Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678–81

185 Pages·1994·52.894 MB·English

by  Mark Knights

Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History
POLITICS
Series editors
AND OPINION
ANTHONY HETCHER
Professor of Modern History, University of Durham
IN CRISIS,
JOHN GUY
Professor of Modern History, University of St Andrews
1678-81
and JOHN MORRILL
Reader in Early Modern History, University of Cambridge and
Fellow and Tutor of Se/wyn College
This is a series of monographs and studies covering many aspects of the history of the
British Isles between the late fifteenth century and the early dghteenth century. It
includes the work of established scholars and pioneering work by a new generation of
MARK KNIGHTS
scholars. It includes both reviews and revisions of major topics and books which open
up new historical terrain or which reveal startling new perspectives on familiar Lecturer in History, Leicester University
subjects. All the volumes set detailed research into broader perspectives and the books
are intended for the use of students as well as of their teacher.
For a list of titles in the series, see end of book.
\
1
---------------------i(~EE~ ~~~~~I---------------------
Introduction
We now come to a great crisis in politics, the discovery of the popish
plot ...
AN EXCLUSION CRISIS?
W. Kennett, A Complete History of England (1706), iii. 364.
In October 1678 the Cavalier Parliament began investigating revelations
I may aforehand prophesy, that, unless th!e historian's] Pen had Eyes made by Titus Oates of a Popish Plot to assassinate the King. The Plot
and Ears at work in the very time when the Plot was fragrant, it is inflamed long·standing fears of popery and had ominous implications for the
impossible, out of the Rubbish in Print, to shew the character of the Age, duke of York, whose conversion to catholicism had been widely suspected
and what witchcrah prevailed over the understandings of the many. since his refusal to comply with the Test Act of 1673. Oates did not directly
R. North, Examen (1740), p. 187. implicate James in the Plot itself, but he did accuse Edward Coleman, the
duke's former secretary, whose papers proved to contain treasonable letters
He that would give a Punctual and Particular Account of all the Narra· to Louis XIV's confessor about catholic designs in England. The vulnerability
tives, Discourses, Tryals, Executions, Speeches, Votes, Accusations, of James's position was clear. Charles dissolved the Cavalier Parliament on
Examinations, Commitments, Tumultuous Elections, Petitions, Ryots, 24 January 1679 and called a new one, but before Parliament sat on 6 March,
Libels, and Seditious Attempts of all Som, during the said time, must the duke had been forced into temporary exile. A bill to exclude James from
write a History more Voluminous than Fox or Hollinshead. the succession to the throne was introduced in the Commons on 15 May and
A Compendious View oft he late Tumult. and Troubles (1685), preface. passed a second reading six days later, though the session was prorogued
before it could proceed a.iy further. When Parliament met again on 21
October 1680 a similar bill reached the Lords where, on 15 November, it was
decisively rejected; and a third exclusion bill was read in the short·lived
Parliament held in Oxford in March 1681. Exclusion bills thus linked all
-;'" three new Parliaments of the period.
The years 1678-81 were also seen by contemporaries as a time of crisis,'
when the nation drihed slowly towards violent unrest. Throughout the
period disorder appeared to be imminent. In January 1679 a rabble gathered
daily outside Newgate to inquire about the fate of three convicted priests, 'to
the putting some in fear of an outrage'.2 The following month Sir James
Hayes reported that he was 'very much afray'd of great troubles at hand'.lIn
May 1679 one observer reported that England was 'on the very brink of
t For use ofthe term 1ft The CONntrNS Vindication (1679), p. 4j HMC Ormondt, iv. 244; Bod.,
c.n?,
MS Rawl. I. 56, Sir LeolineJenkino to Gab'iel Sylviu., 20 July 1680; BL, Add. 32,681,
1.12, Jenkinl to Henry Sidney,20 July 1610.
, CSPD 1679-80,p.21. .
I NLS, MS ?008, I. 189, Hay. . to MrI oIT, 11 hi 17 '"bru"ry 167819.
4 'A Great Crisis in Politics' Introduction 5
confusion',4 and when a rebellion actually erupted in Scotland the following reasons that will become apparent, it is best reserved for the brief period
month, the knock- on effect south of the border was dreaded.5 At the end of between the rejection ofthe bill in the House of Lords in November 1680 and
the summer disorder was again expected after the King fell seriously ill .. the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in March 1681. When the slogan is
'Never was a civil war feared more than now', wrote one anxious observer.7 used, it should be remembered that it does not do justice to the depth and
In December 1679 it was feared thatthe people would 'not be quiet long'. 8 In complexiry of what was the critical period in Charles U's reign, when politics
March 1680 rumours circulated that London's apprentices intended to rise in and opinion were in crisis.
arms, whilst in July renewed political agitation prompted a parliamentary For a long time the 'attempted revolution', as the crisis has also been
clerk to predict that trouble might soon break out.9 By November Sir William called, IS has been overshadowed by the successful revolutions of 1640-60
Temple could see nothing to prevent the nation 'falling into violent and and 1688-9, and received relatively little attention from historians. Only
lo
popular tumults' if Parliament ended without an agreement with the King. recently has the period come under greater and more penetrating study as
In February 1681 Algernon Sidney, who had surely wimessed much unrest in historians have questioned whether or not the exclusion bill was the central or
his lifetime, remarked that he had never seen 'men's minds more heated than most important feature of these years, and even whether contemporaries were
at present', and a few months later Sir William Coventry remarked that 'all justified in regarding it as a crisis. In order to ask the question 'was there an
things worked for bringing ruin'.11 Looking back over the period, Roger exclusion crisis?' we therefore need to review the historical debate which has
North could 'not remember at any time, a more hared and giddy temper of the forced this question on to the agenda.
people'.12 Prognostications of chaos and civil war had been voiced through
out the 1660s and 1670s; but never so continuously, nor from so many
INTERPRETING THE PERIOD
different quarters, nor perhaps so desperately, as between 1678 and 1681.
