England was now in the midst of a revolution. What was its character?
Its ecclesiastical aspects alone demand our attention, but these are so
closely connected with others, that we shall be compelled to look at
them all together. Politics and religion were inextricably interwoven.
They had been so in earlier changes. Changes mainly religious were also
political; changes mainly political were also religious. Lollardism
wrought a vast religious revolution, but though it principally aimed at
purifying the Church, it sought, as a means to that end, the amendment
of the State. The Reformation was pre-eminently an ecclesiastical
movement, but its political entanglements are obvious to everybody.
The Civil Wars were struggles for civil liberty--for the rights of the
people against the oppression of the Crown; but the religious spirit,
at first hidden in the heart of those conflicts, was so strong, and
soon burst out in other forms so conspicuously, that the Commonwealth
of England and the Protectorate of Cromwell became entangled with
ecclesiastical and theological controversies. The Revolution of 1688
came in the wake of the Puritan movement.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The union between Church and State, which runs back through English
history to its earliest days, rendered this intermingling of interests
an unavoidable necessity. Great movements in the Church affected the
Government; great changes in the Government affected the Church. Whilst
this union is obviously a cause of additional complexity, no thoughtful
person can fail to discover in even the simplest principles of polity
and doctrine, forces which are sure to touch society in its temporal
interests, and render inevitable political developments of religion and
religious developments of politics. If the Church were separated from
the State to-morrow, a connexion between religion and politics would
remain.
The two great political Revolutions of England in the 17th century
sprung from religious feeling, from religious antipathies, from
religious aspirations. Fiery impulses, kindled by faith, did more to
scorch and destroy civil despotism than any constitutional traditions,
any maxims of secular policy. Religion was the prime mover in the
events of 1688. Not only did ministers of religion take part in it, but
religion itself entered deeply into the political question. When moving
in one direction the Popery of James prompted him to play the despot,
and when moving in another direction the Protestantism of his subjects
impelled them to fight for their liberties--the two forces came in
contact, and issued in a crash, bringing about the King’s downfall and
the Prince’s elevation. The same influences led to a settlement of the
long-debated question of prerogative--they consolidated the power of
Parliament, they created the Bill of Rights; without such religious
enthusiasm as then existed, it may be doubted whether such a Revolution
would have been possible; and as it sprung from religious causes, so
the Revolution produced religious results. It checked the progress of
Popery, it inaugurated a new form of Protestant ascendency, which has
lasted down to our own time; it altered the position of the Church
Establishment; it materially modified the Act of Uniformity; and it
legally secured toleration. These subjects will claim attention as we
proceed, and a fuller estimate of the character of the Revolution had
better be deferred for the present.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
The Peers met in their own House on the 22nd of December. Nothing of
moment passed. The day before Christmas-day they met again, and we find
Clarendon, with a lingering regard for the Stuart family, asking for
an inquiry into the birth of the Prince of Wales, when Lord Wharton,
an old Puritan, indignantly replied, “My Lords, I did not expect, at
this time of day, to hear anybody mention that child, who was called
the Prince of Wales; indeed I did not, and I hope we shall hear no more
of him.” It was at last decided that an address should be presented to
the Prince of Orange to take on him the Administration of affairs, and
to issue circular-letters to the counties, cities, universities, and
cinque-ports, to send Representatives to a Convention at Westminster on
the 22nd of January following.[79]
The Archbishop did not attend. Clarendon and the Bishop of Ely sent for
him, “but the King’s being gone had cast such a damp upon him that he
would not come.”[80] James, soon after his flight, had written to the
Primate, informing him that, but for his hasty departure, he should
have explained the reasons of his becoming a Roman Catholic; that
although he had not thought proper to do this on a former occasion,
when his re-conversion had been attempted, yet he never refused
speaking freely with Protestants, especially with His Grace, “whom
he always considered to be his friend, and for whom he had a great
esteem.” His own “conversion had taken place in his riper years, and
on the full conviction of his mind as to the controverted points.”[81]
Sancroft, with all his weakness, narrowness, and obstinacy, had a
kindness of heart, which, in spite of the treatment received from
the fallen Monarch, inspired compassion for him in a season of deep
adversity.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Clarendon busied himself in interviews with the Prelates, and we find
that on the 29th of December, he and the Bishops of St. Asaph and Ely
were together reading over the King’s reasons for leaving Rochester.
