Chapter IV: , VII (13)

1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the
execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of
Parliament, is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the
execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been
assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.

3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of
Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other
commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and
pernicious.

4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by
pretence and prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for
longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be
granted, is illegal.

5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the
King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such
petitioning are illegal.

6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the
kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of
Parliament, is against law.

7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as
allowed by law.

8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free.

9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings
in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in
any court or place out of Parliament.

10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.

11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned,
and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason
ought to be freeholders.

12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures
of particular persons before conviction are illegal and
void.

13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the
amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws,
Parliament ought to be held frequently.

{911}

And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular
the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and
that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the
prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, ought in any
wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. To
which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged
by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as
being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy
therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said
Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so
far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the
violation of their rights, which they have here asserted, and
from all other attempts upon their religion, rights, and
liberties:

II. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve, 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 royal
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 deceases, the said crown
and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to
the heirs of the body of the said Princess; and for default of
such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of
her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the
body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to
accept the same accordingly.

III. And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all
persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be
required by law instead of them; and that the said oaths of
allegiance and supremacy be abrogated. 'I, A. B., do sincerely
promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary: So
help me God.' 'I, A. B., do swear, That I do from my heart
abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that
damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or
deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may
be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other
whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any
jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: So help me
God.'"

IV. Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and
royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland,
and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the
resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained
in the said declaration.

V. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased, that the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, being the two
Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their
Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the
settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this
kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in
danger again of being subverted; to which the said Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, did agree and proceed to
act accordingly.

VI. Now in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the
ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration,
and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein
contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority
of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted,
That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and
claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and
indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this
kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed,
and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars
aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as
they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers
and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their
successors according to the same in all times to come.

VII. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God, in his
marvellous providence, and merciful goodness to this nation,
to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons
most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their
ancestors, for which they render unto Him from the bottom of
their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly,
firmly, assuredly, and in the sincerity of their hearts,
think, and do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare, that
King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their
Majesties having accepted the Crown and royal dignity as
aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of
right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign
liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen of England, France, and
Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to
whose princely persons the royal state, crown, and dignity of
the said realms, with all honours, styles, titles, regalities,
prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same
belonging and appertaining, are most fully, rightfully, and
entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.

VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this
realm, by reason of any pretended titles to the Crown, and for
preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon
which the unity, peace, tranquillity, and safety of this
nation doth, under God, wholly consist and depend, the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do beseech their
Majesties that it may be enacted, established, and declared,
that the Crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and
dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto
belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their
said Majesties, and the survivor of them, during their lives,
and the life of the survivor of them. And that the entire,
perfect, and full exercise of the regal power and government
be only in, and executed by, his Majesty, in the names of both
their Majesties, during their joint lives; and after their
deceases the said Crown and premises shall be and remain to
the heirs of the body of her Majesty: and for default of such
issue, to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and
the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, to the
heirs of the body of his said Majesty: And thereunto the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of
all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit
themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever: and do
faithfully promise, that they will stand to, maintain, and
defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and
succession of the Crown herein specified and contained, to the
utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against
all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the
contrary.

{912}

IX. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is
inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant
kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince, or by any king or
queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted,
That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be
reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church
of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry
a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to
inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this
realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or
any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise, any regal
power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all
and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall
be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance, and the said
Crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and
be enjoyed by, such person or persons, being Protestants, as
should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said
person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or
professing, or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.

X. And that every King and Queen of this realm, who at any
time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown
of this kingdom, shall, on the first day of the meeting of the
first Parliament, next after his or her coming to the Crown,
sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the
presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his
or her coronation, before such person or persons who shall
administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of
his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen),
make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned
in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the reign of
King Charles II., intituled "An Act for the more effectual
preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling
Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." But if it
shall happen that such King or Queen, upon his or her
succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age
of twelve years, then every such King or Queen shall make,
subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or
her coronation, or the first day of meeting of the first
Parliament as aforesaid, which shall first happen after such
King or Queen shall have attained the said age of twelve
years.

XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall
be declared, enacted, and established by authority of this
present Parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of
this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties,
by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, declared, enacted, or established
accordingly.

XII. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority
aforesaid, That from and after this present session of
Parliament, no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any
statute, or any part thereof, shall be allowed, but that the
same shall be held void and of no effect, except a
dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such
cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill
or bills to be passed during this present session of
Parliament.

