foolish rashness of King James.[2]
[1] The seven gentlemen who signed in cipher the secret letter to
Wiliam, Prince of Orange, were Henry Sidney, brother of Algernon
Sidney (S480); Edward Russel, a kinsman of Lord Russel, beheaded by
Charles II (S480); the Earl of Devonshire, chief of the Whig party;
Lord Shrewsbury; Danby, the old Tory minister of Charles II; Compton,
Bishop of London, whom James II had tyrannicaly suspended; and Lord
Lumley. See the letter in J. Dalrymple's "Memoirs of Great Britain,"
II, Appendix, p. 228.
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
192/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
[2] Bright's, Guizot's, Lingard's, and Von Ranke's Histories of
England.
491. The "Glorious Revolution of 1688; Wiliam comes, James goes.
Wiliam's ship, which led his fleet, displayed this flag.
I WILL MAINTAIN THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND AND THE PROTESTANT RELIGION
He landed with 14,000 troops on the shore of Torbay, Devonshire. (See map facing p. 334.) It was the fifth and
last rgeat landing in the history of England.[1] He declared that he came in the interest of his wife Mary, the heir
to the throne (S477), and in the interest of the English nation, to secure a free and legal Parliament which should
decide the question of the succession. James endeavored to raly a force to resist him, but Baron Churchil,
afterwards Duke of Marlborough (S509), and the King's son-in-law, Prince George, both secretly went over to
Wiliam's side.
[1] The first being that of the Romans, the next that of the Saxons, the third that of St. Augustine, the fourth that
of Wiliam he Conqueror, the fifth that of the Prince of Orange.
His troops likewise deserted, and finaly even his daughter Anne went over to the enemy. "Now God help me!"
exclaimed James, in despair; "for my own children forsake me!" The Queen had already fled to France, taking
with her her infant son, the unfortunate Prince James Edward, whose birth (S490) had caused the revolution.
Instead of a kingdom, he inherited nothing but the nickname of "Pretender," which he in turn transmitted to his son.[2] King James soon folowed his wife.
[2] Prince James Edward Stuart, the so-caled "Old Pretender," and his son, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, the so-caled "Young Pretender." See, too, Genealogical Table, p. 323.
As he crossed the Thames in a boat by night, James threw the Great Seal of State into the river, in the vain hope
that without it a Parliament could not be legaly summoned to decide the question which his adversary had raised.
[3] The King got as far as the coast, but was discovered by some fishermen and brought back. Wiliam
reluctantly received him, and purposely alowed him to escape a second time. He reached France, and Louis
XIV, who had long had the treacherous King in his secret pay, received him at the court of Versailes. There
could be now no reasonable doubt that James's daughter Mary (S477) would receive the English crown.
[3] On the Great Seal of State (S145).
492. Character of the Revolution of 1688.
Never was a revolution of such magnitude and meaning accomplished more peacefuly. Not a drop of blood had
been shed. There was hardly any excitement or uproar. Even the bronze statue of the runaway King was
permitted to stand undisturbed in the rear of the palace of Whitehal, London, where it remains to this day.
The great change had taken place thus quietly because men's minds were ripe for it. England had entered upon
another period of history, in which old institutions, laws, and customs were passing away and al was becoming
new.
Feudalism had vanished under Charles II (S482), but political and religious persecution had continued. In future,
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
193/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
however, we shal hear no more of the revocation of city charters or other punishments inflicted because of
political opinion (SS479, 487), and rarely of any punishment for religious dissent.
Courts of justice wil undergo reform. They wil cease to be "little better than caverns of murderers,"[1] where judges like Scroggs and Jeffreys (SS478, 487) browbeat the prisoners, took their guilt for granted, insulted and
silenced witnesses for their defense, and even cast juries into prison under penalties of heavy fines, for venturing
to bring in verdicts contrary to their wishes.[2]
[1] Halam's "Constitutional History of England," p. 138. Halam also says that the behavior of the Stuart judges covered them "with infamy," p. 597. [2] See Halam, and also the introduction to Professor Adams's "Manual of Historical Literature." For a graphic picture of the times, see, in Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress," Christian's trial before Lord Hategood.