Recent interest in the period has centred on the development of political
Even if fears of disorder were greatly exaggerated, the years 1678-81 wit
nessed an unrestthat made the likelihood of civil war at least seem possible. In parties, and of the Whig party in particular. ~uch an approach is not new. As
early as 1740, in what became the classic delineation of the Tory perspective
the words of one contemporary historian, the period was 'the most deplor
of the crisis, Roger North in his Examen argued that by 1673 there existed a
able time that was ever seen in England'.13
Country party of well-meaning but politically naive men, and a group of
The extraordinary political events that took place between the Popish Plot
'desperadoes' of old republicans and 'malcontents'. They were led, he
and the dissolution of the 1681 Oxford Parliament have consequently been
suggested, by the earl of Shaftesbury, whose motives ranged from a desire for
described by modem historians as the 'Exclusion Crisis'.14 I have generally
a commonwealth, an ambition to manage affairs himself, and a sheer wish for
avoided that term, not on grounds of dogma or a belief that it should never be
'experiment'. To achieve his aims, North claimed, Shaftesbury developed a
used, but because I want in the following pages to shift the emphasis away
powerful propaganda machine and party organisation, which worked hand
from an interpretation of the controversy as one generated by, and revolving
in hand with dissenters from the Church of England. 'So united and so
around, the single issue of exclusion, and because the label incorrectly implies
uniformly did they move and act, as if one single soul animated the whole',
that the crisis was merely a parliamentary o~, centering on one piece of
that the party temporarily dominated politics; but, North gleefully pointed
legislation. The 'exclusion crisis' is a well-known short-hand title, but, for
out, after a period of irresolution, the Court outwitted its opponents, with the
" HMC Ormontie, v. 104. result that far from destroying the monarchy, the crisis encouraged 'a second
S Bod., MS Carte 232. f.44, earl of Longford to earl of Arran,S July 1679.
, Sidney Letters, p. 97. Restauration' of royal power. Although North admitted that he wrote from a
7 Bucks. ROt Verney mss, M11133, Cary Gardiner to Sir Ralph Vemey, 15 September 1679. partisan point of view, modern historians have, with some refinements and
• B4 Trumbull mss, 60, R. Trumbull to W.Trumbull. t December 1679.
modifications, largely followed the outline he gave of a tightly organised and
• HMC Lords 1678-88, p.156.
10 Van Prinstecer, Archives, v. 447. thrusting opposition to the King.
11 Sidney Letters, p.60 (Hallis dates the letter 3 February 1678/9, but it refers to 1681); BL, Acceptance of North's interpretation has been made easier because the
Longleat mss, Ml904, reel ix, vol. xvi, f. 328. Coventry to Sir Thomas Throne. 24 May 1681.
alternative Whig analysis shares his stress on the crisis as a turning point in the
12 North, Examen, p.S04.
13 R. Halstead, Succinct Genealogies (1685)1 p.433. formation of parties. Thus William Cowp.,r, son of the earl of Shaftesbury's
104 The nearest contemporary \lie of the phrase is Anthony Hammond's retrospective entry in his political associate Sir William Cowper and himself a Whig, argued (even
diary for 1679, which reads 'Bill of Exclusion, the great Lk epidemicai Controveny then
dependilll' (Bod., MS Rawl.A.14S, f.44). " F.S. Ronaldl, Th, AtumptH W~III1I1t1OiNI/o" of 1678-81 (Urbana, 1974).
6 'A Great Crisis in Politics' Introduction 7
before North published) that parties had their origin 'about the time the Bill Danby's administration that parties first became organised and established
of Exclusion was set on foot in the reign of King Charles 11', and came into on a permanent basis. In response to this Court initiative, De Beer argued,
being for rwo reasons: the Court's persecution of protestant dissenters, and Shaftesbury tried to consolidate the opposition to Danby's management into
the exclusion bill.!6 Cowper's account differs from North's mainly in the a power strong enough to force Parliamentary control on the King, though
priority he assigned to the role of principle as the cohesive force behind the disparate nature of his support made this possible only for so long as the
opposition to the Court. Concern for religion and a sincere belief that Court was aimless.20 Until 1677, de Beer suggested, this struggle took place
Parliament had the power to alter the succession were thus far more import within the rwo Houses of Parliament; thereafter, however, there was a
ant than factious ambition, hatred of the church, or a desire to see the profound change to the type of conflict berween Parliament and the King that
restoration of a commonwealth. had characterised the earlier part of the century. After the Popish Plot all
Given the agreement about the rise of parties, the modern historical debate semblance of a parry conflict disappeared, and the exclusionist Whigs
has, until recently, focused on the novelry of 1679-81 as the turning point in appeared as a faction.2!
their emergence, and on the date at which parties became recognisable. To An alternative to De Beer's thesis argues the almost opposite point of view
understand this debate, however, it is necessary to examine interpretations of mainly because it examines the Court's critics rather than its supporters. This
the 1660s and 1670s in order to assess earlier political developments. rival analysis, which has been the most widely accepted, suggests that,
One strongly argued body of opinion suggests that parties emerged in although there was increasing opposition to the Court in the 1670s, it was still
stages during the whole Restoration period. This view was most eloquently largely factional, and personal in character; parties had not yet formed, and
stated by Andrew Browning, who argued that the rise of parties in the reign of needed the impetus provided by the Popish Plot to develop around the issue of
Charles 11 was an inevitable consequence of the increase in the power and exclusion. David Ogg therefore concludes that the exclusion crisis witnessed
prestige of Parliament during the civil wars and Commonwealth. He identi the birth of the modern parry system.22 Although stressing that provincialism
fied three Court parties under the administrations of Clarendon, Arlington still counted for much in political life, he saw 1678-81 as a period in which
Clifford-Williamson, and Danby, seeing in Shaftesbury the leader of a fourth, national politics predominated, and observed that 'it was the simple choice of
opposition, party.!7 The most serious challenge to this view has come from exclusion or a popish successor that crystallised amorphous masses of preju
historians of the Cavalier Parliament. Dennis Witcombe's study of the Parlia dice, instinct, and misgiving into the clear-cut forms of political party',23
ment up to the rise of Danby, 'demolished the idea, so attractive and con In The First Whigs James Jones gives the clearest and fullest expression of
venient, of a neat rwo-parry system. In place of disciplined "Court" and this line of thought. His work, which remains the standard text for the study
"Country" parties logically and inevitably opposed to one another, he pre of the period, seeks to deny that Walcott's analysis of early eighteenth
sents a picture of complicated groupings, shifting allegiances and confused century politics, which had focused on family connections and interest
motives.'18 The most recent historian of the early years of the Restoration, groups, had relevance for the period 1678-81, and argues that the upheaval
Paul Seaward, has likewise warned against seeing anything very new in the after 1678 cannot be explained in terms of mere personalities or factions;
parliamentary management of these years, rrsarding the organisation of instead, opponents of the Court became 'a coherent and highly organised
Bennet (later earl of Arlington) and Clifford as essentially faction driven.!9 body which can properly be described as a party·.24 Regarding it as a political
Browning's model has therefore been modified by a number of historians rather than a religious crisis, Jones argues that the party formed itself round
who have sought to push forward the date for the emergence of parties. In his the single issue of exclusion, and placed itself under the leadership of the earl
thesis of 1923, Esmond De Beer advanced the idea that it was only during of Shaftesbury, who used an unprecedented degree of party management and
organisation. Jones admits, however, that this effort was entirely geared to
" j. Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors (1846), iv. 421-2.