Different opinions of his conduct appear, together with Clarendon’s
predilections in favour of his old master, in the following passage of
his Diary--a Diary which sheds much light on that changeful time:--“The
Bishop of Ely and I were moved, but the Bishop of St. Asaph took
the paper, and began to comment upon it, saying it was a Jesuitical
masterpiece. I think I never heard more malicious inferences than he
drew from the King’s expression in that paper. Good God! where is
loyalty and Christian charity.”[82] On New Year’s-day, 1689, amidst a
hard frost, Clarendon’s lingering loyalty to James did not prevent his
paying court to William; and afterwards visiting Sir Edward Seymour,
he heard him say, amongst other things, the countenance shown by the
Prince to Dissenters “gave too much cause of jealousy to the Church of
England,” and if that Church were not supported, England would “run
into a Commonwealth, and all would be ruined.”[83]
Another interesting peep into ecclesiastical secrets is afforded
by Clarendon, whose report, for the sake of accuracy, had better be
preserved in his own words:--
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
“I went to dinner at Lambeth: Dr. Tenison with me. We went over the
bridge, by reason the river was so full of ice, that boats could not
pass. After dinner I spoke to the Archbishop (as I had done several
times before) of going to the Prince of Orange, or sending some message
to him by some of the Bishops: for he had yet taken no notice at all of
him: but he was positive not to do it, for the reasons he formerly gave
me. We then spoke to him of the approaching Convention, and whether
he would not think of preparing something against that time in behalf
of the Dissenters. Dr. Tenison added, it would be expected something
should be offered in pursuance of the petition which the seven Bishops
had given to the King: for which they had been put into the Tower.
The Archbishop said, he knew well what was in their petition; and he
believed every Bishop in England intended to make it good, when there
was an opportunity of debating those matters in Convocation; but till
then, or without a commission from the King, it was highly penal to
enter upon Church matters; but, however, he would have it in his mind,
and would be willing to discourse any of the Bishops or other Clergy
thereupon, if they came to him; though he believed the Dissenters
would never agree among themselves with what concessions they would
be satisfied. To which Dr. Tenison replied, he believed so too; that
he had not discoursed with any of them upon this subject; and the way
to do good was, not to discourse with them, but for the Bishops to
endeavour to get such concessions settled in Parliament, the granting
whereof (whether accepted or not by the Dissenters) should be good for
the Church. The Archbishop answered, that when there was a Convocation,
those matters would be considered of; and in the meantime, he knew
not what to say, but that he would think of what had been offered by
us.”[84]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
What the thoughts of the Archbishop were just then with regard to
Dissenters, it is impossible to say. It is otherwise respecting his
opinion upon another point.
All Protestants, high and low, had united for some months in one
thing--the desire for a Revolution which should put a stop to the
reign of prerogative, and place the liberties of the country upon a
legal basis. But what exactly was the Revolution to be? Who was to
be Ruler in the room of James? As to this pressing subject, opinions
ran in divergent lines. The Archbishop, suffering from ill-health,
worried by distractions around him, shut himself up in his Palace that
cold Christmas-time, and covered closely, with his own neat hand,
twenty-five pages of paper, from which we learn how he looked at the
politics of the hour. Gazing at the engravings taken from his portrait
in Lambeth Palace, we see him--with his simple, honest face, and a
close black cap, such as gives the wearer a Puritan look, but for a
pair of lawn sleeves sometimes worn--industriously putting down the
_pros_ and _cons_ of the puzzle.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
The King is gone. The Government is without a pilot. The captain of
a foreign force is at the head of affairs. How is the Government to
be settled legally and securely? Shall the commander of the foreign
force be declared King, and solemnly crowned? Shall the next heir--the
Princess Mary (the Prince of Wales is not mentioned)--be Queen, her
husband acquiring an interest in the government through her right?
or shall the King be declared incapable of personal government, the
commander being made _Custos Regni_, who shall administer affairs
in the King’s name? “I am clearly of opinion,” writes the perplexed
critic, “that the last way is the best, and that a settlement cannot be
made so justifiable and lasting any other way.”[85] We cannot proceed
through the prolix dissertation in which Sancroft endeavours to support
his conclusion. Every word proves his simplicity and conscientiousness,
but a weaker set of reasons, and a set of reasons more pedantically
expressed, one rarely meets with. Both the moral and intellectual
sides of the man’s character are apparent throughout. But for the
theory of the divine right of kings, and the subject’s duty of passive
obedience, which acted as a spell upon his mind, it would be impossible
to conceive how a person of ordinary intelligence could advocate such
a scheme as he did. Before long it must have been found unmanageable,
leading to a second Revolution. While professedly concocted for the
purpose of maintaining James’ kingly rights, it stripped him of all
power; and curiously enough, as appears on a moment’s reflection, it
is open to precisely the objections which had been brought against the
Puritan Commonwealth’s-men, who administered government against the
King in the King’s own name. To call James sovereign, with William as
_Custos Regni_, was to use words in the way Pym and Hampden and
Cromwell had done. What makes Sancroft’s conduct the more inconsistent
is, that he and his party supported the Act of Uniformity, which
required the Clergy to abhor that traitorous position of taking arms
by the King’s authority against the King’s person, or against those
commissioned by him. Must not William have done this, if Sancroft’s
advice had been adopted? Must he not have defended his Regency by
force against the nominal Monarch, who would have regarded that Regency
as a flagrant usurpation?