XIII. Provided that no charter, or grant, or pardon granted
before the three-and-twentieth day of October, in the year of
our Lord One thousand six hundred eighty-nine, shall be any
ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same
shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and
no other, than as if this Act had never been made.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
against Louis XIV. (called in American history "King William's
War ").

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692;
1693 (JULY); 1694; 1695-1696.

Also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).
The Battle of Beachy Head.
The great peril of the kingdom.

"In June, 1690, whilst William was in Ireland, the French sent
a fleet, under Tourville, to threaten England. He left Brest
and entered the British Channel. Herbert (then Earl of
Torrington) commanded the English fleet lying in the Downs,
and sailed to Saint Helens, where he was joined by the Dutch
fleet under Evertsen. On the 26th of June the English and
French fleets were close to each other, and an important
engagement was expected, when unexpectedly Torrington
abandoned the Isle of Wight and retreated towards the Straits
of Dover. … The Queen and her Council, receiving this
intelligence, sent to Torrington peremptory orders to fight.
Torrington received these orders on the 29th June. Next day he
bore down on the French fleet in order of battle. He had less
than 60 ships of the line, whilst the French had 80. He placed
the Dutch in the van, and during the whole fight rendered them
little or no assistance. He gave the signal to engage, which
was immediately obeyed by Evertsen, who fought with the most
splendid courage, but at length, being unsupported, his second
in command and many other officers of high rank having fallen,
and his ships being fearfully shattered, Evertsen was obliged
to draw off his contingent from the unequal battle. Torrington
destroyed some of these injured ships, took the remainder in
tow, and sailed along the coast of Kent for the Thames. When
in that river he pulled up all the buoys to prevent pursuit.
… Upon his return to London he was sent to the Tower, and in
December was tried at Sheerness by court-martial, and on the
third day was acquitted; but William refused to see him, and
ordered him to be dismissed from the navy."

_W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 24._

"There has scarcely ever been so sad a day in London as that
on which the news of the Battle of Beachy Head arrived. The
shame was insupportable; the peril was imminent. … At any
moment London might be appalled by news that 20,000 French
veterans were in Kent. It was notorious that, in every part of
the kingdom, the Jacobites had been, during some months,
making preparations for a rising. All the regular troops who
could be assembled for the defence of the island did not
amount to more than 10,000 men. It may be doubted whether our
country has ever passed through a more alarming crisis than
that of the first week of July 1690."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 18 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1690-1691.
Defeat of James and the Jacobites in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The new charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

{912}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
Attempted invasion from France.
Battle of La Hogue.