t? A. Browning, 'Parties and Party Organisation in the Reign of Charles 11', TRHS, xxx (1948), 20 E.S. de Beer, 'The Development of Parties during the Ministry of Danby' (London MA thesis,
21-36. 1923), chapter 1. K. Feiling, History of the Tory Party (Oxford, 1924), p. 165 argues along a
18 D.T. Witcombe, Charlts II and tht Cavalier House of Commons 1663-1674 (Manchester, similar line.
1966), foreword by B.O. Henning, who nevertheless employed a Court-Opposition dich 21 de Beer, 'Development of Parties', pp. 1St, 167-74.
otomy when analysing the behaviour of MPs in the History of Parliament volumes covering 22 D. Osg, England in the Rli". of Charl" Il(Oxford, 1984 re-issue of 1956 2nd edition),
the Cavalier Parli.ment. p.606.
19 P. Seaward, Th. CavIII;., Parliam,nt arId th, RlComtruction of tht Old Rtgimt 1661-7 " Ibid., p. 612. .
(Cambridlo. 1989), pp. 79, 99. " Jon. .. Th. PIr.t Whir' (Oxford. 1"1), p. t.
8 'A Great Crisis in Politics' Introduction 9
pushing through exclusion, and did not permanently affect the nature of the Similarly, Kenneth Haley's excellent biography of Shaftesbury, which has
political system. He also believes that the first Whigs had not developed an provided so much of the detail for students of the period, does not present
ideological programme. In a subsequent work Jones enlarges his views about a straightforward portrait of a party leader: 'Even in the Whig heyday of
the rise of parties. 'There can be no doubt that the first Whigs were a party', he the Exclusion crisis,' he says, 'it is foolish to talk as though all the Whigs
argues, because they possessed 'a clearly defined and accepted group of were Shaftesbury's obedient "henchmen" .'28 Sir John Plumb also warns that
leaders, headed by Shaftesbury, who made the decisions, pre-arranged the Shaftesbury and his followers 'never possessed half the coherence of purpose
tactics that were to be followed in Parliament and elections, and issued orders that is often attributed to them'.29
and instructions which individual MPs and leaders in the localities A comprehensive revision of the accepted structure of Restoration politics
accepted.'25 Much of Jones's analysis has been recently taken up by Richard is, however, only now emerging. It is taking place on two main fronts, the
Ashcraft in his study ofLocke and revolutionary politics. Like Jones, Ashcraft religious and the organisational, and has sprung from the idea that 1679-81,
sees the first Whigs as 'much more organised and disciplined than a mere or even 1660, was less of a watershed than has previously been thought. In his
alliance established among a few aristocratic leaders and their immediate study of seventeenth-century puritanism, Michael Finlayson has argued that
followers would suggest';26 unlike Jones, however, he dates the first formal the political and religious outlook that was prevalent in the pre·civil war
political organisation to the year 1675. In a sense, North's view of a highly period persisted after the Restoration. Anti-popery and fear of arbitrary
organised revolutionary party under the direction of Shaftesbury has come government were the same issues that dominated men's minds before and
full circle. after the civil war, so that 'what shaped the political consciousness of many
A number of difficulties are apparent in Jones's argument. At times he who supported the policy of Exclusion was a sense of continuity with gener
seems to argue that the period wimessed the birth of a two-party system, ations of post-Reformation protestants' .30 The idea that the Restoration did
whilst on other occasions he suggests that it was only the Whigs who not resolve the abiding problems of the seventeenth century is not new; but
developed into a party between 1679 and 1681, an inconsistency which raises historians have often not followed through the implications of their own
questions about the extent to which a party can exist on its own. He also observations. Mark Goldie and others, most notably Tim Harris, have there
argues for the emergence of parties, even though he admits that there was no fore pursued the religious context of Restoration politics, and see it shaping
stable structure of politics. The cautions made at the start of the book about both attitudes and organisation.31 They have succeeded in placing a new
the Ouidiry of politics and the fragmentary nature of the opposition are soon emphasis on the importance of the struggle between dissent and the estab
forgotten, and he regards the political struggle as mainly confined to Parlia lished church. Indeed, Harris's study of politics under the later Stuarts
ment and Whitehall, making it unclear how far the divisions permeated the literally aims to put dissent back into discussions of the period, by suggesting
country as a whole. He argues that issues were what mattered, but believes the that political divisions were at root religious ones, born out of the failure of
ideology of the Whigs to have been largely unformed and incoherent; and he the Restoration religious settlement. J2 Whilst admitting that the conOict
concentrates instead on the pivotal role of exclusion, a measure to deal with a between episcopacy and dissent must be linked to constitutional issues in
religious as much as a political problem, in a pUtely secular way. Moreover, order to explain how religious factors generated party politics, he accords
his insistence on the crisis revolving around the single concern of exclusion religious factors 'primacy of place' in establishing party identity. Yet he does
rests on a case that fails to consider some of the other issues at stake.
