You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
James II inherited a stronger position than any Stuart since the accession of his grandfather. The Exclusion Crisis had been weathered; the Whigs were broken and Shaftesbury dead; the Tory-Anglican establishment rallied to the principles of hereditary right and passive obedience; and the loyalist Parliament of 1685 voted the new king a generous revenue for life. Within less than four years he had lost everything — his throne, his crown, and the cause of his Church — and had fled the kingdom, allowing a Dutch prince to take his place by parliamentary invitation. How a reign that began with such advantages ended in the so-called "Glorious Revolution" is one of the great problems of English history, and it turns on the interplay between James's own decisions and the deep structural force of English anti-Catholicism.
Two large interpretive questions frame the lesson. The first is causation: was James the architect of his own downfall — a king whose reckless drive to advance Catholicism needlessly destroyed his natural Tory-Anglican base — or was he the victim of forces beyond his control: an ingrained Protestant prejudice that would never have tolerated a Catholic king, and a Dutch invasion launched in William of Orange's own strategic interest? The second concerns the character of 1688 itself. The traditional Whig label, "the Glorious Revolution," implies a bloodless, providential, and conservative event — a restoration of ancient liberties rather than an upheaval. But was it truly "glorious," and was it truly a "revolution"? Steve Pincus has provocatively argued that 1688 was "the first modern revolution," genuinely transformative; Tim Harris has stressed the popular, three-kingdoms dimension; older accounts saw a sober, aristocratic course-correction. A strong candidate must weigh all of this.
Key Question: Did James II destroy himself through his own Catholicising policies, or was he the victim of structural anti-Catholicism and Dutch ambition — and was the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 a genuine revolution or a conservative restoration?
James succeeded peacefully on 6 February 1685, his position bolstered by undisputed hereditary right, a fervently loyal Anglican-Tory Parliament, and the swift crushing of a rebellion that seemed to vindicate his rule.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Leader | James Scott, Duke of Monmouth — Charles II's illegitimate but Protestant son, who landed at Lyme Regis claiming the crown and styling himself a defender of Protestantism against his Catholic uncle |
| Support | Drawn largely from West Country Dissenters and the "middling sort"; the gentry held back, and the rebellion never threatened the regime's survival |
| Battle of Sedgemoor | 6 July 1685 — Monmouth's untrained force was destroyed in the last pitched battle fought on English soil |
| Aftermath | Monmouth was executed (botched, by Jack Ketch); the "Bloody Assizes" under Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys condemned around 300 to death and some 800 to transportation — a savagery that, though directed at rebels, foreshadowed the regime's harshness |
Paradoxically, the rebellion's defeat weakened James in the long run. It gave him the pretext to enlarge the standing army to around 20,000 men — and then to officer it with Catholics in defiance of the Test Act, raising precisely the spectre of "popery and arbitrary government" that would unite his enemies.
James's overriding aim was to secure freedom, and ultimately equality, for his fellow Catholics — and, his enemies believed, to re-Catholicise England. To achieve it he relied on the royal prerogatives of suspending and dispensing with statutes, systematically alienating the Tory-Anglican establishment that was his natural support.
| Policy | Impact |
|---|---|
| Catholic army officers | Appointed in breach of the Test Act, relying on the dispensing power upheld in the collusive test case Godden v. Hales (1686); created acute fear of a Catholic-officered standing army and military tyranny |
| Ecclesiastical Commission (1686) | A new prerogative court to discipline the Anglican clergy — looking ominously like the abolished High Commission and a revival of arbitrary jurisdiction |
| Declaration of Indulgence (1687, reissued 1688) | Suspended the penal laws and Test Acts by prerogative — the very power Parliament had forced Charles to abandon in 1673; an attempt to build a "King's party" of grateful Catholics and Dissenters outside the Anglican establishment |
| Magdalen College, Oxford (1687) | James expelled the Protestant Fellows who refused his Catholic-leaning nominee and imposed a president on the university — a direct assault on the Anglican gentry's most cherished institutions |
| Remodelling the corporations and the "Three Questions" | Purged town corporations and lord-lieutenancies, replacing Anglican Tories with Catholics and Dissenters, and canvassed officials on whether they would support repeal of the Test Acts — an attempt to pack a compliant Parliament |
flowchart TD
A[James's Catholic Policies] --> B[Alienated Tory/Anglican allies]
A --> C[Used prerogative to override Parliament]
A --> D[Standing army with Catholic officers]
A --> E[Assault on Anglican institutions]
B --> F[Destroyed natural royalist base]
C --> G[Confirmed Whig warnings about Catholic absolutism]
D --> H[Fear of military tyranny]
E --> I[United Anglicans, Dissenters, and Whigs against the Crown]
F --> J[No domestic support when William invaded]
G --> J
H --> J
I --> J
The fatal political miscalculation was to alienate the Tories — the party of divine right and passive obedience, the Crown's most reliable friends. By using the prerogative to override the laws the Anglican gentry held sacred, and by courting the Dissenters they distrusted, James shattered the doctrine of non-resistance from within: he made loyalty to the Church and loyalty to the king pull in opposite directions. When the test came, he found he had no party left to defend him.
