared not yet proceed upon the
royal will alone. Chance, or the machinations of the
catholics, created an affair which brought the question of the
tests under another form before the court of king's bench.
{906}
This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it
might consider whether the king had the right of exempting
particular subjects from the formalities. ... The king ...
closeted himself with the judges one by one, dismissed some,
and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' says an
historian, 'and scandalously incompetent,' to acknowledge his
dispensing power. ... The judges of the king's bench, after a
trial, ... declared, almost in the very language used by the
crown counsel:

1. That the kings of England are sovereign princes;

2. That the laws of England are the king's laws;

3. That therefore it is an inseparable prerogative in the
kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular
cases, and upon particular necessary reasons;

4. That of those reasons, and those necessities, the king
himself is sole judge; and finally, which is consequent
upon all,

5. That this is not a trust invested in, or granted to the
king by the people, but the ancient remains of the
sovereign power and prerogative of the kings of England,
which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.

The case thus decided, the king thought he might rely upon the
respect always felt by the English people for the decisions of
the higher courts, to exempt all his catholic subjects from
the obligations of the test. And upon this, it became no
longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions
and offices those whose dismissal had been demanded by
parliament. ... To obtain or to retain certain employments, it
was necessary to be of the same religion with the king.
Papists replaced in the army and in the administration all
those who had pronounced at all energetically for the
maintenance of the tests. Abjurations, somewhat out of credit
during the last session of parliament, again resumed favour."

_A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 4, chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
Declarations of Indulgence.
Trial of the Seven Bishops.

"Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James
endeavoured, under another form, to remove obstacles from
Romanists. He announced an Indulgence. He began in Scotland by
issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a
Proclamation granting relief to scrupulous consciences. Hereby
he professed to relieve the Presbyterians, but the relief of
them amounted to nothing; to the Romanists it was complete.
... On the 18th of March, 1687, he announced to the English
Privy Council his intention to prorogue Parliament, and to
grant upon his own authority entire liberty of conscience to
all his subjects. Accordingly on the 4th of April he published
his Indulgence, declaring his desire to see all his subjects
become members of the Church of Rome, and his resolution
(since that was impracticable) to protect them in the free
exercise of their religion; also promising to protect the
Established Church: then he annulled a number of Acts of
Parliament, suspended all penal laws against Nonconformists,
authorised Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to
perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament
imposing any religious test for civil or military offices.
This declaration was then notoriously illegal and
unconstitutional. James now issued a second and third
declaration for Scotland, and courted the Dissenters in
England, but with small encouragement. ... On the 27th of
April, 1688, James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence
for England. ... On the 4th of May, by an order in Council, he
directed his Declaration of the 27th of April to be publicly
read during divine service in all Churches and Chapels, by the
officiating ministers, on two successive Sundays--namely, on
the 20th and 27th of May in London, and on the 3d and 10th of
June in the country; and desired the Bishops to circulate this
Declaration through their dioceses. Hitherto the Bishops and
Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedience to the
sovereign, however bad in character or in his measures--now
they were placed by the King himself in a dilemma. Here was a
violation of existing law, and an intentional injury to their
Church, if not a plan for the substitution of another. The
Nonconformists, whom James pretended to serve, coincided with
and supported the Church. A decided course must be taken. The
London Clergy met and resolved not to read the Declaration. On
the 12th of May, at Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of
Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that
the Declaration ought not to be read. On Friday, the 18th of
May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was
held at Lambeth Palace. A petition to the King was drawn up by
the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own handwriting,
disclaiming all disloyalty and all intolerance, ... but
stating that Parliament had decided that the King could not
dispense with Statutes in matters ecclesiastical--that the
Declaration was therefore illegal--and could not be solemnly
published by the petitioners in the House of God and during
divine service. This paper was signed by Sancroft, Archbishop
of Canterbury, Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake
of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough,
and Trelawny of Bristol. It was approved by Compton, Bishop of
London, but not signed, because he was under suspension. The
Archbishop had long been forbidden to appear at Court,
therefore could not present it. On Friday evening the six
Bishops who had signed were introduced by Sunderland to the
King, who read the document and pronounced it libellous [and
seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday,
the 20th of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was
read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The
Dissenters and Church Laymen sided with the Clergy. On the
following Sunday the Declaration was treated in the same
manner in London, and on Sunday, the 3d of June, was
disregarded by Bishops and Clergy in all parts of England.
James, by the advice of Jeffreys, ordered the Archbishop and
Bishops to be indicted for a seditious libel. They were, on
the 8th of June, conveyed to the Tower amidst the most
enthusiastic demonstrations of respect and affection from all
classes. The same night the Queen was said to have given birth
to a son; but the national opinion was that some trick had
been played. On the 29th of June the trial of the seven
Bishops came on before the Court of King's Bench. ... The
Jury, who, after remaining together all night (one being
stubborn) pronounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of
the 30th June, 1688."