11 K.H.D. Haley, Tht Pi'5t fArl of Shafre5bury (Oxford, 1968), p. 349.
Uneasiness has been voiced on a number of these scores. John Miller " J. Plumb, The Growth of PO/io",1 Stability 1675-1725 (19671, p.51.
regards the politics of the Restoration as having been shaped by men who )0 M. Finlayson, Historians, Purilllnism and the English RtvolHt;on (1983), p.1S2. This
were ambitious for office, and by differences of principle, with no clear-cut argument has been challenged by S. Zwicker, who argues that the exclusion crisis was not 'an
example of godly politics after the manner of the 16405' but 'the conduct of political battle
party divisions; challenges to the King's power were thus ad hoc responses
under the open aegis of party' (S. Zwicker, 'Lines of Authoriry: Politics and Literary Culture
to particular events and problems, rather than a systematic campaign.27 in the Restoration', in Tht Politics of Di5CON'5t, ed. S. Zwicker and K. Sharpe [California,
1987J, pp. 234-5).
)1 Tbe Politics of Rtligion in Reltoration fng/flnQ, eel. T. Harris, P. Seaward and M. Goldie
lS Jones, Tb, R'lIOl,d;ON of 1688 in En,lImd (1972), p. 39j Jones, 'Parries and Parliament', in (Oxford, 1990); T. Harri., London Crowd. in ,h. Rei". ofC har I. . 11 (Cambridge, 1987). See
Tb, lI",o,.d Mo""r.." ed. Jones (1979), pp. 48-70. .bo R.L. Grea ..., RIJdi",".1III No""",formi,,. in Britain 1664-1677 (California, 1990),
l' R. Athcraft, RI1IOl"Uo"." PoIiti" "rid Loclt,', Two Trlflti", of Govm.mmt (Princeron, which concludes (p. 2. ..) that 'YirtuallJ all diu''''n" were Protestant nonconformists but the
U8'), pp. 141, 17$. majority of the latter had 110 NIl .... 10 dw radical". .
17 J. MIIItt, 'Char. U Ind hla PorUlmenu', TRHS, xxxii (1982), 1-24. II Hlrri" Poli,i" ...,u, IIrf '-..... ,,,,,),". "'. chlpter 4.
10 'A Great Crisis in Politics' Introduction 11
not explain why and how the character of the religious dispute was different A number of reservations nevertheless need to be made about the stress
to the divisions of the earlier seventeenth century, about which historians he puts on some points because he pushes valuable insights too far, and
have been reluctant to talk in terms of parties. If the post-Restoration period similarities (which will become clearer) in some of our arguments make it
mirrored tensions which existed before 1660 and which were unresolved at necessary to state at the outset where we differ.
the King's return, why should we call the divisions of the later period 'parties', The fact that there was continuity between the late and early seventeenth
but not those of the earlier seventeenth century? century does not mean, as Scott insists, that 1679-81 'was a repeat screening
This is exactly the question posed, and answered, by Jonathan Scott. He of the crisis of the reign of Charles I'. JS Of course, there were many parallels
has argued that the crisis of 1679-81 had more in common with the 1620s, between the periods and a good deal of propaganda was produced to high
1630s and 1640s than historians have previously recognised, and that the light them; butthe cry that '1641 had come again' was made by the Court and
Restoration was more of a reaction than a settlement, creating a fragile and its supporters, in whose interest it was to emphasise the similarities and even
unstable situation in which the problems of politics and religion that had to claim that history was repeating itself.J6 Scott admits, and emphasises,
bedeviled the country between 1625 and 1660 could erupt. JJ He accordingly that contemporaries were 'the prisoners of memory';J7 but at times he
sees the crisis of 1679-81 partly as a response to the Counter-Reformation, seems unaware of the motives of those who sought to stir it. As we shall
and identifies three underlying causes: fear of popery, fear of arbitrary see, the memory of the civil wars was to play an important factor in shaping
government and the disruption in England's client relationship with France. the attitudes of the Tory reaction aher 1681, for the past was not just
Perhaps what is most important about Scott's claims is that, just as the issues determining the structure of the debate, but was also being deliberately
were the same for the early and later Stuarts, so the structure of politics manipulated for partisan reasons, and we must be careful not to accept
remained the same: 'the whole idea of the "exclusion crisis" giving rise to the the assertions of a prejudiced contemporary press at face value. Scott's
"whig" and "tory" parties (and so to the political structures of the eighteenth reluctance to recognise that propaganda was part of the political process
century) is', he suggests, 'another case of the "long eighteenth century" giving means that he sees the 'Whigs' of 1678 simply becoming the 'Tories' of
premature birth to itself from the depths of a different period'.J· As an 1681.J 8 Whilst some shih of opinion did occur, the apparent Toryism had as
alternative framework, Scott suggests that there were competing factions, much to do with a struggle to represent the will of the nation as it had with the
and that any cohesion that existed among the 'sides' was ideological rather change of will, and, when Scott says that his fortDula works for all except
than organisational. some hardliners, he seems to forget that elsewhere he argues that it was those
Scott's views are put forward with flair and enthusiasm, and a number of hardliners who really made up the Whigs and Tories (such as they were) in the
his lines of enquiry are extremely valuable. Indeed, I shall be endeavouring to first place.
enlarge on a number of themes which he highlights. His review of the Moreover, although the crisis of 1678-81 needs to be viewed from the
importance of the exclusion bill and the leadership offered by Shahesbury, perspective of the past, the perspective of the future is also important. Whilst
and his emphasis on the importance of ideol0llT-' faction and the fears of it is true that historians have concentrated too much on the fears for the future
popery and arbitrary government, including the survival of Parliament, are all under a popish successor at the expense of studying the crisis of government
extremely important arguments which rightly challenge some of the imbal under Charles 11, it is impossible to ignore the fact that there were grave
ances of other accounts of the period. His recognition of the rupture of anxieties about the imminent impact of popery under James that gave a new
Anglo-French relations as an essential component of the crisis also adds a dimension to the political and religious problems. As I shall discuss later, it is
useful dimension omitted by many other commentators, and his lively and unnecessary to see a crisis of popery and arbitrary government and a crisis
provocative style has reinjected a welcome vigour and vitality into the debates about the succession as mutually exclusive themes. Fear of what James would
about the period. do when he became King triggered alarms about popery and arbitraty
government; but similarly, Charles's handling of the succession crisis seemed
II J. Scott, 'Radicalism and Restoration', H], xxxi (1988), p.-UBj Algemon Sidney and the to place the future of Parliament at risk and open the way to the destruction
Rtsto,ati01l Crisis 1677-1683 (Cambridge, 1991), pwim, but especially pp. 1-49. Ironi·
caUy, Scatt builds ooJones'. lraument that the Restoration settlement leh many problems of
the 1640. .nd 16500 unresolved, and thatth. balance of power betw ••n King, Parliament and 35 Scon, R"tof'atio,. Cmu, p. 7.
the church hod 'till to be worked out alter the Restoration Uon .., Th. Revolution 0(1688, 34 For I survey of IOme of the material relating to the civil wars reprinted 1679-81, see chapter 6.
pp,x,3), " Scott, Rllloration Crisis, p.3.