"The diversion in Ireland having failed, Louis wished to make
an effort to attack England without and within. James II., who
had turned to so little advantage the first aid granted by the
King of France saw therefore in preparation a much more
powerful assistance, and obtained what had been refused him
after the days of the Boyne and Beachy-Head,—an army to
invade England. News received from that country explained this
change in the conduct of Louis. The opinion of James at
Versailles was no better than in the past; but England was
believed to be on the eve of counter-revolution, which it
would be sufficient to aid with a vigorous and sudden blow.
… Many eminent personages, among the Whigs as well as among
the Tories, among others the Duke of Marlborough (Churchill),
had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at
Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet
which he had so long commanded before reigning, and believed
himself able to count on Rear-Admiral Carter, and even on
Admiral Russell. Louis gave himself up to excessive confidence
in the result of these plots, and arranged his plan of naval
operations accordingly. An army of 30,000 men, with 500
transports, was assembled on the coast of Normandy, the
greater part at La Hogue and Cherbourg, the rest at Havre:
this was composed of all the Irish troops, a number of
Anglo-Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marshal
de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set
ut from Brest in the middle of April with fifty ships of the
line, enter the Channel, attack the English fleet before it
could be reinforced by the Dutch, and thus secure the
invasion. Express orders were sent to him to engage the enemy
'whatever might be his numbers.' It was believed that half of
the English fleet would go over to the side of the allies of
its king. The landing effected, Tourville was to return to
Brest, to rally there the squadron of Toulon, sixteen vessels
strong, and the rest of our large ships, then to hold the
Channel during the whole campaign. They had reckoned without
the elements, which, hitherto hostile to the enemies of
France, this time turned against her." The French fleets were
detained by contrary winds and by incomplete preparations.
Tourville was not reinforced, as he expected to be, by the
squadrons of Toulon and Rochefort. Before he found it possible
to sail from Brest, the Jacobite plot had been discovered in
England, the government was on its guard, and the Dutch and
English fleets had made their junction. Still, the French
admiral was under orders which left him no discretion, and he
went out to seek the enemy. "May 29, at daybreak, between the
Capes of La Hogue and Barfleur, Tourville found himself in
presence of the allied fleet, the most powerful that had ever
appeared on the sea. He had been joined by seven ships from
the squadron of Rochefort, and numbered 44 vessels against 99,
78 of which carried over 50 guns, and, for the most part, were
much larger than a majority of the French. The English had 63
ships and [4,540] guns; the Dutch, 36 ships and 2,614 guns; in
all, 7,154 guns; the French counted only 3,114. The allied
fleet numbered nearly 42,000 men; the French fleet less than
20,000." Notwithstanding this great inferiority of numbers and
strength, it was the French fleet which made the attack,
bearing down under full sail "on the immense mass of the
enemy." The attempt was almost hopeless; and yet, when night
fell, after a day of tremendous battle, Tourville had not yet
lost a ship; but his line of battle had been broken, and no
chance of success remained. "May 30, at break of day,
Tourville rallied around him 35 vessels. The other nine had
strayed, five towards La Hogue, four towards the English
coast, whence they regained Brest. If there had been a naval
port at La Hogue or at Cherbourg, as Colbert and Vauban had
desired, the French fleet would have preserved its laurels!
There was no place of retreat on all that coast. The fleet of
the enemy advanced in full force. It was impossible to renew
the prodigious effort of the day before." In this emergency,
Tourville made a daring attempt to escape with his fleet
through the dangerous channel called the Race of Alderney,
which separates the Channel Islands from the Normandy coast.
Twenty-two vessels made the passage safely and found a place
of refuge at St. Malo; thirteen were too late for the tide and
failed. Most of these were destroyed, during the next few
days, by the English and Dutch at Cherbourg and in the bay of
La Hogue,—in the presence and under the guns of King James'
army of invasion. "James II. had reason to say that 'his
unlucky star' everywhere shed a malign influence around him;
but this influence was only that of his blindness and
incapacity. Such was that disaster of La Hogue, which has left
among us such a fatal renown, and the name of which resounds in
our history like another Agincourt or Cressy. Historians have
gone so far as to ascribe to this the destruction of the
French navy. … La Hogue was only a reprisal for Beachy-Head.
The French did not lose in it a vessel more than the allies
had lost two years before, and the 15 vessels destroyed were
soon replaced."

_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV:
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 2.'_

ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 4)._

_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 2, book 7 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of censorship law.
Appearance of first newspapers.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
Measures of commercial and industrial restriction
in the American colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
Recognition of William III. by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1698.
The founding of Calcutta.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1698-1700.
The question of the Spanish Succession.
The Treaties of Partition.
The Spanish king's will.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
The Act of Settlement.
The source of the sovereignty of the
House of Hanover or Brunswick.

"William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the young Duke
of Gloucester, the only child of Anne that lived beyond
infancy, died. There was now no hope of there being anyone to
inherit the crown by the Bill of Rights after the death of
William and of Anne. In 1701, therefore, Parliament settled
the crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs.
Sophia was one of the children of that Elizabeth, daughter of
James I., who in 1613 had married the Palsgrave Frederick. She
was chosen to come after William and Anne because she was the
nearest to the Stuart line who was a Protestant. The law that
did this is called the Act of Settlement; it gives Queen
Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it
tried to make the nation's liberties still safer. It was now
made impossible (1) for any foreigner to sit in Parliament or
to hold an office under the Crown; (2). for the king to go to
war in defence of countries that did not belong to England,
unless Parliament gave him leave; or (3) to pardon anyone so
that the Commons might not be able to impeach him."