_W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 2._

{907}

"The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry
covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people filled
the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining streets. Sir Robert
Langley, the foreman of the jury, being, according to
established form, asked whether the accused were guilty or not
guilty, pronounced the verdict 'Not guilty.' No sooner were
these words uttered than a loud huzza arose from the audience
in the court. It was instantly echoed from without by a shout
of joy, which sounded like a crack of the ancient and massy
roof of Westminster Hall. It passed with electrical rapidity
from voice to voice along the infinite multitude who waited in
the streets. It reached the Temple in a few minutes. ... 'The
acclamations,' says Sir John Reresby, 'were a very rebellion
in noise.' In no long time they ran to the camp at Hounslow,
and were repeated with an ominous voice by the soldiers in the
hearing of the King, who, on being told that they were for the
acquittal of the bishops, said, with an ambiguity probably
arising from confusion, 'So much the worse for them.'"

_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_A. Strickland,
Lives of the Seven Bishops._

_R. Southey,
Book of the Church,
chapter 18._

_G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
chapter 30 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (July).
William and Mary of Orange the hope of the nation.

"The wiser among English statesmen had fixed their hopes
steadily on the succession of Mary, the elder daughter and
heiress of James. The tyranny of her father's reign made this
succession the hope of the people at large. But to Europe the
importance of the change, whenever it should come about, lay
not so much in the succession of Mary as in the new power
which such an event would give to her husband, William, Prince
of Orange. We have come, in fact, to a moment when the
struggle of England against the aggression of its King blends
with the larger struggle of Europe against the aggression of
Lewis XIV."

_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, section 7._

"William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the
republic of the United Provinces, was, before the birth of the
Prince of Wales, first prince of the blood royal of England
[as son of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I., and,
therefore, nephew as well as son-in-law of James II.]; and his
consort, the Lady Mary, the eldest daughter of the King, was,
at that period, presumptive heiress to the crown."

_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England,
chapter 10._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Invitation to William of Orange and his acceptance of it.

"In July, in almost exact coincidence of time with the Queen's
accouchement [generally doubted and suspected], came the
memorable trial of the Seven Bishops, which gave the first
demonstration of the full force of that popular animosity
which James's rule had provoked. Some months before, however,
Edward Russell, nephew of the Earl of Bedford, and cousin of
Algernon Sidney's fellow-victim, had sought the Hague with
proposals to William [prince of Orange] to make an armed
descent upon England, as vindicator of English liberties and
the Protestant religion. William had cautiously required a
signed invitation from at least a few representative statesmen
before committing himself to such an enterprise, and on the
day of the acquittal of the Seven Bishops a paper, signed in
cipher by Lords Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, and Lumley, by
Compton, Bishop of Northampton, by Edward Russell, and by
Henry Sidney, brother of Algernon, was conveyed by Admiral
Herbert to the Hague. William was now furnished with the
required security for English assistance in the projected
undertaking, but the task before him was still one of extreme
difficulty. ... On the 10th of October, matters now being ripe
for such a step, William, in conjunction with some of his
English advisers, put forth his famous declaration. Starting
with a preamble to the effect that the observance of laws is
necessary to the happiness of states, the instrument proceeds
to enumerate fifteen particulars in which the laws of England
had been set at naught. The most important of these were--

(1) the exercise of the dispensing power;

(2) the corruption, coercion, and packing of the judicial
bench;

(3) the violation of the test laws by the appointment of
papists to offices (particularly judicial and military
offices, and the administration of Ireland), and generally
the arbitrary and illegal measures resorted to by James for
the propagation of the Catholic religion;

(4) the establishment and action of the Court of High
Commission;

(5) the infringement of some municipal charters, and the
procuring of the surrender of others;

(6) interference with elections by turning out of all
employment such as refused to vote as they were required;
and

(7) the grave suspicion which had arisen that the Prince of
Wales was not born of the Queen, which as yet nothing had
been done to remove.