The day, too, had gone by when an English sovereign could cast his subjects into fetid dungeons in the Tower
and leave them to die there of lingering disease, in darkness, solitude, and despair. No future king like the
marble-hearted James II would sit in the court room at Edinburgh, and watch with curious delight the agony
inflicted by the Scotch instruments of torture, the "boot" and the thumbscrew, or like his grandfather, James I, burn Unitarian heretics at the stake in Smithfield market place in London (S518).
For the future, thought and discussion in England were to be in great measure free, as in time they would be
wholy so. Perhaps the coward King's heaviest retribution in his secure retreat in the royal French palace of
Versailes was the knowledge that al his efforts, and al the efforts of his friend Louis XIV, to prevent the coming
of this liberty had absolutely failed.
493. Summary.
The reign of James must be regarded as mainly taken up with the attempt of the King to rule independently of
Parliament and of law, and, apparently, he sought to restore the Roman Catholic faith as the Established Church
of England.
Monmouth's rebelion, though without real justification, since he could not legitimately claim the crown, was a
forerunner of that memorable Revolution which invited Wiliam of Orange to come to the support of Parliament,
and which placed a Protestant King and Queen on the throne.
WILLIAM AND MARY (House of Orange-Stuart)—1689-1702
494. The "Convention Parliament"; the Declaration of Right. 1689.
After the flight of James II, a "Convention Parliament" met, and declared that, James having broken "the orginal contract between king and people," the throne was therefore vacant. The Convention next issued a formal
statement of principles under the name of the "Declaration of Right," 1689.[1]
[1] It was caled a "Convention Parliament" because it had not been summoned by the King (S491). Declaration
of Right: see Summary of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p. xxi, S24. On the coronation oath see S380,
note 1.
That document recited the ilegal and arbitrary acts of the late King James II, proclaimed him no longer
sovereign, and resolved that the crown should be tendered to Wiliam and Mary.[2] The Declaration having been
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
194/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
read to them and having received their assent, they were formaly invited to accept the joint sovereignty of the
realm, with the understanding that the actual administration should be vested in Wiliam alone.
[2] Wiliam of Orange stood next in order of succession to Mary and Anne (provided the claim of the newly
born Prince James, the so-caled "Pretender," was set aside [SS490, 491]). See Genealogical Table, p. 323.
495. Jacobites and Nonjurors (1689).
At the accession of the new sovereigns the extreme Tories (S479), who believed the action fo the Convention
unconstitutional, continued to adhere to James II as their lawful King. Henceforth this class became known as
"Jacobites," from Jacobus, the Latin name for James. They were especialy numerous and determined in the
Highlands of Scotland and the south of Ireland. They kept up a secret correspondence with the refugee monarch,
and were constantly plotting for his restoration.
About four hundred of the clergy of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and four
more of the famous seven bishops (S489), with some members of the universities and also some Scotch
Presbyterians, refused to take the oath of alegiance to Wiliam and Mary. They became known on this account
as the "Nonjurors," and although they were never harshly treated, they were compeled to resign their positions.
496. The Mutiny Act and the Toleration Act, 1689.
We have seen that one of the chief means of despotism on which James II relied was the organization of a
powerful standing army (S488), such as was unknown in England until Cromwel was compeled to rule by
military force (S457). Charles II had perpetuated such an army (S467), but it was so smal that it was no longer
formidable.
It was now evident that owing to the abolition of the feudal levies (SS150, 482) a standing army under the King's
command must be maintained, especialy as war was impending with Louis XIV, who threatened by force of
arms and with the help of the Jacobites (S495) to restore James II to the English throne. To prevent the
sovereign from making bad use of such a power, Parliament passed a law caled the "Mutiny Act," 1689, which
practicaly put the army under the control of the nation,[1] as it has since remained. Thus al danger from that
source was taken away.
[1] The Mutiny Act provides: (1) that the standing army shal be at the King's command—subject to certain rules
—for one year only; (2) that no pay shal be issued to troops except by special acts of Parliament; (3) that no act
of mutiny can be punished except by the annual reenactment of the Mutiny Bil.
James's next method for bringing the country under the control of Rome had been to issue Declarations of
Indulgence (S488). It was generaly believed that his object in granting these measures of toleration, which
promised freedom to al religious beliefs, was that he might place Roman Catholics in power.