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Archbishop anxiously consulted with some of the Bishops of his
province touching this subject, and when the meetings became publicly
known, they received the name of the Lambeth, or Holy Jacobite
Club.[86] They did not all agree. Four of them went home one day from
Lambeth, in the coach of Turner, Bishop of Ely, deploring they should
disagree in anything, and especially in such a thing as that which all
the world must needs observe. Turner wrote immediately afterwards to
the Primate, asking him to draw up propositions against deposition and
election, or anything else which would break the succession, because
he was better versed than his brethren in canons and statutes, out of
which the propositions ought to be drawn. Ken, he said, had left a
draft with him, which might facilitate a completion of the task. The
afternoon of the same day, Turner was to hold a meeting in Ely House,
at which Patrick, Tenison, Sherlock, Scott, and Burnet were to be
present, as well as two Bishops--St. Asaph and Peterborough. These men
were of diverse opinions; how they got on together we do not know, but
it appears some underhand work occurred in reference to James on the
part of the Bishop of Ely. He enclosed, in his letter to Lambeth, a
paper to be kept very private, of which he says, it “may be published
one day, to show we have not been wanting faithfully to serve a hard
master in his extremity; and for the present it will be proof enough
to your Grace, that although I have made some steps, which you could
not, towards our new masters, I did it purely to serve our old one,
and preserve the public.”[87] At any rate, Sancroft appears more
straightforward in this business than some of his brethren.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Clarendon and Evelyn met at Lambeth Palace the Bishops of St. Asaph,
Ely, Bath and Wells, Peterborough, and Chichester. They prayed, dined,
and discoursed together. Outside, some persons were disposed to have
the Princess proclaimed Queen without hesitation; others inclined to a
Regency; a Tory party wished to invite the King back upon conditions;
Republicans preferred to have the Prince of Orange constituted an
English Stadtholder; and the Popish party simply aimed at throwing the
whole country into confusion, with the hope of something springing out
of it to serve their ends. Evelyn records that he saw nothing of this
variety of objects in the assembly of Bishops, who were unanimous for a
Regency, and for suffering public matters to proceed in the name of the
King.[88] Such perfect unanimity, however, as Evelyn supposed, could
not have existed if Clarendon be right, who says he feared the Bishop
of St. Asaph had been wheedled by Burnet into supporting the transfer
of the Crown, and would be induced to make the King’s going away a
_cession_--a word Burnet fondly used.[89]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The presence of the Primate at the Convention about to be held was of
the first importance, and Clarendon earnestly urged his attendance;
but the obstinacy of the one equalled the importunity of the other.