Having set forth these grievances, the Prince's manifesto went
on to recite the close interest which he and his consort had
in this matter as next in succession to the crown, and the
earnest solicitations which had been made to him by many lords
spiritual and temporal, and other English subjects of all
ranks, to interpose, and concluded by affirming in a very
distinct and solemn manner that the sole object of the
expedition then preparing was to obtain the assembling of a
free and lawful Parliament, to which the Prince pledged
himself to refer all questions concerning the due execution of
the laws, and the maintenance of the Protestant religion, and
the conclusion of an agreement between the Church of England
and the Dissenters, as also the inquiry into the birth of the
'pretended Prince of Wales'; and that this object being
attained, the Prince would, as soon as the state of the nation
should permit of it, send home his foreign forces. About a
week after, on the 16th of October, all things being now in
readiness, the Prince took solemn leave of the States-General.
... On the 19th William and his armament set sail from
Helvoetsluys, but was met on the following day by a violent
storm which forced him to put back on the 21st. On the 1st of
November the fleet put to sea a second time. ... By noon of
the 5th of November, the Prince's fleet was wafted safely into
Torbay."

_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time, 1688
(volume 3)._

_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 18, chapters 1-4 (volume 4)._

_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapters 106-107: Somers (volume 4)._

_T. P. Courtenay,
Life of Danby (Lardner's Cab. Cyclop.),
pages 315-324._

{908}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Revolution.
Ignominious flight of James.

"The declaration published by the prince [on landing]
consisted of sixteen articles. It enumerated those proceedings
of the government since the accession of the king, which were
regarded as in the greatest degree opposed to the liberty of
the subject and to the safety of the Protestant religion. ...
To provide some effectual remedy against these and similar
evils, was the only design of the enterprise in which the
prince, in compliance with earnest solicitations from many
lords, both spiritual and temporal, from numbers among the
gentry and all ranks of people, had now embarked. ...
Addresses were also published to the army and navy. ... The
immediate effect of these appeals did not correspond with the
expectations of William and his followers. On the 8th of
November the people of Exeter received the prince with quiet
submission. The memory of Monmouth's expedition was still
fresh and terrible through the west. On the 12th, lord
Cornbury, son of the earl of Clarendon, went over, with some
officers, and about a hundred of his regiment, to the prince;
and most of the officers, with a larger body of the privates
belonging to the regiment commanded by the duke of St.
Alban's, followed their example. Of three regiments, however,
quartered near Salisbury, the majority could not be induced to
desert the service of the king. ... Every day now brought with
it new accessions to the standard of the prince, and tidings
of movements in different parts of the kingdom in his favour;
while James was as constantly reminded, by one desertion after
another, that he lived in an atmosphere of treachery, with
scarcely a man or woman about him to be trusted. The defection
of the lords Churchill and Drumlaneric, and of the dukes of
Grafton and Ormond, was followed by that of prince George and
the princess Anne. Prince George joined the invader at
Sherburne; the princess made her escape from Whitehall at
night, under the guardianship of the bishop of London, and
found an asylum among the adherents of the prince of Orange
who were in arms in Northamptonshire. By this time Bristol and
Plymouth, Hull, York, and Newcastle, were among the places of
strength which had been seized by the partisans of the prince.
His standard had also been unfurled with success in the
counties of Derby, Nottingham, York, and Cheshire. ... Even in
Oxford, several of the heads of colleges concurred in sending
Dr. Finch, warden of All Souls' College, to invite the prince
from Dorsetshire to their city, assuring him of their
willingness to receive him, and to melt down their plate for
his service, if it should be needed. So desperate had the
affairs of James now become, that some of his advisers urged
his leaving the kingdom, and negotiating with safety to his
person from a distance; but from that course he was dissuaded
by Halifax and Godolphin. In compliance with the advice of an
assembly of peers, James issued a proclamation on the 13th of
November, stating that writs had been signed to convene a
parliament on the 15th of January; that a pardon of all
offences should previously pass the great seal; and that
commissioners should proceed immediately to the head-quarters
of the prince of Orange, to negotiate on the present state of
affairs. The commissioners chosen by the king were Halifax,
Nottingham, and Godolphin; but William evaded for some days
the conference which they solicited. In the meantime a forged
proclamation in the name of the prince was made public in
London, denouncing the Catholics of the metropolis as plotting
the destruction of life and property on the largest possible
scale. ... No one doubted the authenticity of this document,
and the ferment and disorder which it spread through the city
filled the king with the greatest apprehension for the safety
of himself and family. On the morning of the 9th of December,
the queen and the infant prince of Wales were lodged on board
a yacht at Gravesend, and commenced a safe voyage to Calais.
James pledged himself to follow within 24 hours. In the course
of that day the royal commissioners sent a report of their
proceedings to Whitehall. The demands of the prince were, that
a parliament should be assembled; that all persons holding
public trusts in violation of the Test-laws should relinquish
them; that the city should have command of the Tower; that the
fleet, and the places of strength through the kingdom should
be placed in the hands of Protestants; that the expense of the
Dutch armament should be defrayed, in part, from the English
Treasury; and that the king and the prince, and their
respective forces, should remain at an equal distance from
London during the sitting of parliament. James read these
articles with some surprise, observing that they were much
more moderate than he had expected. But his pledge had been
given to the queen; the city was still in great agitation; and
private letters, intimating that his person was not beyond the
reach of danger, suggested that his interests might possibly
be better served by his absence than by his presence. Hence
his purpose to leave the kingdom remained unaltered. At three
o'clock on the following morning the king left Whitehall with
sir Edward Hales, disguising himself as an attendant. The
vessel provided to convey him to France was a miserable
fishing-boat. It descended the river without interruption
until it came near to Feversham, where some fishermen,
suspecting Hales and the king to be Catholics, probably
priests endeavouring to make their escape in disguise, took
them from the vessel. ... The arrest of the monarch at
Feversham on Wednesday was followed by an order of the privy
council, commanding that his carriage and the royal guards
should be sent to reconduct him to the capital. ... After some
consultation the king was informed that the public interests
required his immediate withdrawment to some distance from
Westminster, and Hampton Court was named. James expressed a
preference for Rochester, and his wishes in that respect were
complied with. The day on which the king withdrew to Rochester
William took up his residence in St. James's. The king chose
his retreat, deeming it probable that it might be expedient
for him to make a second effort to reach the continent. ...
His guards left him so much at liberty, that no impediment to
his departure was likely to arise; and on the last day of this
memorable year--only a week after his removal from Whitehall,
James embarked secretly at Rochester, and with a favourable
breeze safely reached the French coast."