As an offset to these Declarations, Parliament now passed the Toleration Act, 1689, which secured freedom of
worship to al religious believers except "Papists and such as deny the Trinity." This measure, though one-sided and utterly inconsistent with the broader and juster ideas of toleration which have since prevailed, was
nevertheless a most important reform. It put an end at once and forever to the persecution which had disgraced
the reigns of the Stuarts, though unfortunately it stil left the Catholics, the Unitarians, and the Jews subject to the heavy hand of tyrannical oppression,[1] and they remained so for many years (SS573, 599).
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
195/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
[1] In 1663 Charles granted a charter to Rhode Island which secured religious liberty to that colony. It was the
first royal charter recognizing the principle of toleration.
497. The Bil of Rights, 1689, and Act of Settlement, 1701.
Not many months later, Parliament embodied the Declaration of Right (S494), with some slight changes, in the
Bil of Rights, 1689,[2] which received the signature of the King and became law. It constitutes the third and last
great step which England has taken in making anything like a formal WRITTEN Constitution,[3]—the first being
Magna Carta, or the Great Charter (S199), and the second the Petition of Right (S432). The Habeas Corpus
Act (S482) was contained, in germ at least, in Magna Carta (S199 (2)); hence these three measures, namely,
Magna Carta, 1215; the Petition of Right, 1628; and the Bil of Rights, 1689 (including the Act of Settlement to
be mentioned presently), sum up the written safeguards of the nation, and constitute, as Lord Chatham said, "The
Bible of English Liberty."
[2] See Summary of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p. xxi, S25, and p. xxxi. [3] It should be borne in
mind that a large part of the English Constitution is based on ancient customs or unwritten laws, and another part
on acts of Parliament passed for specific purposes.
With the passage of the Bil of Rights,[4] the doctrine of the Divine
Right of Kings to govern without being accountable to their subjects
(SS419, 429), which James I and his descendants had tried so hard to
reduce to practice, came to an end forever.
[4] For summary of the bil, see Constitutional Documents in the
Appendix, p. xxxi. For the complete text, see Taswel-Langmead's
"Constitutional History of England" or Lee's "Source Book of English
History."
The chief provisions of the Bil of Rights were: (1) That the King should not maintain a standing army in time of
peace, except by consent of Parliament. (2) That no money should be taken from the people save by the consent
of Parliament. (3) That every subject has the right to petition the Crown for the redress of any grievance. (4)
That the election of members of Parliament ought to be free from interference. (5) That Parliament should
frequently assemble and enjoy entire freedom of debate. (6) That the King be debarred from interfering in any
way with the proper execution of the laws. (7) That a Roman Catholic or a person marrying a Roman Catholic
be henceforth incapable of receiving the crown of England.
Late in the reign (1701) Parliament reaffirmed and stil further extended the provisions of the Bil of Rightss by the
Act of Settlement, which established a new royal line of sovereigns confined exclusively to Protestants.[1] This
Act with the preceding one may be said to have introduced that principle of the British Constitution which has
been caled "The Reign of Law." It practicaly abolished the principle of a fixed hereditary succession and
reestablished in the clearest and most decided manner the right of the nation to choose its own rulers.
[1] Compare S349, note 2. The Act of Settlement (see p. xxxi of Appendix) provided that after Princess Anne
(in default of issue by Wiliam or Anne) the crown should descend to the Electress Sophia of Hanover, Hermany,
and her PROTESTANT DESCENDANTS. The Electress Sophia was the granddaughter of James I. She
married Ernest Augustus, Elector (or ruler) of Hanover. As Halam says, she was "very far removed from any
hereditary title," as, aside from James II's son (S490), whose legitimacy no one now doubted, there were several
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
196/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
who stood nearer in right of succession.
According to that measure, "an English sovereign is now as much the creature of an act of Parliament as the
pettiest taxgatherer in his realm";[2] and he is dependent for his office and power on the wil of the people as
realy, though of course not as directly as the President of the United States.
[2] Green's "Short History of the English People" and Bryce's "American Commonwealth."
Finaly, the Bil of Rights and the Act of Settlement, by restricting the royal succession to Protestants, made it
henceforth unconstitutional for the Crown to permit or invite the Papal Power to take any recognized part in the
government of England. The enactment of these two measures, therefore, effectualy put an end to that great
conflict between England and Rome which had been going on, in some form, for more than six hundred years
(S349, note 2).