Sancroft would not go, nor would he visit His Highness. “Would you have
me kill myself?” he petulantly asked his noble friend; “do you not see
what a cold I have?” “No,” said the Earl; “but it would do well if you
would excuse your not waiting on the Prince, by letting him know what a
cold you have, and that you will wait on him when it is gone.” All the
reply he could get was, “I will consider of it.”[90]
Whatever might be the opinions of the Lambeth party, the Bishop of
London shared neither in their counsels nor in their sympathy. He
wished to see the Princess Mary Queen Regent, leaving her at liberty,
if she liked, to bestow upon her husband, by consent of Parliament, the
title of King. Nor did the prevalent desire of the councillors of the
Archbishop, for a Regent who should rule in the King’s name, satisfy
all James’ Anglican adherents. Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had at
his back a large number of Divines, and he contended for inviting James
back to Whitehall, with such stipulations as would secure the safety
and peace of the realm--an utterly Utopian idea. Burnet, on the other
hand, talked of William’s having acquired a right to the Crown based
on conquest--a notion scouted by most Englishmen. Nine-tenths of the
Clergy were for upholding the cause of hereditary monarchy; but this
large majority broke up into several sections, nor did the remaining
tenth part entirely agree.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Neither were Nonconformists of one mind. Some were so engrossed in
the discharge of spiritual duties that they paid surprisingly little
attention to the questions of the day. The biographer of Oliver
Heywood informs us that little remains in his papers to show what he
thought of the Revolution, politically regarded. His mind rested on
one point--the liberty of preaching, and it seemed indifferent to him
whether it came by a Royal Declaration or by an Act of Parliament.[91]
Matthew Henry states that it was not without fear and trembling his
father Philip received the tidings of the Prince’s landing, “as being
somewhat in the dark concerning the clearness of his call, and dreading
what might be the consequence of it,”--that he used to say, “Give peace
in our time, O Lord,” was a prayer to which he could add his Amen;
but he stopped there. However, when the Revolution was accomplished,
he rejoiced in the consequences, and joined in the national
thanksgiving.[92]
Another class of Nonconformists were in an awkward position. Their
fault had been that they identified themselves with men and measures
out of all harmony with their own principles. William Penn, Vincent
Alsop, Stephen Lobb, and others had signed obsequious addresses to
James. They had blindly credited him with a love for religious liberty,
and had really, though not intentionally, upheld his despotism. But in
this emergency they presented no word of condolence to the man whom
they had helped to befool, nor did they attempt anything to save him
from his impending fate. A double inconsistency marked their conduct:
first, they contradicted their profession of liberal principles; next,
they contradicted their profession of personal regard. They were galled
by the reproach of enemies, also they must have felt reproaches of
conscience.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Another class of Nonconformists had, without any compromise, availed
themselves of the liberty offered them, though disliking the
unconstitutional quarter whence it came. When the Revolution took
place, most of these, and others who survived to witness it, were
delighted and thankful. What John Howe did appears from what I have
said already, and shall have to say hereafter. Baxter had become
too old and infirm to take any active part in public business.
Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo, as we have seen, joined Howe in the
clerical address to William on the 21st of December; others presented
congratulations afterwards.
If Protestant Nonconformists formed a twentieth part of the population,
the community to that extent may be reckoned as rejoicing in the
downfall of James; probably by far the larger part supported the claims
of William; yet a few old Republicans--Independent and Baptist--would,
I apprehend, have preferred to see a Commonwealth, with the Prince of
Orange in a presidential chair, such as the Lord Protector Cromwell had
occupied.
It is no part of my task to describe minutely the method by which
the new settlement was effected: an outline is sufficient. A meeting
had been summoned by His Highness for the 26th of December, 1688, to
consist, first, of all such persons as had been Knights or Burgesses
in any of the Parliaments of Charles II.; and next, of the Lord Mayor
and Aldermen of the City of London, with fifty of the Common Council
chosen by the whole body. This mode of proceeding appears remarkably
conservative, and so far was in harmony with all the great changes
wrought in the political government of this country.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
When those who formed this meeting mooted the question, “What authority
they had to assemble,” they agreed, “that the request of His Highness
the Prince was a sufficient warrant,” and proceeded to entrust him
with the administration of public affairs until a Convention should be
held, which he was to call by writs addressed to the Lords temporal
and spiritual, being Protestants, and to the counties, universities,
cities, and boroughs of England.[93]
A Convention being elected, the members met on the 22nd of January,
1689. It was composed of Protestants alone. These Protestants being
chiefly Whigs, and those Whigs numbering an immense majority of
Episcopalians, perhaps not more than twenty Nonconformists were
returned--a fact which ought to be carefully borne in mind.
The day on which the Commons assembled, the Lords also appeared, to
the number of about ninety, of whom sixteen were spiritual Peers. No
prayers were read; the first thing done, after a short letter from the
Prince had been laid on the table, was the appointment of a day of
solemn thanksgiving.