_R. Vaughan,
History of England under the House of Stuart,
volume 2, pages 914-918._

ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapters 9-10 (volume 2)._

_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 4._

_Continuation of Sir J. Mackintosh's
History of the Revolution in 1688,
chapters 16-17._

_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 1, books 6-7 (volume 2)._

{909}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
The settlement of the Crown on William and Mary.
The Declaration of Rights.

"The convention met on the 22nd of January. Their first care
was to address the prince to take the administration of
affairs and disposal of the revenue into his hands, in order
to give a kind of parliamentary sanction to the power he
already exercised. On the 28th of January the commons, after a
debate in which the friends of the late king made but a faint
opposition, came to their great vote: That king James II.,
having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of this
kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and
people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons
having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn
himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and
that the throne is thereby vacant. They resolved unanimously
the next day, That it hath been found by experience
inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant
kingdom to be governed by a popish prince. This vote was a
remarkable triumph of the Whig party, who had contended for
the exclusion bill. ... The lords agreed with equal unanimity
to this vote; which, though it was expressed only as an
abstract proposition, led by a practical inference to the
whole change that the whigs had in view. But upon the former
resolution several important divisions took place." The lords
were unwilling to commit themselves to the two propositions,
that James had "abdicated" the government by his desertion of
it, and that the throne had thereby become "vacant." They
yielded at length, however, and adopted the resolution as the
commons had passed it. They "followed this up by a resolution,
that the prince and princess of Orange shall be declared king
and queen of England, and all the dominions thereunto
belonging. But the commons, with a noble patriotism, delayed
to concur in this hasty settlement of the crown, till they
should have completed the declaration of those fundamental
rights and liberties for the sake of which alone they had gone
forward with this great revolution. That declaration, being at
once an exposition of the mis-government which had compelled
them to dethrone the late king, and of the conditions upon
which they elected his successors, was incorporated in the
final resolution to which both houses came on the 13th of
February, extending the limitation of the crown as far as the
state of affairs required: That William and Mary, prince and
princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of
England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging, to hold the crown and dignity of the said kingdoms
and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during
their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that
the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and
executed by, the said prince of Orange, in the names of the
said prince and princess, during their joint lives; and after
their decease the said crown and royal dignity of the said
kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the
said princess; for default of such issue, to the princess Anne
of Denmark [younger daughter of James II.], and the heirs of
her body; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the
body of the said prince of Orange. ... The Declaration of
Rights presented to the prince of Orange by the marquis of
Halifax, as speaker of the lords, in the presence of both
houses, on the 18th of February, consists of three parts: a
recital of the illegal and arbitrary acts committed by the
late king, and of their consequent vote of abdication; a
declaration, nearly following the words of the former part,
that such enumerated acts are illegal; and a resolution, that
the throne shall be filled by the prince and princess of
Orange, according to the limitations mentioned. ... This
declaration was, some months afterwards [in October],
confirmed by a regular act of the legislature in the bill of
rights."

