The Declaration of Indulgence: Opposition of the Bishops

James was strangely blind to the effects of his policy. He believed success was certain to crown his efforts. That he was rapidly incurring the disfavor of all, save Roman Catholics, in England, he failed to comprehend. To him silence meant the acceptance of the schemes that he had so much at heart.

In 1687 he took a new step. Without consent of parliament, he issued a declaration of indulgence, and the next year (April 27, 1688), repeated it, granting freedom of conscience to all, suspending penal laws against Roman Catholics and Non-conformists, remitting all penalties already incurred for breaches of these laws, allowing entire freedom of worship, and dispensing with all oaths of supremacy. This declaration favored Non-conformists, such as Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Quakers, as well as Roman Catholics, and was by many received with satisfaction. But its true purpose was too evident. James had not concealed the fact that, in his determination to gain the support of the Non-conformists, to humiliate the Anglican church, and to give free rein to his Roman Catholic policy, he was ready to set not only the Anglican Tories, but the law of the land, at defiance.

Thus far little outward opposition to the king's policy had been expressed. But in 1687 and 1688 two indications of popular displeasure ought to have caused the king to pause and consider the wishes of the majority of the people of England. In the first place, James failed in his attempt to pack a parliament, and had to postpone summoning that body, fearing defeat; and secondly, when he ordered the clergy to read the Declaration of Indulgence from their pulpits, he met with a refusal from, certain bishops, who addressed a petition to him, begging him to desist, but these signs of popular and ecclesiastical disapproval only angered the king and strengthened his determination. He ordered the seven bishops who had signed the petition—at their head, Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury—to be tried for libel. On June 29 the trial took place. Public excitement increased; popular demonstrations in favor of the bishops were held, notably in Cornwall, where one of the accused, Trelawney of Bristol, was much beloved; and even in the court itself it was found difficult to fill the bench of judges. On June 30, when, after a day's trial, the jury brought in a verdict of "not guilty," the joy of the people knew no bounds, and even the soldiers on Hounslow Heath joined in the celebration.

The Revolution of 1688

James was not deterred from his course. He planned to bring the case of the bishops before his ecclesiastical commission and to proceed against all the clergy who had refused to read the Declaration. But the spirit of the nation was aroused. “ The cause of the church and the cause of freedom were now the same. The great majority of peers, both lay and spiritual, the universities, the clergy, the dissenters, the army, the navy, the landed gentry, the merchants, all, in short, who called themselves Protestants, were firmly knit together to oppose the king and his Romish advisers. The tories no longer held to the doctrine of passive obedience: they now maintained that extreme oppression might justify resistance."

Another event hastened the crisis. Until 1688 James was without a male heir, and in the event of his death, his daughter Mary, wife of the Protestant stadtholder of Holland, William, Prince of Orange, would succeed him. However, the birth of a son on June 10 of that year entirely altered the situation, for it guaranteed to the Roman Catholics the continuance of a government and a policy favorable to them. The Protestants saw no relief ahead, and their leaders determined to act at once. Seven prominent men, some Whigs and some Tories, led by the earl of Danby, addressed a letter in cipher to the prince of Orange, inviting him to come to England to uphold and protect their constitutional liberties.

This invitation to William was exceedingly significant, for it promised an entire reversal of England's home and foreign policy. For fifteen years William of Orange had been the leader of those who opposed the aggressions of Louis XIV. Only once had England overcome her hostility for Holland sufficiently to join in an alliance against France; and on no occasion had she actually taken up arms against the great Roman Catholic king who was threatening the peace of Europe. Louis had been able to buy off England by his subsidies to Charles II, and these subsidies he had continued to pay to James. Thus, up to this time England's king had been favorable both to Roman Catholicism and to France.