_J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
book 1, chapter 5._

{914}

"Though the choice was truly free in the hands of parliament,
and no pretext of absolute right could be advanced on any
side, there was no question that the princess Sophia was the
fittest object of the nation's preference. She was indeed very
far removed from any hereditary title. Besides the pretended
prince of Wales, and his sister, whose legitimacy no one
disputed, there stood in her way the duchess of Savoy,
daughter of Henrietta duchess of Orleans, and several of the
Palatine family. These last had abjured the reformed faith, of
which their ancestors had been the strenuous assertors; but it
seemed not improbable that some one might return to it. …
According to the tenor and intention of the act of settlement,
all prior claims of inheritance, save that of the issue of
king William and the princess Anne, being set aside and
annulled, the princess Sophia became the source of a new royal
line. The throne of England and Ireland, by virtue of the
paramount will of parliament, stands entailed upon the heirs
of her body, being protestants. In them the right is as truly
hereditary as it ever was in the Plantagenets or the Tudors.
But they derive it not from those ancient families. The blood
indeed of Cerdic and of the Conqueror flows in the veins of
his present majesty [George IV.]. Our Edwards and Henries
illustrate the almost unrivalled splendour and antiquity of
the house of Brunswic. But they have transmitted no more right
to the allegiance of England than Boniface of Este or Henry
the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and
resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legislature.

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
book 10 (volume 2)._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
The rousing of the nation to war with France.

When Louis XIV. procured and accepted for his grandson the
bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Partition
Treaty, "William had the intolerable chagrin of discovering
not only that he had been befooled, but that his English
subjects had no sympathy with him or animosity against the
royal swindler who had tricked him. 'The blindness of the
people here,' he writes sadly to the Pensionary Heinsius, 'is
incredible. For though the affair is not public, yet it was no
sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the
Duke of Anjou, that it was the general opinion that it was
better for England that France should accept the will than
fulfil the Treaty of Partition.' … William dreaded the idea
of a Bourbon reigning at Madrid, but he saw no very grave
objection, as the two treaties showed, to Naples and Sicily
passing into French hands. With his English subjects the exact
converse was the case. They strongly deprecated the assignment
of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the
Dauphin; but they were undisturbed by the sight of the Duke of
Anjou seating himself on the Spanish throne. … But just as,
under a discharge from an electric battery, two repugnant
chemical compounds will sometimes rush into sudden
combination, so at this juncture the King and the nation were
instantaneously united by the shock of a gross affront. The
hand that liberated the uniting fluid was that of the
Christian king. On the 16th of September 1701 James II.
breathed his last at St. Germains, and, obedient to one of
those impulses, half-chivalrous, half-arrogant, which so often
determined his policy, Louis XIV. declared his recognition of
the Prince of Wales as de jure King of England. No more timely
and effective assistance to the policy of its de facto king
could possibly have been rendered. Its effect upon English
public opinion was instantaneous; and when William returned
from Holland on the 4th of November, he found the country in
the temper in which he could most have wished it to be."
Dissolving the Parliament in which his plans had long been
factiously opposed, he summoned a new one, which met on the
last day of the year 1701. "Opposition in Parliament—in the
country it was already inaudible—was completely silenced. The
two Houses sent up addresses assuring the King of their firm
resolve to defend the succession against the pretended Prince
of Wales and all other pretenders whatsoever. … Nor did the
goodwill of Parliament expend itself in words. The Commons
accepted without a word of protest the four treaties
constituting the new Grand Alliance. … The votes of supply
were passed unanimously." But scarcely had the nation and the
King arrived at this agreement with one another than the
latter was snatched from his labors. On the 21st of February,
1702, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his
horse, which his frail and diseased body could not bear. His
death would not have been long delayed in any event, but it
was hastened by this accident, and occurred on the 8th of
March following. He was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his
deceased queen, Mary, and second daughter of the deposed
Stuart king, James II.

_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapters 14-15._

ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 21, chapters 7-10 (volume 5)._

See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
Accession of Queen Anne.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
Union of rival East India Companies.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
Failure at Cadiz.
The treasure ships in Vigo Bay.
Marlborough's first campaigns.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1702;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called "Queen Anne's War").

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

{915}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1714.
The Age of Anne in literature.

"That which was once called the Augustan age of English
literature was specially marked by the growing development of
a distinct literary class. It was a period of transition from
the early system of the patronage of authors to the later
system of their professional independence. Patronage was being
changed into influence. The system of subscription, by which
Pope made his fortune, was a kind of joint-stock patronage.
The noble did not support the poet, but induced his friends to
subscribe. The noble, moreover, made another discovery. He found
that he could dispense a cheaper and more effective patronage
than of old by patronising at the public expense. During the
reign of Queen Anne, the author of a successful poem or an
effective pamphlet might look forward to a comfortable place.
The author had not to wear the livery, but to become the
political follower, of the great man. Gradually a separation
took place. The minister found it better to have a regular
corps of politicians and scribblers in his pay than
occasionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary
taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees,
struggled into a more independent position as their public
increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we
find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently
numerous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous
as to split into entirely distinct fractions. The old
religious and political warfare has softened; the statesman
loses his place, but not his head; and though there is plenty
of bitterness, there is little violence. We have thus a
brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergymen, and
lawyers, forming social clubs, meeting at coffee-houses,
talking scandal and politics, and intensely interested in the
new social phenomena which emerge as the old order decays;
more excitable, perhaps, than their fathers, but less
desperately in earnest, and waging a constant pamphleteering
warfare upon politics, literature, and theology, which is yet
consistent with a certain degree of friendly intercourse. The
essayist, the critic, and the novelist appear for the first
time in their modern shape; and the journalist is slowly
gaining some authority as the wielder of a political force.
The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is
moulded by the social conditions of the class for which and by
which it was written, still more distinctly than by the ideas
current in contemporary speculation. … Pope is the typical
representative of the poetical spirit of the day. He may or
may not be regarded as the intellectual superior of Swift or
Addison; and the most widely differing opinions may be formed
of the intrinsic merits of his poetry. The mere fact, however,
that his poetical dynasty was supreme to the end of the
century proved that, in some sense, he is a most
characteristic product. Nor is it hard to see the main sources
of his power. Pope had at least two great poetical qualities.
He was amongst the most keenly sensitive of men, and he had an
almost unique felicity of expression, which has enabled him to
coin more proverbs than any writer since Shakespeare.
Sensitive, it may be said, is a polite word for morbid, and
his felicity of phrase was more adapted to coin epigrams than
poetry. The controversy is here irrelevant. Pope, whether, as
I should say, a true poet, or, as some have said, only the
most sparkling of rhymesters, reflects the thoughts of his day
with a curious completeness. … There is, however, another
wide province of literature in which writers of the eighteenth
century did work original in character and of permanent value.
If the seventeenth century is the great age of dramatists and
theologians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the
critic, the essayist, the satirist, the novelist, and the
moralist first appeared, or reached the highest mark.
Criticism, though still in its infancy, first became an
independent art with Addison. Addison and his various
colleagues set the first example of that kind of social essay
which is still popular. Satire had been practised in the
preceding century, and in the hands of Dryden had become a
formidable political weapon; but the social satire of which
Pope was, and remains, the chief master, began with the
century, and may be said to have expired with it, in spite of
the efforts of Byron and Gifford. De Foe, Richardson,
Fielding, and Smollett developed the modern novel out of very
crude rudiments; and two of the greatest men of the century,
Swift and Johnson, may be best described as practical
moralists in a vein peculiar to the time. … The English
novel, as the word is now understood, begins with De Foe.
Though, like all other products of mind or body, it was
developed out of previously existing material, and is related
to the great family of stories with which men have amused
themselves in all ages, it is, perhaps, as nearly an original
creation as anything can be. The legends of saints which
amused the middle ages, or the chivalrous romances which were
popular throughout the seventeenth century, had become too
unreal to amuse living human beings. De Foe made the discovery
that a history might be equally interesting if the recorded
events had never happened."

_L. Stephen,
History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,
chapter 12, sections 23-56 (volume 2)._

"This so-called classic age of ours has long ceased to be
regarded with that complacency which led the most flourishing
part of it to adopt the epithet 'Augustan.' It will scarcely
be denied by its greatest admirer, if he be a man of wide
reading, that it cannot be ranked with the poorest of the five
great ages of literature. Deficient in the highest
intellectual beauty, in the qualities which awaken the fullest
critical enthusiasm, the eighteenth century will be enjoyed
more thoroughly by those who make it their special study than
by those who skim the entire surface of literature. It has,
although on the grand scale condemned as second-rate, a
remarkable fulness and sustained richness which endear it to
specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real
Augustan age in Rome, or with the Spanish period of literary
supremacy, it may claim to hold its own against these rivals
in spite of their superior rank, because of its more copious
interest. If it has neither a Horace nor a Calderon, it has a
great extent and variety of writers just below these in merit,
and far more numerous than what Rome or Spain can show during
those blossoming periods. It is, moreover, fertile at far more
points than either of these schools. This sustained and
variegated success, at a comparatively low level of effort,
strikes one as characteristic of an age more remarkable for
persistent vitality than for rapid and brilliant growth. The
Elizabethan vivida vis is absent, the Georgian glow has not
yet dawned, but there is a suffused prosaic light of
intelligence, of cultivated form, over the whole picture, and
during the first half of the period, at least, this is bright
enough to be very attractive. Perhaps, in closing, the
distinguishing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be
indicated as its mastery of prose as a vehicle for general
thought."