See ENGLAND: 1689 (OCTOBER).

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapters 14-15 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._

_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 19, chapters 2-3 (volume 4)._

_R. Gneist,
History of English Constitution,
chapter 42 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
The Church and the Revolution.
The Toleration Act.
The Non-Jurors.

"The men who had been most helpful in bringing about the late
changes were not all of the same way of thinking in religion;
many of them belonged to the Church of England; many were
Dissenters. It seemed, therefore, a fitting time to grant the
Dissenters some relief from the harsh laws passed against them
in Charles II.'s reign. Protestant Dissenters, save those who
denied the Trinity, were no longer forbidden to have places of
worship and services of their own, if they would only swear to
be loyal to the king, and that his power was as lawful in
Church as in State matters. The law that gave them this is
called the Toleration Act. Men's notions were still, however,
very narrow; care was taken that the Roman Catholics should
get no benefit from this law. Even a Protestant Dissenter
might not yet lawfully be a member of either House of
Parliament, or take a post in the king's service; for the Test
Acts were left untouched. King William, who was a Presbyterian
in his own land, wanted very much to see the Dissenters won
back to the Church of England. To bring this about, he wished
the Church to alter those things in the Prayer Book which kept
Dissenters from joining with her. But most of the clergy would
not have any change; and because these were the stronger party in
Convocation--as the Parliament of the Church is
called--William could get nothing done. At the same time a
rent, which at first seemed likely to be serious, was made in
the Church itself. There was a strong feeling among the clergy
in favour of the banished king. So a law was made by which
every man who held a preferment in the Church, or either of
the Universities, had to swear to be true to King William and
Queen Mary, or had to give up his preferment. Most of the
clergy were very unwilling to obey this law; but only 400 were
found stout-hearted enough to give up their livings rather
than do what they thought to be a wicked thing. These were
called 'non-jurors,' or men who would not swear. Among them
were five out of the seven Bishops who had withstood James II.
only a year before. The sect of non-jurors, who looked upon
themselves as the only true Churchmen, did not spread. But it
did not die out altogether until seventy years ago [i. e.,
early in the 19th century]. It was at this time that the names
High-Church and Low-Church first came into use."

_J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 5, chapters 4-11._

_T. Lathbury,
History of the Non-jurors._

{910}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (MAY).
War declared against France.
The Grand Alliance.

See FRANCE: A.. D. 1689-1690.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).
The Bill of Rights.

The following is the text of the Bill of Rights, passed by
Parliament at its sitting in October, 1689:

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully, and freely
representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did
upon the Thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord
One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-eight [o. s.], present unto
their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style
of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being
present in their proper persons, a certain Declaration in
writing, made by the said Lords and Commons, in the words
following, viz.:

"Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of divers
evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did
endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion,
and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:

1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with
and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without
consent of Parliament.

2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for
humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the
said assumed power.

3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under
the Great Seal for erecting a court, called the Court of
Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes.

4. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by
pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner
than the same was granted by Parliament.

5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this
kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament,
and quartering soldiers contrary to law.

6. By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to
be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed
and employed contrary to law.

7. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve
in Parliament.

8. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters
and causes cognisable only in Parliament, and by divers
other arbitrary and illegal causes.

9. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and
unqualified persons have been returned, and served on
juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials
for high treason, which were not freeholders.

10. And excessive bail hath been required of persons
committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the
laws made for the liberty of the subjects.

11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and
cruel punishments inflicted.

12. And several grants and promises made of fines and
forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the
persons upon whom the same were to be levied.

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws
and statutes, and freedom of this realm. And whereas the said
late King James II. having abdicated the government, and the
throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange
(whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious
instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and
arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause
letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties,
cities, universities, boroughs, and Cinque ports, for the
choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to
be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the
two-and-twentieth day of January, in this year One Thousand
Six Hundred Eighty and Eight, in order to such an
establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties
might not again be in danger of being subverted; upon which
letters elections have been accordingly made. And thereupon
the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant
to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled
in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into
their most serious consideration the best means for attaining
the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors
in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and
asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare: