The last Catholic to rule England was James II, whose brief reign from 1685 to 1688 was a time of strife between the Parliament and the monarch, leading ultimately to the overthrow of the House of Stuart. British historiography has tended to portray James as a villain, a scheming papist who conspired to force Protestant England back under the tyrannical yoke of Rome. This view—a creation of Whig propagandists—is unfair to James, whose policies were vastly more moderate and sensible than he is given credit for. In this article, we shall examine the acts of James II to set the record straight about this much maligned monarch.
Prior to ascending to the throne of England in 1685, James Stuart was the Duke of York, younger brother of King Charles II (r. 1660-1685). Though raised Anglican, both Charles and James were sympathetic to Catholicism—Charles was married to the Catholic princess Catherine of Braganza and himself converted to Catholicism on his deathbed; James was married twice, both times to Catholic women. James converted to Catholicism in 1669, causing scandal among the Anglican elites of London and resulting in James’s practical exile from English political life. His 1673 marriage to Mary of Modena, an Italian Catholic princess, further alarmed his peers, for it meant that James could create a Catholic dynasty, should he ever succeed his brother to the throne.
Protestant parliamentarians tried unsuccessfully to exclude James from the succession. When this failed, a conspiracy was hatched to assassinate both Charles and James in 1683. The so-called Rye House Plot was uncovered, however, resulting in an outpouring of public sympathy for James, whose popularity soared among the common folk. Thus, when Charles finally died in 1685, most of the English peerage reluctantly accepted James’s succession. After all, James’s marriage to Mary had failed to produce any heirs. The fear of a new Catholic dynasty seemed remote. It was likely the new king would die without a male heir, allowing the throne to revert back to the Protestant branch of the Stuarts.
Not everyone was willing to wait, however. The year of James’s accession saw the Monmouth Rebellion, a concerted effort by James’s Protestant nephew, the Duke of Monmouth, to overthrow James due to his Catholicism. The rebellion was swiftly crushed, and James found himself at the peak of his popularity. With a Tory majority in Parliament and support of the towns and the army—as well as a treasury flush with revenue—James’s reign was his to make of what he wished.
As a Catholic, James was eager to help the plight of his fellow English Catholics, who were still suffering under the century-old Penal Laws which restricted their civil and religious rights, relegating them to second-class citizens within their own kingdom. In particular, James sought the repeal of the Test Act of 1673 and the Act of 1678, which excluded Catholics from both houses of Parliament, thus disenfranchising them. When Parliament refused to repeal these laws, James responded by pushing the limits of his royal authority, claiming the right to dispense from the Penal Laws on a case by case basis. He appointed a slew of Catholics to official posts, swelled the army with Catholic officers, and encouraged public displays of Catholicism. Catholics were readmitted to several of England’s ancient universities. Chapels were opened throughout London, the Jesuits opened a school, and Catholic clergy appeared in public court. Catholics were even promoted to the king’s Privy Council.
These measures were highly unpopular with the Anglican elites, whose hatred for Catholicism James had likely underestimated. Gradually, the Parliament began to distance itself from King James. Seeing his support among Anglicans evaporating, James attempted to find allies elsewhere—from Protestant Dissenters. “Dissenters” in 17th century England referred to Protestants who rejected the Anglican Church, such as Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Quakers. These, too, were subject to civil disabilities, though not to the same degree as Catholics. James sought to win the support of the Dissenters on a platform of broad religious toleration for all Christian sects, whether Catholic or Protestant. Accordingly, James, on his own authority, promulgated the Declaration of Indulgence (also known as the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience) in April of 1687. This proclamation granted religious freedom to Catholics and Protestant dissenters by suspending the penal laws that enforced conformity to the Church of England and ended the requirement for religious oaths before holding government positions.
Without parliamentary approval, however, James knew this Declaration was on shaky ground. And getting Parliament’s approval seemed unlikely, as the Anglican-dominated Parliament vehemently opposed James’s measures. Finding himself unable to work with Parliament, James dissolved it in July 1687 and called for new elections. The king hoped the new elections would return a House of Commons more sympathetic to his vision. The new Commons was no more amenable to James’s plans, however, and Anglican resistance to the king only intensified. From the perspective of the Anglican Parliament, James’s actions not only undermined their own interests but were also of dubious legality, since James was acting without Parliament’s approval.
James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence in 1688 and ordered it be read from every pulpit in the kingdom. This prompted a strong remonstrance from the Church of England, as the Archbishop of Canterbury and several of his bishops questioned the king’s power to dispense from the penal laws. James, with admittedly more heavy-handedness than warranted, arrested the bishops and had them committed to the Tower. (They were subsequently acquitted.) Simultaneously, his wife Mary unexpectedly became pregnant and gave birth to a royal heir, James Edward Francis Stuart. The timing of the royal prince’s birth was particularly bad, reigniting fears of a Catholic dynasty at the very moment when anti-Catholic sentiment was at its peak.
These events over the summer of 1688 were the last straw. The Anglican Parliament opened a channel to the Protestant William, Duke of Orange in the Low Countries, the husband of James’s daughter Mary, and asked him to come overthrow the King of England. James actually caught wind of the plot in advance but could not believe his son-in-law would do such a thing. He would be proven tragically mistaken. That fall William of Orange landed in England with an invasion force, driving James into exile, and bringing an end to the Stuart dynasty. The Penal Laws would remain intact for another century, grinding English Catholics down under a slew of civil disabilities.
If James II could be faulted with anything, it would be his lack of prudence and statesmanship in how he pursued his goals. He was a good intentioned king whose zeal sometimes outstripped his common sense. Pope Innocent XI had advised the king to proceed with caution, working towards full parliamentary abolition of the penal laws before restoring Catholics to civil life. That James did not heed this advice gave the Parliament opportunity to paint him as an autocrat who flaunted elected officials to impose his will on the country.
But what was this tyranny that James forced upon England? The lifting of civil penalties against Catholics and dissenting Protestants. A return of Catholicism to the public square. Catholics given a seat at the table of government. Catholics restored to university life. In essence, the “tyranny” of James was that he did not want his subjects segregated into two classes of citizens. The arguments of the Whigs are ultimately bureaucratic and procedural—King James was too eager to sidestep parliamentary procedure in removing discriminatory legislation from the backs of tens of thousands of his countrymen. While most historians agree that James could have been more diplomatic in how he went about it, he cannot be faulted for his magnanimous vision.
Image from Wikimedia Commons