A central interpretive question — and one a strong candidate should confront directly — concerns James's ultimate aims. Did he intend merely toleration and equality for his fellow Catholics, or the wholesale re-Catholicisation of England, by force if necessary? The answer shapes how we judge both his policies and the Revolution that resisted them.
| Reading of James's aims | Evidence and argument |
|---|---|
| Limited: toleration only | James repeatedly professed to seek only liberty of conscience and an end to the penal laws; he sought to recruit Dissenters as well as Catholics, suggesting a genuine (if self-interested) toleration rather than a Catholic monopoly. On this view, his tragedy was tactical clumsiness, not tyrannical design |
| Ambitious: Catholic absolutism | His contemporaries — and historians such as Steve Pincus — saw something more systematic: a drive to "catholicise" the state by packing the army, the universities, the corporations, and a future Parliament with Catholics and compliant Dissenters, on the model of Louis XIV's France. The standing army, the dispensing power, and the assault on Magdalen all pointed, they feared, towards an absolutism in which Catholicism would be entrenched and Protestant resistance disarmed |
The truth is genuinely uncertain, and the uncertainty is itself analytically important. What mattered politically was not James's private intention but what his subjects believed he intended — and in a culture saturated with anti-popery and the memory of the 1641 Irish massacres and Louis XIV's recent Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), which had unleashed savage persecution of French Protestants, the worst was readily believed. The Revocation is crucial context: it seemed to prove, before English eyes, exactly what a Catholic king would do to Protestants once he held the power. James's reliance on the prerogative thus fell on ground already primed to read every measure as the opening move of a French-style Catholic despotism. Whether or not James was sincere in professing limited aims, he governed a nation predisposed to disbelieve him — and his methods gave that disbelief every encouragement.
When James ordered the second Declaration of Indulgence read aloud in every church, seven bishops — including Archbishop Sancroft of Canterbury — petitioned to be excused, denying that the king could lawfully suspend statutes. James, enraged, had them tried for seditious libel. Their acquittal on 30 June 1688 was greeted with bonfires and national rejoicing, and even sympathetic acclaim from the soldiers in the king's own camp on Hounslow Heath. It was a catastrophe: it demonstrated that the king could not command the courts, the Church, or even the loyalty of his army, and it cast the Anglican establishment as the defenders of law against the Crown.
Until June 1688 the crisis was, in a sense, survivable: James was ageing, his heirs were his Protestant daughters Mary (married to William of Orange) and Anne, and Englishmen could hope to outlast an elderly Catholic king. The birth of a son, James Francis Edward, on 10 June 1688 destroyed that hope at a stroke, raising the prospect of a permanent Catholic dynasty. (Hostile propaganda at once spread the fiction that the baby had been smuggled into the bedchamber in a warming-pan.) It was this event — converting a temporary aberration into an indefinite future — that tipped the balance towards intervention.
On the very day the bishops were acquitted, seven leading men — the "Immortal Seven", spanning Whig and Tory — sent a formal Invitation to William of Orange to come to England with an army to secure a free Parliament and investigate the suspicious birth. William, the Dutch Stadtholder and Europe's foremost Protestant champion, had his own compelling motive: to bring England's resources into his coalition against Louis XIV, whose attention was fortunately distracted into the Rhineland in the autumn of 1688.
William landed at Torbay on 5 November 1688 with a formidable force of around 15,000 — a genuine invasion, not a coup. James advanced to Salisbury but lost his nerve as his support melted away: key officers, including John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough), defected, and even his daughter Anne abandoned him. James's regime collapsed without a major battle. After a first failed attempt, James fled to France on 23 December 1688, throwing the Great Seal into the Thames as he went — an act of abdication-by-flight that conveniently spared the conscience of those unwilling to depose an anointed king.
Historiographical Debate: Steve Pincus's 1688: The First Modern Revolution (2009) overturned the conservative orthodoxy, arguing that 1688 was genuinely revolutionary — violent across the three kingdoms, popular, and transformative of the state, religion, and political economy, with James pursuing a modernising Catholic absolutism on the French model. Tim Harris (Revolution, 2006) likewise stresses the popular dimension and the British and Irish context, against the Anglocentric, elite "sensible revolution" of older accounts. Jonathan Israel situated 1688 within a wider European and Dutch frame, emphasising William's strategic design. The debate turns on whether 1688 was a modest aristocratic course-correction or a real, transformative — and bloody — revolution.
Section A requires you to assess the value of contemporary sources in context. We model the technique on the Invitation to William (30 June 1688) as a representative type — a secret, signed manifesto by leading politicians justifying an appeal for foreign intervention.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.