Eleven Bishops were selected to draw up a form for the purpose,
and it does not appear that any of them scrupled to undertake this
service.[94] The 30th of January fell on a Sunday; and in such a case
it had been arranged that the office for Charles’ martyrdom should be
used on that day, and the observances of the fast transferred to the
next. On the 30th, however, Evelyn notices that “in all the public
offices and pulpit prayers, the collects and litany for the King and
Queen were curtailed and mutilated.” On the 31st the thanksgiving set
aside the fast. Burnet preached before the Commons, saying, “You feel
a great deal, and promise a great deal more; and your are now in the
right way to it, when you come with the solemnities of thanksgiving to
offer up your acknowledgments to that Fountain of Life to whom you owe
this new lease of your own.”[95]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Bishop of St. Asaph, whose political sympathies have been
indicated, was appointed to preach before the Lords at Westminster
Abbey on the 31st, but according to Clarendon, Mr. Gee took his
place.[96]
The House of Commons, after the customary formalities, and the election
of Mr. Powle as Speaker, and an expression of concurrence in the Lords’
order respecting a day of thanksgiving, proceeded, on the 28th, to
debate on the state of the nation. Amidst multifarious topics, Popery,
the Church, and the divine right of kings were prominent; and the next
day Colonel Birch, the Puritan, gave his view of past and present
struggles by saying, “These forty years we have been scrambling for
our religion, and have saved but little of it. We have been striving
against Antichrist, Popery, and Tyranny.”[97]
The House voted that King James II., having endeavoured to subvert the
constitution of this kingdom by breaking the original contract between
King and people, and, by advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons,
having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself out of
the Kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was
thereby vacant. The next day it was resolved that it had been found
by experience to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this
Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Thanks were given to the clergymen who had assailed Popery, and had
refused to read the King’s Declaration.[98] Things deemed necessary
for better securing religious liberty and law were reported from a
Committee, who particularly specified, “effectual provision to be made
for the liberty of Protestants in the exercise of their religion, and
for uniting all Protestants in the matter of public worship as far as
may be”--in which provision, are found germs of the Toleration and
Comprehension Bills.
The Lords at once agreed with the Commons in their vote for a
Protestant succession; but about the vote declaring the throne vacant,
much discussion arose. Without formally admitting that the throne was
vacant--only for the present supposing it to be so--they wished to
determine, first, whether supreme power for the present ought to be
devolved on a Regent or on a King. This point had been keenly debated
by Sancroft and his brethren. He was not present now, but they were;
and in the minority of 49 for a Regency against 51 for a King, occur
the names of thirteen Prelates, including the Bishop of St. Asaph,
who in this matter had not been “wheedled” by Burnet, as Clarendon
surmised. Indeed, the prejudice conceived against a deposing power, as
a Popish art, had so impressed the minds of the Clergy, that no Bishop
approved of filling the throne anew, except the Bishops of London
and Bristol.[99] The question raised in an abstract form--whether or
no there was an original contract between King and people--involved
a controversy touching divine right, which most of the Bishops had
maintained. For the principle of a social compact, 53 Peers voted
against 46, the Bishops being included amongst the latter. The idea of
a contract being adopted, nobody could dispute that James had broken
it; but the Peers decided to substitute the words, “_deserted_
the Government,” for the Commons’ phrase, “_abdicated_ the
Government;” nor would the majority allow the word _vacant_ to
stand, inasmuch as, by a constitutional fiction, the King never dies;
and in the present case, so some contended, the Crown legitimately
devolved upon the Princess of Orange--the claim of the infant Prince
of Wales being given up by all parties. The two Houses were thus at
issue on a fundamental point; and the London citizens became alarmed.
The dispute found its way into the coffee-houses, into groups walking
and lounging in the parks, and into private families, Whigs and
Tories debating the problem as a vital one. The people assembled at
the doors of the Convention to present petitions for the accession
of William and Mary to the throne; they loaded with curses members
crossing the threshold, or showered upon them benedictions, according
as they believed them to stand affected towards the momentous matter in
dispute.[100]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
A conference ensued between the Houses. The Bishop of Ely strenuously
argued against using the word _abdication_, or regarding the
throne as vacant; he hoped that Lords and Commons would agree in
this, not to break the line of succession, not to make the Crown
elective.[101] He wished to save the divine right. By some persons
the idea was entertained of making William sole King--an idea which
Burnet resisted, heart and soul, in a conversation held with Bentinck,
the Prince’s principal friend.[102] Amidst the heats of this debate,
the Prince thought it time for him to express his sentiments. It had
been proposed, he said, to settle the Government in the hands of a
Regent;--that might be a wise project. It had also been suggested that
the Princess should succeed to the throne, and that he, by courtesy,
might share in her power. Her rights he would not oppose, her virtues
he respected. But for himself, he would accept no dignity dependent
upon the life of another, or on the will of a woman. Should either of
the schemes be adopted, he would return to Holland, satisfied with
the consciousness of having endeavoured to serve England, though in
vain.[103]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
William’s decision took effect, and the conference ended in dropping