_E. Gosse,
The Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature
(New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, page 21)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
The Methuen Treaty with Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

{916}

England: A. D. 1703.
The Aylesbury election case.

"Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for
maliciously refusing his vote. Three judges of the King's
Bench decided, against the opinion of Chief Justice Holt, that
the verdict which a jury had given in favor of Ashby must be
set aside, as the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff
went to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, and there the
judgment was reversed by a large majority of Peers. The Lower
House maintained that 'the qualification of an elector is not
cognizable elsewhere than before the Commons of England'; that
Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege; and that all
persons who should in future commence such an action, and all
attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of
a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Somers, then
came to counter-resolutions. … The prorogation of Parliament
put an end to the quarrel in that Session; but in the next it
was renewed with increased violence. The judgment against the
Returning Officer was followed up by Ashby levying his
damages. Other Aylesbury men brought new actions. The Commons
imprisoned the Aylesbury electors. The Lords took strong
measures that affected, or appeared to affect, the privileges
of the Commons. The Queen finally stopped the contest by a
prorogation; and the quarrel expired when the Parliament
expired under the Triennial Act. Lord Somers 'established the
doctrine which has been acted on ever since, that an action
lies against a Returning Officer for maliciously refusing the
vote of an elector.'"

_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 5, chapter 17._

ALSO IN:
_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors: Somers,
chapter. 110 (volume 4)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1704-1707.
Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Campaigns in Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1707.
The Union with Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
Hostility to the Union in Scotland.
Spread of Jacobitism.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1708-1709.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.
The Barrier Treaty with Holland.

"The influence of the Whig party in the affairs of government
in England, always irksome to the Queen, had now began visibly
to decline; and the partiality she was suspected of
entertaining for her brother, with her known dislike of the
house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories
might seek still further to propitiate her favour, by
altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present
established. They had, accordingly, made it one of the
preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the
Protestant succession, in England, should be secured by a
general guarantee, and now sought to repair, as far as
possible, the failure caused by the unsuccessful termination
of the conferences, by entering into a treaty to that effect
with the States. The Marquis Townshend, accordingly, repaired
for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to
enter into an engagement to maintain the present succession to
the crown, with their whole force, and to make the recognition
of that succession, and the expulsion of the Pretender from
France, an indispensable preliminary to any peace with that
kingdom. In return for this important guarantee, England was
to secure to the States a barrier, formed of the towns of
Nieuport, Furnes and the fort of Knokke, Menin, Lille, Ryssel,
Tournay, Conde, and Valenciennes, Maubeuge, Charleroi, Namur,
Lier, Halle, and some forts, besides the citadels of Ghent and
Dendermonde. It was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the
dereliction from that treaty on the part of England, that
Townshend had gone beyond his instructions; but it is quite
certain that it was ratified without hesitation by the queen,
whatever may have been her secret feelings regarding it."

_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3 ).
_
ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
Opposition to the war.
Trial of Sacheverell.
Fall of the Whigs and Marlborough.