,. Scott, 'Rldlcalilm and RInotadon', pp. 458, 464, Scott, R"toratio. Crisis, PP, 11-14, 31 Scou, R",or.tio,. Cmu, p.-4S.
12 'A Great Crisis in Politics' Introduction 13
of protestantism. Scott is right to see 'consecutive phases' in the narion's Both dissenters and high anglicans, therefore, saw each other as part of the
thinking, with fear of popery giving way to ftar of fanaticism, and fear of problem of popery.
royal ryranny giving way to fear of parliamentary tyranny; but this merely However, the most serious weakness of Seott's work is his handling of
explains how, by 1681, a loyalist reaction could take place, and it does not Parliament, especially in terms of the networks of influence that he identifies.
follow that shifts in emphasis of expression corresponded to an absence of He makes very strong assertions about the absence of party, for which he
fundamentally held views, or that divisions did not continue beyond 1681 offers relatively little analysis, and his focus on Sidney distorts and exagger
into the tirst age of party. The years 1679-81 therefore did have, and were ates the importance of a 'republican interest' that he never adequately defines.
seen to have, significance retrospectively after 1688. A collection of the Nor does he explain why ideological unity failed to crystallise into some form
debates of the 1680 and 1681 Parliaments were printed in 1689, and ap of organisational cohesion, especially in Parliament, or in London where he
pended to them was the text of A Just and Modest Vindication, which Scott's admits opposition to the Court was strongest. It is of course true that for the
hero Algernon Sidney had probably helped pen in 1681.39 If 1679-81 had debate about the degree of organisation and co-ordination that existed to be a
such little significance for post-Revolution political alignments, it is hard to fruitful one the discussion must avoid becoming bogged down in an exchange
see why contemporaries living in the first age of party looked back to the crisis of definitions of what constituted a 'party'; clearly we need to relate in some
as a crucial stage in the process of division;4o and at least some degree of detail what the term meant to contemporaries with the structure of politics
continuiry was ensured by the fact that many of the MPs elected in 1681 were around them, and what it means to historians.
called to sit in the assembly summoned in December 1688, and sat in Whilst Seott at least admits that there was considerable unrest between
Parliament thereafter.41 1679 and 1681, Ronald Hutton has recently doubted whether contempor
Although he sees the crisis as one about popery, Seott considers religious aries were right to think that there was any crisis at all.43 For Hutton the real
divisions chiefly in terms of a European catholic conspiracy, to the neglect of troubles which Charles faced were not the failures of the political or religious
paying detailed attention to the role of the heated domestic debate about, and settlements negotiated at the Restoration, so much as the difficulties the King
within, the Church of England concerning an accommodation with pro created for himself by 'committing a string of mistakes amounting in some
42
testant dissenters. After the Restoration, many dissenters or zealous pro cases to real idiocy', a character flaw more usually attributed to his brother
testants saw the high-churchmen's insistence on ceremonies as indicative of James. Hutton is right about the errors made by the King, but this does not
popish inclinations, and condemned them as papists in masquerade. The mean that contemporaries were wrong to think there was no crisis that
controversy by 1681 was thus also about whether those antipathetic to underlay or even contributed to them. His work is, however, particularly
nonconformity or the dissenters themselves were doing the work of the Pope. valuable in restoring a Scottish and Irish dimension to the conventional
Some anglicans saw dissenters as misguided protestants who ought not to be picture, and he rightly seizes on the King's quest for men and measures as one
persecuted because they helped reinforce the bulwark against the catholic of the central features of the period.
threat, whilst others saw them as working to divide the protestant com Recent research has explored other aspeclS of the crisis besides those of
munity, thereby weakening it and rendering it ~ulnerable to papist attack. party organisation. In particular, interesting questions have been asked about
the relationship between politics, opinion and propaganda during the period.
39 An Exact Collection of the Debates of the HoltU of Commons (1689). The work was also Richard Ashcraft's work on John Lodc:e and revolutionary politics,44 Tim
reprinted scparatcly as Tbe Design of Enslllving England Diuovered (1689).
"0 Stt lord Cowper (son of Sir William Cowper, MP 1679-81), An Impartial History of PaTtUs. Harris's on London crowds,4S and James Sutherland's analysis of Resto
printed. as appendix to life of Cowper in Campbcll, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, iv. 421-2; ration newspapers,46 have all explored the organisation and impact of propa
H. St John, Lord Bolingbroke, dated the birth of parties to 1679 but added that they 'did not
ganda on politics, political thought and public opinion. Ashcraft has mined
grow up into full maturity or receive their names till about rwoyears afterwards' (cited in C.B.
Kem, The Earl), History of the Tories 1660-1702 (1908J, p.l1). The period was also
formative for several members of the future Whig Junta, Charles Montagu, John Somers and 43 R. Hunon, Charles II (Oxford, 1989), p.357.
Thomas Whanon. Edward Russell, future earl of Orford, also distanced himself from the 44 R. Ashcraft, 'Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism
Court in 1683 after the execution of his cousin Lord William Russell. John Smith, the future and Lockean Political Theory', Political Theory, viii (1980),429-86; R. Ashcraft, 'The Two
Whig chancellor of the exchequer, entered Parliament in 1679. 1 re4tiltl and the Exclusion Cri,i,: The Problem of Lockean Political Theory as Bourgeois
CIM.