what was theoretical, and in coming to a practical resolution--that the
Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. The
Lords carried this by 62 against 47. Forty of the latter protested,
amongst whom were twelve out of the seventeen Bishops present. The five
who went with the majority were Compton, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Sprat,
Hall, and Crew.[104] Crew, the time-serving Bishop of Durham, had
supported James in his obnoxious measures, had fled at the outbreak
of the Revolution, had been lurking on the coast for a vessel to
convey him abroad, and had returned in time to secure the advantage of
supporting the new Sovereign. It has often been said that the Bishops
accomplished the Revolution. No doubt the seven imprisoned in the
Tower brought on the crisis which terminated in the new settlement,
and so far were the authors of the change. Certain of the brethren
contributed, in the way I have described, to terminate the despotism
of James II., but all the seven decidedly disapproved of the Prince of
Orange being constituted King, and two-thirds of the other Bishops
agreed with them in this respect.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Commons would not unite in the settlement approved by the Lords
until they had carefully asserted the fundamental principles upon which
they based the Revolution. The Declaration of Right, embodying these
principles, having recited the unconstitutional acts of James--his
endeavours to extirpate the Protestant religion, and to subvert the
laws and liberties of the kingdom--goes on to state that the Prince of
Orange had summoned the Convention, which Convention did now specify
the ancient liberties of the English people. Amongst them appear the
right of petition, freedom of Parliamentary debate, and the duty of
the Crown frequently to call together the representatives of the
people.[105] William and Mary are then solemnly declared to be King and
Queen; the succession is determined to be in the issue of the latter;
in default of such issue, in Anne of Denmark and her heirs; in default
of her issue, then in the heirs of the King.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
In this Parliamentary transaction two things appear, which have been
ever kept in sight under Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman dynasties,
namely, hereditary right and popular election. That the crown should
pass from a Monarch to one of his own blood had been a fundamental law
from the beginning, modified by a choice of the people in any great
crisis, when the interests of the nation have been seen to depend upon
the succession of one Royal personage rather than another. In 1688,
respect was paid to the ancient tradition. In the Bill of Rights the
hereditary claim is distinctly set forth. “It is curious to observe
with what address this temporary solution of continuity is kept from
the eye, whilst all that could be found in this act of necessity to
countenance the idea of an hereditary succession is brought forward
and fostered and made the most of.” “The Lords and Commons fall to a
pious, legislative ejaculation, and declare that they consider it ‘as
a marvellous providence, and merciful goodness of God to this nation,
to preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons, most happily to reign
over us on the throne of their ancestors, for which, from the bottom of
their hearts, they return their humblest thanks and praises.’”[106]
But the election of William and Mary, though veiled under a reference
to the throne of their ancestors, is really the point upon which their
accession hinged. Mary’s accession might, by those who disbelieved
that the Prince of Wales was James’ son, be made to depend entirely on
natural descent, but the accession of William could not rest on that
ground; his election was essential to the legitimacy of his rights.
Yet there was no setting aside of any divine laws, no contempt for
the teaching of Scripture, as was pretended by nonjurors. When we are
told “the powers that be are ordained of God,” those words invest with
divine authority all constitutional governments, whether Monarchical
or Republican, whether entirely by descent or wholly by election, or
partly by one and partly by the other; they do not apply alone to
Kings and their eldest sons. To plead nonjuring interpretations of
Scripture in England at the Revolution tended to make men slaves, even
as to plead them now in America would make men rebels.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The oaths of allegiance prescribed, as they led to momentous
consequences, ought to be given. “I, A. B., do sincerely promise and
swear, That I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to their
Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.” “I, A. B., do
swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious
and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, That Princes
excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See
of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other
whatsoever. And I do declare, That no foreign prince, person, prelate,
state or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power,
superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual,
within this realm. So help me God.”[107]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Before the completion of this Parliamentary manifesto, the Princess
Mary had come to England; and upon the 13th of February she took her
place beside her husband in the Banqueting-house at Whitehall under
a canopy of State, when the two Speakers, followed by the Lords and
Commons respectively, were conducted into their presence by the
Usher of the Black Rod, to offer the Crown upon conditions implied
in the Declaration of Rights. When the document had been read, the
Prince replied, “This is certainly the greatest proof of the trust
you have in us that can be given, which is the thing which makes us
value it the more; and we thankfully accept what you have offered
to us. And as I had no other intention in coming hither, than to
preserve your religion, laws, and liberties, so you may be sure that
I shall endeavour to support them, and shall be willing to concur in
anything that shall be for the good of the kingdom; and to do all
that is in my power to advance the welfare and glory of the nation.”