But William of Orange was "the champion of Protestantism and the liberties of Europe against French ascendency. “ Two years before the invitation was sent to him, he had formed a great league of the European states, to prevent Louis from interfering in the affairs of the empire. Of this league England was not a member; for, as long as James was king, England could not take the place Elizabeth had given her as the upholder of Protestantism and the enemy of France.

To William the year 1688 was favorable, because Louis was at war with the league and could not easily attack Holland or aid James. He therefore accepted the invitation of the English leaders, and on October 10, 1688, despatched to England a proclamation, setting forth his reasons for accepting, and declaring that his only object was "to obtain the assembling of a free and legal parliament which should decide all questions, public and private." Nine days later be set sail for England, with seventy ships and a Dutch army of fifteen thousand men. He disembarked at Torquay, on November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, a day propitious to the Protestants. Peasantry, townspeople, and local militia flocked to his standard. In the north and east successful movements in his favor destroyed the king's hopes there, while defections from the royal army were of daily occurrence. Lord Cornbury, the king's nephew, Lord Churchill, later duke of Marlborough, his favorite and protege, and even his daughter Anne and her husband, Prince George of Denmark, joined the insurgents.

James was now ready to make concessions, but it was too late. William was marching on London, and the city itself was filled with rioters. Having first placed the queen and the little prince on a vessel bound for France, James left his palace on the banks of the 'Thames, and made his way to the coast. Unfortunately he was there stopped by fishermen and brought back to London. He was lodged in Whitehall, at the very time when William was entering Windsor. But, as it was considered unwise for him to remain there, he was sent to Rochester on December 18, whence, four days later, he was allowed to escape, first to Ireland and afterward to France. There he sought the protection and became a pensioner of the French king, whose ally he had been.

In the meantime, William entered London amidst great demonstrations of joy, and conferred with the leaders regarding the organization of the government. After considering many plans, William and the others agreed to request the House of Lords to meet and to act in conjunction with a body composed of members of the parliaments of Charles II, together with the officials of London.' By them William was requested to act as temporary governor, and the people were instructed to send their representatives, elected in the usual manner, to a convention (not a parliament, since a king had not called it), that should meet on January 22, 1689.

The Convention met to decide the question of the succession. It resolved that James, by withdrawing from the kingdom, had abdicated, and that, therefore, the throne was vacant. It also resolved that experience had shown it to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of the nation that a Roman Catholic prince should rule the kingdom. The Convention then offered the regency to William and the crown to Mary; but on William's refusing to be "his wife's gentleman usher," it offered the crown to William and Mary jointly, with the understanding that the actual government of the kingdom should be in the hands of the king.

The Convention further decided that an attempt should be made to define, in a formal document, the fundamental principles of the English constitution. This was done in a famous constitutional document known as the Declaration of Right, which was accepted by William and Mary on February 19, 1689; and later, as the Bill of Rights, was made a part of the law of the land by act of parliament, on December 16, 1689. By this memorable document, the Bill of Rights, certain constitutional privileges of parliament and people were exactly stated, and declared to be the unchangeable law of the kingdom.

The provisions of the bill will be readily recognized as the outgrowth of the controversies of the period since 1660. The rights that James had claimed, to dispense with the laws, to establish an ecclesiastical commission, to levy money in any form without the consent of parliament, to maintain a standing army dependent on the king instead of on parliament, were declared illegal. The right of the people to petition, as the bishops had done, the right of electors to choose members of parliament without interference, the right of freedom of speech in parliament, and the necessity of frequent meetings of parliament for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, were all declared inalienable parts of the ancient rights and liberties of the English people. Lastly, a settlement clause was inserted, stating that no Roman Catholic could possess the crown, and that after the death of William and Mary the succession should go to their children, or, in default of issue, to Anne and her children, or, in default of such, to the children of William by any other wife. After Mary's death, in 1697, and the death of Anne's only surviving son, the duke of Gloucester, in 1701, a further clause was added, settling the succession upon the granddaughter of James I, Sophia of Hanover, on the ground that she was the nearest Protestant heir.