41 R. 8eddard, 'The Revolution of 1688', in Tb, Unexpected Whig Revolution, ed. Beddard Ideology', Papers R.ad al Ih. 'oIIIWU. b,,.,, S""/"'" 10 D.umb., 1977 (Los Angeles,
(Oxford,1991), pp. 31 ..... !. 1'80); A'hcraft, R",olNno.r,
42 The belt a(count of Ill8licanilm', identity il J. Spurr, Th, Restoration Church 16.,6-1689 ., Harri., London Crowth, pp. UJ-M. . .
(1991). •• J. Sutherland, Tb. R""",,/IoII N I J ' ,_"~_I(Cambridl", 1986).
14 'A Great Crisis in Politics' Introduction 15
the pamphlet literature of the period in order to reconstruct the intellectual which point to the importance of strong local patrons, as well as to the impact
milieu in which Locke wrote, and found rhat Jones's dismissal of rhe Whig of religious disputes. Attacks on the Restoration church settlement have been
propaganda as superficial misrepresents rhe nature of a rich vein of political examined by most historians of the provinces, stressing the need to re
thought. Harris has similarly charted the Whig creed, but has then looked at examine the role of religion in politics. But a great deal about the crisis in the
how the Tory response to it was based on a number of shared slogans, such as country as a whole is still unknown. The History of Parliament volumes
popery and tyranny. Harris is very much concerned with the propaganda covering the Restoration period tell us much about the conduct of elections
message that reached the London crowds, and Sutherland's survey of news in terms of local interests, but are often Significantly silent about what
papers in the period probes one format that perhaps reached the highest the contests at the polls were about in terms of issues, suggesting that Jones's
number of readers. view that the 1679 and 1681 elections were fought on exclusion needs re
A number of regional studies have also examined how news and opinion assessment; and, although Lionel Glassey and Andrew Colbey have success
about events at Whitehall and in Parliament were transmitted into the fully examined the impact of national politics on the localities in terms of
localities, and what attitudes formed rhere. Some historians have taken rhe officeholdings, we also need to know more about how the boroughs and
county as the basis for analysis of opinion,47 others the town or groups of counties reacted to events at the centre.
opinion within rhe corporation, town or city. 48 Although studies oflocalities
have not been nearly so plentiful as those undertaken for the earlier half of the
THE FRAMEWORK OF DISCUSSION
century, rhose that have been made have generally made up for the lack of
quantity by their high degree of quality. In particular, they have deepened our As this brief survey of recent research shows, the period has become the centre
understanding of political and religious groupings. James Rosenheim has of an exciting controversy, with many questions left to be explored. Is the
argued that outside Westminster elecrions occasioned parry disputes, and concept of exclusion as the central, almost sole, demand which dominated the
highlights rhe difficulty of distinguishing between parry and groupings of political scene any longer tenable, and if not, where does this leave the parry
faction or local ties. This emphasis on local influences is also apparent in two organisation that allegedly formed around this one issue? Was there in fact a
excellent studies of East Anglian towns, Norwich and Great Yarmouth, first Whig party based on a much broader agenda, or must we abandon the
idea of the birth of modern party politics entirely? If there were no parties,
47 p,J. Ch.moor, 'Restoration and Exclusion in the County of Cheshire', BNlktin of the Jobn who made up the factions that shaped politics? If factions are the key to
Ryl.nds University Libr.ry of Manchester,lxiv (1981-2), 360-85; A.M. Col.by, CenIT.1 understanding the period, is the whole crisis explicable in terms of person
Govmsment in the Localities: Hampshire 1649-89 (Cambridge, 1987); C. Holmes, Seven alities rather than issues such as popery and arbitrary government? Or if the
te,"rh Cen'Jlry Linea/rub;re (Lincoln, 1980);J. Hurwich, 'Dissent and Catholicism in English
factions had an ideological slant, what distinguished them from what have
Society: A Study of Warwickshire 1660-1720'.JBS,xvi no. 1 (1976),2+-59; P. J.nkins, The
M.ling of. R.ling Cl. .. : Th, Glamorgan GmlTY 16-10-1790 (Cambridge. 1983); L.M. been called parties? If the factions shared ideological convictions, to what
Munby, 'Politics and Religion in Hertfordshire 1660-1740', fait Anglia" StNdies (1968); P.J. extent did the co-ordination between them become structured? If there was
Norrey, '1be Restoration Regime in Acrion', HJ, xxxi (1%,8), 789-813; M.S. Child,'Preiude
some such structure, when did it emerge, and was it new? If there was no
to Revolution: The Structure of Politics in County Durliam 1678-1688' (Maryland Ph.D.,
1972); P.E. Murrell, 'Suffolk: The Politicsl Behaviour of the County and its Parliamentary development of parry organisation, how are we to explain.t he new labels of
Boroughs from the I!xd ...i Oll CriJis to the A=ui0ll of the Ho. ... of Hanover' (Newcude Whig and Tory that seem to denote a polarised society neatly divided into two
Ph.D., 1982); N. Key, 'Compcehension and the Bceakdown of Consm.tuS in Rmoration
sides? How was public opinion manipulated, and why did it shift? Was there
H. ..f ordshire'. in PoUlics of Religion, ed. Harri. .t .I., pp.191-21S.
.. J.T. E. .... s..muentb CentNry Nonvieh: PO/itia. R.ligion.nd G""""""", 1620-1690 any difference between the character of politics at Westminster and politics in
(Oxford, 1979); G. De Krey, A l'ractvr,d Soci<ly: Tb. Politia of London in tb, First Age of the provinces? Were the divisions purely religious, or were there other factors
Party /688-1715 (Oxford, 1985);]. Hurwich, 'A Fanatick Town: Th. Politicallnflu.nce of
complicating the picture? What were elections fought over, and what were
Di. ...t en in Coventry 1660-1720',Midland History. iv (19n).1S. .... 8;J.W. Kirby, 'Resto
ration Leeds and the Aldennen of the Corporation', Northnn History, xxii (1986), 123-75; the issues agitating the localities?