"A 'deluge of blood' such as that of Malplaquet increased the
growing weariness of the war, and the rejection of the French
offers was unjustly attributed to a desire on the part of
Marlborough of lengthening out a contest which brought him
profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John
[Bolingbroke] from the Ministry had given the Tories leaders
of a more vigorous stamp, and St. John brought into play a new
engine of political attack whose powers soon made themselves
felt. In the Examiner, and in a crowd of pamphlets and
periodicals which followed in its train, the humor of Prior,
the bitter irony of Swift, and St. John's own brilliant
sophistry spent themselves on the abuse of the war and of its
general. … A sudden storm of popular passion showed the way
in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A
High-Church divine, Dr. Sacheverell, maintained the doctrine
of non-resistance [the doctrine, that is, of passive obedience
and non-resistance to government, implying a condemnation of
the Revolution of 1688 and of the Revolution settlement], in a
sermon at St. Paul's, with a boldness which deserved
prosecution; but in spite of the warning of Marlborough and of
Somers the Whig Ministers resolved on his impeachment. His
trial in 1710 at once widened into a great party struggle, and
the popular enthusiasm in Sacheverell's favor showed the
gathering hatred of the Whigs and the war. … A small
majority of the peers found him guilty, but the light sentence
they inflicted was in effect an acquittal, and bonfires and
illuminations over the whole country welcomed it as a Tory
triumph. The turn of popular feeling freed Anne at once from
the pressure beneath which she had bent; and the skill of
Harley, whose cousin, Mrs. Masham, had succeeded the Duchess
of Marlborough in the Queen's favor, was employed in bringing
about the fall both of Marlborough and the Whig Ministers. …
The return of a Tory House of Commons sealed his
[Marlborough's] fate. His wife was dismissed from court. A
masterly plan for a march into the heart of France in the
opening of 1711 was foiled by the withdrawal of a part of his
forces, and the negotiations which had for some time been
conducted between the French and English Ministers without his
knowledge marched rapidly to a close. … At the opening of
1712 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by
the creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborough was dismissed
from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as
guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once withdrew
from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the
peace was at an end."

_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
section 9, chapter 9._

{917}

Added to other reasons for opposition to the war, the death of
the Emperor Joseph I., which occurred in April, 1711, had
entirely reversed the situation in Europe out of which the war
proceeded. The Archduke Charles, whom the allies had been
striving to place on the Spanish throne, was now certain to be
elected Emperor. He received the imperial crown, in fact, in
December, 1711. By this change of fortune, therefore, he
became a more objectionable claimant of the Spanish crown than
Louis XIV. 's grandson had been.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

_Earl Stanhope,
History of England, Reign of Anne,
chapters 12-15._

"Round the fall of Marlborough has gathered the interest
attaching to the earliest political crisis at all resembling
those of quite recent times. It is at this moment that Party
Government in the modern sense actually commenced. William the
Third with military instinct had always been reluctant to
govern by means of a party. Bound as he was, closely, to the
Whigs, he employed Tory Ministers. … The new idea of a
homogeneous government was working itself into shape under the
mild direction of Lord Somers; but the form finally taken
under Sir Robert Walpole, which has continued to the present
time, was as yet some way off. Marlborough's notions were
those of the late King. Both abroad and at home he carried out
the policy of William. He refused to rely wholly upon the
Whigs, and the extreme Tories were not given employment. The
Ministry of Godolphin was a composite administration,
containing at one time, in 1705, Tories like Harley and St.
John as well as Whigs such as Sunderland and Halifax. … Lord
Somers was a type of statesman of a novel order at that time.
… In the beginning of the eighteenth century it was rare to
find a man attaining the highest political rank who was
unconnected by birth or training or marriage with any of the
great 'governing families,' as they have been called. Lord
Somers was the son of a Worcester attorney. … It was
fortunate for England that Lord Somers should have been the
foremost man of the Whig party at the time when constitutional
government, as we now call it, was in course of construction.
By his prudent counsel the Whigs were guided through the
difficult years at the end of Queen Anne's reign; and from the
ordeal of seeing their rivals in power they certainly managed,
as a party, to emerge on the whole with credit. Although he
was not nominally their leader, the paramount influence in the
Tory party was Bolingbroke's; and that the Tories suffered from
the defects of his great qualities, no unprejudiced critic can
doubt. Between the two parties, and at the head of the
Treasury through the earlier years of the reign, stood
Godolphin, without whose masterly knowledge of finance and
careful attention to the details of administration
Marlborough's policy would have been baffled and his campaigns
remained unfought. To Godolphin, more than to any other one
man, is due the preponderance of the Treasury control in
public affairs. It was his administration, during the absence
of Marlborough on the Continent, which created for the office
of Lord Treasurer its paramount importance, and paved the way
for Sir Robert Walpole's government of England under the title
of First Lord of the Treasury. … Marlborough saw and always
admitted that his victories were due in large measure to the
financial skill of Godolphin. To this statesman's lasting
credit it must be remembered that in a venal age, when the
standards of public honesty were so different from those which
now prevail, Godolphin died a poor man. … Bolingbroke is
interesting to us as the most striking figure among the
originators of the new parliamentary system. With Marlborough
disappeared the type of Tudor statesmen modified by contact
with the Stuarts. He was the last of the Imperial Chancellors.
Bolingbroke and his successor Walpole were the earlier types
of constitutional statesmen among whom Mr. Pitt and, later,
Mr. Gladstone stand pre-eminent. … He and his friends,
opponents of Marlborough, and contributors to his fall, are
interesting to us mainly as furnishing the first examples of
'Her Majesty's Opposition,' as the authors of party government
and the prototypes of cabinet ministers of to-day. Their ways
of thought, their style of speech and of writing, may be
dissimilar to those now in vogue, but they show greater
resemblance to those of modern politicians than to those of
the Ministers of William or of the Stuarts. Bolingbroke may
have appeared a strange product of the eighteenth century to
his contemporaries, but he would not have appeared peculiarly
misplaced among the colleagues of Lord Randolph Churchill or
Mr. Chamberlain."