The day on which this tender was accepted, saw once more the gorgeous
ceremonial by which Kings and Queens in England had been proclaimed.
A long line of coaches passed from Westminster to the City, with a
brilliant array of marshals’ men, trumpeters, and heralds. A pause
at Temple Bar at the Gates, and then a formal opening took place in
due order. The Lord Mayor in a coach, and the Aldermen, Sheriffs, and
Recorder on horseback, conducted the Peers and Commons to the middle of
Cheapside--the train bands lining the way. Then, after declaring that
God had vouchsafed a miraculous deliverance from Popery and arbitrary
power through His Highness the Prince of Orange, and after referring
to the great and eminent virtue of Her Highness the Princess, whose
zeal for the Protestant religion was sure to bring a blessing upon this
nation--the heralds proclaimed William and Mary “King and Queen of
England, France, and Ireland, with all the dominions and territories
thereunto belonging.”[108]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
That evening, the Queen sent two of her Chaplains to the Archbishop of
Canterbury to beg his blessing; and, by a suspicious combination of
two errands, desired them to attend the service in Lambeth Chapel, and
notice whether prayers were offered for the Sovereigns. The Chaplain
being alarmed, asked His Grace what should be done: he replied, “I
have no new instructions to give.” The Chaplain interpreted this as
entrusting him with a discretionary power, and, wishing to keep the
Primate out of difficulty, prayed for the King and Queen who had just
been proclaimed. The act provoked Sancroft, who sent for the Chaplain,
and commanded him either to desist from such petitions, or to cease
from officiating in Lambeth; for so long as King James lived, no other
person could be Sovereign of England. Sancroft’s conviction that a
Regency was the right thing seems to have deepened, when in the opinion
of everybody else it passed utterly out of the question; for the
Primate had a temper which increased in obstinacy in proportion as the
object pursued became unattainable.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The appointment of officers of State immediately followed the accession
to the throne. The reader will bear in mind what has been said in
former volumes respecting the mode of administering affairs in the
Stuart reigns. No Ministry, in our sense of the term, existed then,
men of different political opinions being employed as functionaries of
Government. This usage survived the Revolution; and William surrounded
himself with Whigs and Tories. Reserving to himself the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, he appointed as President of the Council the Earl of
Danby, although that nobleman differed from him in many opinions. Danby
had countenanced encroachments by the Royal prerogatives; he had even
maintained the doctrine of passive obedience. That doctrine he was now,
through the necessities of the times, forced to abandon, and by serving
under a Monarch whose throne rested on the Declaration of Rights, he
virtually repudiated his earlier opinions. He had also persecuted
Dissenters--a policy now professedly abandoned. Yet there remained in
Lord Danby a strong attachment to high ecclesiastical views, and he
was zealous for the old connection between Church and Crown as the
best method of preserving both. Halifax, described as the Trimmer,[109]
had become more of a Liberal, and to him was entrusted the Privy Seal
and the Speakership of the Upper House. The Earl of Nottingham--another
deserter from the Tory ranks--professed that although his principles
did not allow him to take part in making William King, they bound him,
now that the deed was done, to pay His Majesty a more strict obedience
than he could expect from those who had made him Sovereign. He accepted
the office of a Secretary of State--an act which, like that of Danby,
served to give weight to the new administration in the eyes of Tories
and High Churchmen. Shrewsbury, a popular Whig, and a young man of
twenty-eight, was the other Secretary. The Great Seal came into the
hands of Commissioners, the chief of whom was Sir John Maynard, who
had upheld the Petition of Rights in 1628, had voted with the country
party in the struggles preceding the Civil Wars, had subscribed the
League and Covenant, and had advised Cromwell to accept the Crown. He
was ninety years of age, and when presented to William at Whitehall the
Prince remarked, he must have survived all the lawyers of his time. He
replied, “he had like to have outlived the law itself, if His Highness
had not come over.”[110] The Treasury fell into the hands of Whigs,
amongst whom was Godolphin, the husband of Margaret Blagge, a man of
practical ability, but of no fixed principle, a staunch Churchman, yet
one of a class that could live amongst Jesuits under King James, and
could keep on terms with Presbyterians under King William.
This administration--a Joseph’s coat of many colours--proceeded from
a compromise which under existing circumstances seemed unavoidable.