M. Mullett, 'The Politic. of Liverpool 1660-1688', Tr ....c tio .. oft he Historical Soci.ty of This book attempts to tackle at least some of these questions. It will divide
t..."aubire ,,,,d Chllhi", cxxiv (1972), 31-56 ; M. Mullen, 'Conflict, Politics and Elections
into two basic themes: politics and opinion. The first section of the book will
in Lancalter 1660-1688', Northern History, xix (1983), 61-87; M. Mullett, •" Deprived of
our fonner place'" - The Internal Politics of Bedford 1660-1688', Bedfordshire Historical examine the issues at the heart of the loudest current controversy about the
Record Sociny, lix (1980), 1~2; P. Gauci, 'The Corporation and the Country: Great period, namely the debate about the problem of the succession and the
c.
Yarmouth 1660-1720' (Oxford D.Phil., 1991); Lee, "'Fanatic Magistra",s": Religious
.nd Politicsl Conftlct in Th. .. Kent Boroulht. 168()-4', HJ. xxxv, no. 1 (1991), 4~!. structure of politic. in whicla cUt debate cook place: It will focus almost
16 'A Great Crisis in Politics' Introduction 17
entirely on high politics, that is to say on Parliament and the Court, though I had been debated, with increasing vigour, ever since 1660.50 So deep-rooted
do not wish to suggest that this was the only issue at stake in either arena. The were the problems that one pamphleteer thought that 'the Popish Plot, the
attempts to settle the succession problem will be examined in order to uncertainty of his R[oyal) H[ighness) His religion, the want of Lawful Issue to
understand how and why exclusion emerged as the demand of the House of inherit after his Majesty, and the like ... [were) things that occasion rather
Commons. Since it will be argued that distrust of the Court and the King's than cause our sickness'.51 This is not the place for a detailed study of the
own problems in finding a coherent ministry created the framework within 1670s, though such a work is urgently required; but it is important to
which the succession problem must be viewed, the nature of Charles's admin recognise that the succession crisis of 1678-81 brought into sharp focus a
istrations will also be explored. The first part will conclude with an overview debate about the relationship between King and Parliament, and between
of the structure of politics. The second part of the book will turn to public anglican and dissenter, that had been rumbling, and at times raging, since
opinion in the country as a whole. Another chronological analysis will still 1660, and that the storm had been gathering head especially since the early
consider the role of exclusion, but from the perspective of opinion outside 1670s.52
Westminster and Whitehall; it will still attempt to question the extent of party The grievances that underpinned the crisis can be summed up by the
organisation, but will examine how this affected London and the rest of the deceptively simple slogan of 'popery and arbitrary government'. 'Some think
country. In an attempt to widen the debate, I shall also look at how opinion that plot called the Popish Plot', the Rye House Plotter James Holloway
was expressed, by the press, by the petitions and addresses that were pro planned to tell Charles in 1684, 'was a twofold plot, one for settling arbitrary
moted during the period, and at elections. I shall tell the story of a struggle to government as in France ... the other for settling popety, when the first was
represent the will of the nation, and consider how far religious concerns obtained.'53 Such a view was best expressed by Andrew Marvell's Account of
influenced political divides. The narrative will reveal what issues were con the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England, published in
sidered important outside Parliament, and show how attitudes shifted or 1677 (and republished soon after Marvell's death in August 167854 ), which
appeared to shift over the period. opened with the claim that 'there has now for divers years a design been
The chronological parameters for the following discussion will be from carried on to change the lawful government of England into an absolute
the Popish Plot and the final session of the Cavalier Parliament in the autumn tyranny; and to convert the established protestant religion into downright
of 1678, until the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in 1681 and its popery·.ss Marvell began his narrative in 1665 and charted attempts by the
immediate aftermath. Some histories of the period continue the crisis until Court since then, and since 1670 in particular, to 'introduce French slavery
1683, when Charles finally regained control of appointment to London's key and Roman idolatty' into England.
offices of power, but most commentators, both modern and contemporary, Charting the growth of popery, Marvell noted how the 1672 Declaration
agree that the spring and summer of 1681 marked a turning point in the of Indulgence had been aimed at tolerating catholics, and that the other side
course of events. Most of the characteristics of the next two years were of this coin was the attack on dissent. Marvell therefore commented on how
already apparent by then, and can therefore be included in assessments of the the ministers at Court had appealed to the old cavalier spirit of intolerance
main body of the crisis. Similarly, for the beginniilg of the crisis, no attempt
will be made to re-examine the intricacies of the Popish Plot, which has been so R. Hutton, The Restoration (Oxford. 1985), p.290; Norrey, 'The Restoration Regime in
Action', p.812; Scon, 'Radicalism and Restoration', pp.·H3-67; Scott, Restoration emu,
fully described elsewhere," though it will now be necessary to sketch the state
pp. 6-9. William Sacheverell claimed that 'All our misfortune arises from the late times. When
of the nation at that time. the King came home, his ministers knew nothing of the Laws of England, but foreign
Government, things managed by a premier minister of State' (Grey, Debates, vii. 35).
51 E. Bohun, An Address to the Freemen (1682), p.5; cf.Nevile's statement that 'the evil
counsellors, the pensioner-parliament, the thorough-paced judges, the flattering divines, the
POLITICS AND RELIGION AT THE TIME OF THE POPISH PLOT busy and designing papists, the French counsels, are not the causes of our misfortunes; they
are but the effects' of a general decay of government (Pl4to RediviVU$, printed in C. Robbins,
Two English Republi",n T,ocls [Cambridge. 1969J. p. 81).
The crisis of 1678-81 cannot be seen simply in terms of the events of those
S2 Sir Edward Derins dated 167213 ., • turning point ID"';"g Diaries. pp. 125-6).
years, extraordinary though they were. Many of the disputes in 1678-81 53 CSPD 1683-4. p. 366.
were over issues that had been unresolved by the Restoration settlements, and ,. It WI. ...w ered by L'I!aIranp in Tb, Po,oll,1 0' An Accoun. of .h. Growth of Knavery.
which wMas arrevperiInlt·e..d.. .in.. 1'711 w't ch I pnface complainin,lbout t.h e poathumou. ,.·appear·
.. For ICCounll ofthe plo. ...) .P. Kenyan, Tb, Popilh Plo. 11974 ); Sir John PoUack, Th. Popilh ance of
Plo. 119031; Ind). Miller, Pop", 0'" Po/Ill" I. En,la. .. 166(}"1688ICambridp, 1973). " Printed in Tb, Comt>IM ..... ,. .... ItfMwII, ad. A.. Grollln (1875). iv. 248-414.