To-day entire harmony exists. Catholics and Protestants "work together for good" in Parliament, in the Cabinet, in the Courts of Justice, in the Universities, in the Army and Navy, in the service of the Press, and in private life.
[1]
[1] The names of many eminent Catholics might be cited, such as Professor Lingard, the historian (1851), the
late Lord Chief Justice Russel, the late Lord Acton, Professor of History at Cambridge, and the late Sir Francis
Burnand, editor of Punch.
498. Further Benefits of the Revolution.
Foremost in the list of other benefits which England gained by the Revolution of 1688 should be placed: 1. The
Toleration Act already mentioned (S496), which gave a very large number of people the right of worshiping God
according to the dictates of conscience, and which was the stepping-stone to later measures that completed the
good work of extending religious liberty in England (SS573, 599). 2. Parliament now established the salutory
rule that no money should be voted to the King except for specific purposes, and it also limited the royal revenue
to a few years' supply instead of granting it for life, as had been done in the case of Charles II and James. Later
the supply was limited to an annual grant. As the Mutiny Act (S496) made the army dependent for its existence
on the annual meeting and action of the House of Commons, these two measures practicaly gave the people ful
control of the two great powers,—the purse and the sword,—which they have ever since retained. 3. Parliament
next enacted that judges should hold office not as heretofore, at his Majesty's pleasure, but during good behavior
(or until the death of the reigning sovereign vacated their commissions). This took away that dangerous authority
of the King over the courts of justice, which had caused so much oppression and cruelty. 4. But, as Macaulay
remarks, of al the reforms produced by the change of government, perhaps none proved more extensively useful
than the establishment of the liberty of the press. Up to this time no book or newspaper could be published in
England without a license.[2] In the period of the Commonwealth John Milton, the great Puritan poet, had
earnestly labored to get this severe law repealed, declaring that "while he who kils a man kils a reasonable
creature,…he who destroys a good book [by refusing to let it appear in print] kils reason itself."[3] But under
James II, Chief Justice Scroggs had declared it a crime to publish anything whatever concerning the government,
whether true or false, without a license. During that reign there were only four places in England—namely,
London, Oxford, Cambridge, and York—where any book, pamphlet, or newspaper could be legaly issued, and
then only with the sanction of a rigid inspector.
[2] See Summary of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p. xxii, S26. [3] Milton's "Areopagitica," or
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
197/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
"Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing."
Under Wiliam and Mary this restriction was removed. Henceforth men were free not only to think, but to print
and circulate their thought (subject, of course, to the law of libel and sedition). They could thus bring the
government more directly before that bar of public opinion which judges al men and al institutions.
499. James II lands in Ireland (1689); Act of Attainder; Siege of Londonderry.
But though Wiliam was King of England, and had been accepted as King of Scotland, yet the Irish, like the
Scotch Highlanders, refused to recognize him as their lawful sovereign. The great body of Irish population was
then, as now, Roman Catholic. But they had been gradualy dispossessed of their hold on the land (SS159, 402,
453), and the larger part of the most desirable portion of the island was owned by a few hundred thousand
Protestant colonists.
On the other hand, James II had, during his reign, put the civil government and the military power in the hands of
the Catholics. The Earl of Tyrconnel (S488) now raised the standard of rebelion in Ireland in the interest of the
Catholics, and invited James II to come over from France (S491) and regain his throne. The Protestants of the
north stood by Wiliam of Orange (S491), and thus got that name of Orangemen which they have ever since
retained. James landed in Ireland in the spring (1689) with a smal French force lent him by Louis XIV (S491).
He established his headquarters at Dublin. Not long afterwards he issued that great Act of Attainder (1689)
which summoned al who were in rebelion against his authority to appear for trial on a given day, or be declared
traitors, hanged, drawn, and quartered, and their property confiscated.[1] Next, the Protestant city of
Londonderry (S423) was bebesieged (1689). For more than three months it held out against shot and shel,
famine and fever.
[1] Attainder (S351): This act contained between two and three thousand names. It embraced al classes, from
half the peerage of Ireland to tradesmen, women, and children. If they failed to appear, they could be put to
death without trial.
The starving inhabitants, exceeding thirty thousand in number, were finaly reduced to the last extremities.