Intended to please different parties, it actually displeased them--a
fact soon manifested. But no political appointment aroused so much
criticism as the nomination of Burnet to the See of Salisbury. That See
had become vacant through the death of Seth Ward; and it was the first
piece of ecclesiastical preferment of which William had to dispose
after his accession to the throne. The nomination of Bishops in our
own time has occasionally provoked immense discussion, but perhaps
nobody ever stepped up to the Episcopal Bench amidst such showers of
abuse as Gilbert Burnet. To select a High Churchman would have been
inconsistent and disastrous; and amongst eligible Low Churchmen, no one
had such strong claims upon William as the friend whom he and his wife
had consulted at the Hague, the Chaplain who had come with his Fleet,
the Secretary who had drawn up his Declarations, and the clergyman who
had advocated his cause from the pulpit. But the very grounds upon
which rested Burnet’s claims made him the more objectionable to many.
These grounds were decidedly political, yet though many a Bishop has
been appointed for political reasons, the services now enumerated
were not exactly such as to indicate qualification for the office of
a spiritual overseership. At the same time it is unfair to Burnet’s
memory not to say, that he was a man of piety, Protestant zeal, varied
learning, large experience, and indefatigable industry. At a later
period, after time had worn down the asperities of the controversy,
a mitre could with much propriety have been given him; but it was
scarcely in accordance with William’s policy in political appointments
to bestow it at once upon one who had obtrusively acted as a partisan,
and inspired so much dislike in the opposite party. It should be
further stated that many Churchmen were deeply offended at Burnet’s
elevation, because they had a strong aversion to what they call his
Latitudinarian and Low Church views. Consequently, when it came to the
point of sanctioning by consecration the Royal nominee, a difficulty
arose. The Dean and Chapter of Salisbury were as prompt to elect as the
King to propose; but the Archbishop of Canterbury no sooner heard of
the _congé d’élire_, than he refused to engage in the requisite
solemnity. Burnet himself goes so far as to say that Sancroft refused
even to see him on the subject.[111] No friendly influence could induce
the Primate to swerve from his determination; but by an evasion, such
as unfortunately too often commends itself to clerical judgments,
he resolved to grant a commission for others to do what he declined
to do himself. The Vicar-General appeared, produced the commission,
and through his officers received the usual fees. To make the matter
worse, when the Archbishop’s conduct was complained of by his own
party, either he, or some one in his name, contrived to abstract the
document from the Registrar’s office; and it could not be recovered
until after Sancroft’s death, when Burnet threatened to commence legal
proceedings for obtaining what was necessary to prove the validity of
his consecration and his right to the Bishopric.[112]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Some Churchmen soon manifested their dissatisfaction with the turn
affairs had taken; and Maynard, the first Commissioner of the Great
Seal, remarked, in a debate upon making the Convention a Parliament,
“There is a great danger in sending out writs at this time, if you
consider what a ferment the nation is in; and I think the Clergy are
out of their wits, and I believe, if the Clergy should have their
wills, few or none of us should be here again.” The remark brought up
Sir Thomas Clarges, who defended the Ministers in the Metropolis, and
praised the Church as a bulwark during the late trials. “Clarges speaks
honestly,” replied Maynard, “as I believe he thinks. As for the Clergy,
I have much honour for High and Low of them; but I must say they are
in a ferment--there are pluralists among them, and when they should
preach the Gospel, they preach against the Parliament and the law of
England.”[113] At a moment when some showed dissatisfaction towards
William, and the highest legal officer of the Crown thus talked about
Churchmen, Lord Danby complained to His Majesty that he did all he
could to encourage Presbyterians, and to dishearten Episcopalians--a
circumstance which, he said, could not fail to be prejudicial to his
Government and to himself.[114] It is certain that no sooner had
William as King of England grasped the reins, than intrigues became
rife; thoughts arose of bringing back James, and men in office began to
express a want of confidence in the New Settlement. Halifax muttered
something to the effect that if the exiled King were a Protestant, he
could not be kept out four months; and Danby, that if the exile would
but give satisfaction as to Religion, “it would be very hard to make
head against him.”[115]
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.]
Still, however, a large number of Clergymen not only accepted the new
order of things, but heartily espoused the cause of the new dynasty.
Besides those dignitaries who assisted in raising William and Mary to
the throne, many in the lower ranks, by exhortations from the pulpit,
arguments from the press, and the exercise of private influence,
sought to gather up popular affection, and weave it around the chosen
occupants of the throne. It may be worth while to mention that Samuel
Wesley, Rector of Epworth, the father of John, founder of Methodism,
states that he wrote and printed the first publication which appeared
in defence of the Government; and he also composed “many little pieces
more, both in prose and verse, with the same view.”[116]