18 'A Great Crisis in Politics' Introduction 19
against dissent in order to attract a body of supporters. Whilst this obser antipathy to France, encouraged by William of Orange who had risen to
vation was undoubtedly true at an ideological level, it was paradoxically the power after the murder of the De Wins, had reached a new height; but instead
case that, even after the cancellation of the 1672 Declaration of Indulgence of following this mood Charles had secretly renewed his alliance with Louis
(which had eased restrictions on both catholic and protestant dissenters), XIV in 1676 by a treaty which provided payments if Charles avoided meeting
the enforcement of the laws against protestant nonconformists was patchy Parliament. France had pursued an aggressive policy towards the Dutch
in the 1670s, and very lax by the end of the decade.56 Nevertheless, non which had been militarily successful in the spring of 1677, prompting the
conformists bitterly resented being prosecuted under legislation aimed House of Commons to pass a series of motions requesting active measures to
primarily at catholic recusancy, and wished to redirect the Court's energies halt French expansionism. Charles ostensibly responded by moving closer
against popery. 57 They, and a number of churchmen, sought a new 'refor towards an alliance with the Dutch, but nevertheless continued to negotiate
mation' within the church itself, the result of which, it was hoped, would be a simultaneously with the French. In February 1678 the Commons voted
broader, more comprehensive church or a general toleration of protestant money fot war against France, and an army was raised, but Charles failed to
dissent.s8 use it. By not declaring war or disbanding the army Charles therefore alien
Marvell argued that arbitrary power was concomitant with popery. He ated both the French and Parliament. The earl of Danby, the King's main
observed that the catholic party looked to Louis XIV, 'the Master of Absolute adviser, now feared for his own as well as for his master's position and a new
Dominion ... the declared Champion of Popery', for support, but that, Anglo-French treaty was agreed in May 1678 which granted Charles more
although France was regarded as the nation's enemy, war with Louis was money. Yet, despite the negotiation of a general peace, the King still did not
resisted. Swimming against the tide of public opinion meant side-lining or disband the army, perhaps because he or Danby intended to use it to coerce
corrupting the nation's mouthpiece, Parliament. The Court, Marvell claimed, internal dissent or perhaps because he believed it increased his value in Louis'
used insidious arts of bribery and management of MPs, so that the prize of a eyes. In either case, the policy backfired, for in late 1678 Charles found
seat at Westminster encouraged vice at the polls in by-elections, from which himself diplomatically isolated abroad and hence forced to rely on Parliament
divisions in the provinces spread. Inside the Commons the Court party sold and with an unpopular standing army at home which had no enemy to fight.
their consciences in return for pensions; Members either opposed the Court in In this situation, the parliamentary session in the autumn of 1678 was always
order to attract attention and force the Court to buy them off, or, once they likely to have been a stormy one, even without the Popish Plot, as the
had office or rewards, formed such a strong crew that there was 'no place for repercussions of the disastrous foreign policy were all too obvious. On 19
deliberation, no perswading by reason'. Ministers whipped the Court party December 1678 the former ambassador in Paris, Ralph Montagu, revealed
into line by 'frighting them with dissolutions, comforting them with long, the double-dealing of the King and Danby, thereby exposing the deviousness
frequent and seasonable adjournments, now by suspending, or diminishing of policy at the centre of government. The succession was thus at first just one
their pensions, then again by increasing them; sometimes by scorn, and more layer of the problem of popery and arbitrary government, especially
othertimes by a favour'. since James was both a catholic and one of the allies of France.59
Marvell's concern about the direction of Engliih foreign policy is particu Charles's foreign policy had important consequences for the domestic
larly striking. He saw the inclination of the Court to ally with France as one of situation. The standing army increased fears about the King's desire to
the most important causes of the nationts domestic problems, and given this introduce arbitrary government. MPs thus at first thought that the Popish
close relationship between the foreign and internal situation it is worth Plot was a device to justify the maintenance ofthe troops, and on 1 April 1679
fleshing out some of his analysis. By the end of the Dutch war in 1674, the Commons passed a vote on the illegality of a standing army.60 Even after
the soldiers had been disbanded, suspicions of Charles's military intentions
J' A. Flctchcr, 'lhe Enforcement of the Convcnticle Acts 16ei4-1679', in Persecution and
Tolnation (S""din in Ch",ch History, xxi, 19841, cd. W.j. SheiJ" p.245. persisted in hostility to the King's guards and to the personnel in charge of the
n Prosecution under Elizabethan anti-catholic: lclislarion accelerated under Danby (R. Clack, armed forces.61 The cost of paying the army had also wrecked the Crown's
'Anslicani.m, Recu ..n cy and Di.sent in Derbyshire 1603-1703' (Oxford D. Phil., 19791, p.
248), though it WlS laid to have begun earlier (Grey, DlbtJtlS, vii. 422), " Pop"., .nd T'Y".nny (1679), p.ts; Eu,op .. 514 •• (1681), p.SS.
51 For the UK of the term "reformation' see HMC Ormo"d" iv. xviii; R. L'Estrangc, A '0 Bucks. RO, M11/32, Edmund Vemey to Sir Ralph Vemey, 7 October 1678; K.H.D. Haler,
S.. .o Mbll M""orl.rl (1680), pp. 11-11; A LAn" to a m ••d i. th. Coun.", touching the Tb, Pir,' FArl ofSbaftesbNry (Oxford, 1968), p ... 57; Burnet, Hutory, H. 156; Grey, Debates,
P,. .m t F,." [1680), p.l; Ob'lfWlor, no. 11,7 May 1681; Decklratory Considerations vi. 218; vii. 73.
.poro tb. P,. ...t s. ... of Affair. (1679), p. 10l; A P""",,,iIH 10 R.fomlation and Union " A S. ..o ""bl. Warning to th. c0-"_'. o .f. ,1 . ,I.nd (16"), p.2.CSPD 1679-80, pp. 177,
(1680). 20t; HMC V".,."" p. 474; Th. I' April 1681.