Nothing was left to eat but a few miserable horses and some salted hides. As they looked into each other's
holow eyes, the question came, Must we surrender? Then it was that an aged clergyman, the venerable George
Walker, one of the governors of the city, pleaded with them, Bible in hand, to remain firm.
That appeal carried the day. They declared that rather than open the gates to the enemy, they would perish of
hunger, or, as some voice whispered, that they would fal "first on the horses and the hides,—THEN ON THE
PRISONERS,—then—ON EACH OTHER!" But at this moment, when al hope seemed lost, a shout of
triumph was heard. An English force had sailed up the river, broken through al obstructions, and the valiant city
was saved.
500. Battle of the Boyne, 1690; Treaty of Limerick.
A year later occurred the decisive battle of the Boyne,[1] 1690, at which King Wiliam commanded in person on
one side, while James II was present on the opposite side. Wiliam had a somewhat larger force and by far the
greater number of wel-armed, veteran troops. The contest ended with the utter defeat of James. He stood on a
hil at a safe distance, and when he saw that the battle was going against him, turned and fled to France. Wiliam,
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
198/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
on the other hand, though suffering from a wound, led his own men. The cowardly behavior of James excited the
disgust and scorn of both the French and Irish. "Change kings with us," shouted an Irish officer later, to one of Wiliam's men, "change kings with us, and we'l fight you over again."
[1] Fought in the east of Ireland, on the banks of the river of that name. (See map facing p. 358.)
The war was brought to an end by the treaty of Limerick (1691), when about ten thousand Irish soldiers who
had fought for James, and who no longer cared to remain in their own country after their defeat, were permitted
to go to France. "When the wild cry of the women, who stood watching their departure, was hushed, the silence
of death settled down upon Ireland. For a hundred years the country remained at peace, but the peace was that
of despair."[1] In violation of that treaty, a severe act was passed against Roman Catholics; they were hunted
like wild beasts, and terrible vengeance was now taken for that Act of Attainder (S499) which James had issued.
Furthermore, England selfishly closed her own ports and those of her colonies against Irish products; this policy
starved the industry of that unfortunate island.
[1] Green's "Short History of the English People."
501. Massacre of Glencoe (1692).
Fighting against Wiliam and Mary had also been going on in Scotland; for Claverhouse, or "Bonny Dundee"
(S472), was an ardent adherent of James II and vowed, "Ere the King's crown shal fal, there are crowns to be
broke."[2] But the Jacobites, or adherents of James (S495), had been conquered, and a proclamation was sent
out commanding al the Highland clans to take the oath of alegiance before the beginning of the new year (1692).
[2] Scott's Poems, "Bonny Dundee."
A chief of the clan of the Macdonalds of Glencoe, through no fault of his own, failed to make submission within
the appointed time. Scotch enemies of the clan told the King that the chief had refused to take the oath, and
urged Wiliam "to extirpate that set of thieves." The King signed an order to that effect, without clearly
understnading what was intended.
Thereupon the Scotch authorities sent a body of soldiers to Glencoe, who were hospitably received by the
Macdonalds. After stopping with them a number of days, they rose before light one winter morning, and,
suddenly attacking their friendly hosts, murdered al the men who did not escape, and drove the women and
children into the snowdrifts to perish of cold and hunger.
They finished their work of destruction by burning the cabins and driving away the cattle. By this act, Glencoe, or
the "Glen of Weeping," was changed into the Valey of the Shadow of Death. The blame which attaches to
Wiliam is that he did nothing toward punishing those who planned and carried out the horrible massacre.
502. La Hogue; the Peace of Ryswick, 1697.
The English naval commander, Admiral Russel, like many of Wiliam's pretended friends and supporters, had
been engaged in treasonable correspondence with James II. If the latter succeeded in recovering his crown, the
Admiral hoped to bask in the sunshine of royal favor; but he later changed his mind and fought so bravely in the
sea fight off La Hogue that the French supporters of James were utterly beaten.
King Wiliam, however, continued his Continental wars for the next five years, until, by the Peace of Ryswick, in
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
199/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
Holand, 1697, Louis XIV bound himself to recognize Wiliam as King of England, the Princess Anne[1] as his
successor, to withdraw al support from James, and to place the chief fortresses of the Netherlands, or Low