_R. B. Brett,
Footprints of Statesmen,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Marlborough,
chapters 89-107._

_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Walpole,
volume 1, chapters 5-6._

_G. Saintsbury,
Marlborough._

_G. W. Cooke,
Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
volume 1, chapters 6-13._

_J. C. Collins,
Bolingbroke._

_A. Hassall,
Life of Bolingbroke,
chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.

"The Test Act, making the reception of the Anglican Sacrament
a necessary qualification for becoming a member of
corporations, and for the enjoyment of most civil offices, was
very efficacious in excluding Catholics, but was altogether
insufficient to exclude moderate Dissenters. … Such men,
while habitually attending their own places of worship, had no
scruple about occasionally entering an Anglican church, or
receiving the sacrament from an Anglican clergyman. The
Independents, it is true, and some of the Baptists, censured
this practice, and Defoe wrote vehemently against it, but it
was very general, and was supported by a long list of imposing
authorities. … In 1702, in 1703, and in 1704, measures for
suppressing occasional conformity were carried through the
Commons, but on each occasion they were defeated by the Whig
preponderance in the Lords." In 1711, the Whigs formed a
coalition with one section of the Tories to defeat the
negotiations which led to the Peace of Utrecht; but the Tories
"made it the condition of alliance that the Occasional
Conformity Bill should be accepted by the Whigs.
{918}
The bargain was made; the Dissenters were abandoned, and, on
the motion of Nottingham, a measure was carried providing that
all persons in places of profit or trust, and all common
councilmen in corporations, who, while holding office, were
proved to have attended any Nonconformist place of worship,
should forfeit the place, and should continue incapable of
public employment till they should depose that for a whole
year they had not attended a conventicle. The House of Commons
added a fine of £40, which was to be paid to the informer, and
with this addition the Bill became a law. Its effects during
the few years it continued in force were very inconsiderable,
for the great majority of conspicuous Dissenters remained in
office, abstaining from public worship in conventicles, but
having Dissenting ministers as private chaplains in their
houses. … The object of the Occasional Conformity Bill was
to exclude the Dissenters from all Government positions of
power, dignity or profit. It was followed in 1714 by the
Schism Act, which was intended to crush their seminaries and
deprive them of the means of educating their children in their
faith. … As carried through the House of Commons, it
provided that no one, under pain of three months'
imprisonment, should keep either a public or a private school,
or should even act as tutor or usher, unless he had obtained a
licence from the Bishop, had engaged to conform to the
Anglican liturgy, and had received the sacrament in some
Anglican church within the year. In order to prevent
occasional conformity it was further provided that if a
teacher so qualified were present at any other form of worship
he should at once become liable to three months' imprisonment,
and should be incapacitated for the rest of his life from
acting as schoolmaster or tutor. … Some important clauses,
however, were introduced by the Whig party qualifying its
severity. They provided that Dissenters might have
school-mistresses to teach their children to read; that the
Act should not extend to any person instructing youth in
reading, writing, or arithmetic, in any part of mathematics
relating to navigation, or in any mechanical art only. … The
facility with which this atrocious Act was carried, abundantly
shows the danger in which religious liberty was placed in the
latter years of the reign of Queen Anne."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 1._

The Schism Act was repealed in 1719, during the administration
of Lord Stanhope.

_Cobbett's Parliamentary History,
volume 7, pages 567-587._

ALSO IN:
_J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 5, chapters 14-16._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht.
Acquisitions from Spain and France.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713;
also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
Second Barrier Treaty with the Dutch.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.