From a happy start in 1685, James had begun to hit resistance in England to his campaign for Catholic emancipation. In 1686, he planned to accelerate the process. He expected rapid success in Ireland and Scotland, and confidently expected that education, propaganda, and the reality of supreme royal authority would subdue any resistance in England and Wales.

 

Download Podcast - 452 A New Reformation (Right Click and select Save Link As)

Transcript

Last time, you unexpectedly found yourself in the History of France, which I accept might well have been disorienting – sorry for that. But I hope I explained that the great exodus of the Huguenot was not just an extraordinary event in itself but affected many parts of Europe; in Brandenburg, the Netherlands, England and Ireland, the influx of 10s of thousands of people brought new skills and talents – along with some short-lived challenges with the locals. The waves of refugees and their stories of persecution by Louis XIV raised the stakes about the intentions of England’s very own Catholic king – would he follow the example of the French king for whom he had fought in his youth? Those concerns started to show their face in the November meeting of the English Parliament – when, to his surprise and outrage, James found those lovely Tories who had greeted him so enthusiastically earlier in the year, were all wearing their sad faces. They had turned sullen and uncooperative, banning on about the small matter of a standing army, and the use of the king’s tried, tested, absolutely kosher above board and divinely ordained prerogative power dispense with the Test Acts and appoint Catholic officers

So outraged had been James, that he had gone the way of Dad and Big Brother – he’d prorogued parliament, in a huff, to February 1686. By so doing he had thrown away £700,000. Which was fine, because he was flush enough with customs revenue to pay his army from his own pocket anyway. Oh – and he’d dismissed the chief whiners like Bishop Henry Compton.

Now this time we will be going into full Three Kingdoms mode. Much about James’ wider motives are in dispute, but what is not debated is his desire to restore Catholics at very least to full equality with all other religions within his realm, and although he’d started reasonably cautiously in 1685, his intention was to kick on in 1686. I might remind you of his words to a Jesuit who’d advised a step by step approach, take it slowly. But James had not agreed

Pish

Well he didn’t say pish, but pish was implied, pish he said, he was

Growing old, and must take large steps

Baby Steps, for Bob, no Baby Steps for James.

So Charles and Lauderdale may not have thought much of James’ intellect, but James knew enough to realise that his three Kingdoms were not the same and the challenges were different – which is why we’ll start with Ireland, then Scotland and finish off with England and Wales. But there are also many common factors, and I want to pick out one of them in particular, which drove James’ haste to kick on; whatever he did, whatever foundations he laid down, had to be built on stone and survive his death, whenever that was. Because he had no Catholic heir to carry on his good work. Mary was staunchly Anglican, and of course William staunchly Calvinist, Anne was the same. James and his Queen Mary of Modena were childless, and Mary had suffered miscarriages. So the changes he made needed to be embedded, as irreversible as humanly possible. He knew about the dangers of building on sand. Someone important had once mentioned that.

Alright, Ireland then. I think it may not have escaped your notice that the majority of people in Ireland were Catholic, though almost completely without political power – we’ve talked about this ad nauseum. A couple of things then; first of all, James had his great mate Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnell an Old English Catholic, whispering in his ear at court about what needed to be done. And he had the support of the new power at the English court, the newly converted Catholic, the Earl of Sunderland. So although for the moment Clarendon was actually the Lord Deputy in Ireland, he was to prove a cipher, and to be pushed aside.

Oddly enough there were no Test Acts in Ireland. which feels slightly counter intuitive given the extent of discrimination, but there had never seemed any point in a country so dominated by Catholics. However, there was the Elizabethan act of supremacy which required office holders to recognise the monarch as the Head of the Church; which for Catholics was the Pope. But it did mean the bar to appointing Catholics to office was a little lower in Ireland. And appointing catholics to positions of power and social status was most certainly James’ plan.  There was some quick progress in restoring the status of Catholicism; JPs and Protestant Bishops were instructed not to molest Catholic clergy – who, thus liberated, held an open week long convention in Dublin. Monastic orders once again were encouraged to settle, and mass houses started to be restored and built. A couple of re-appointments to Protestant Bishoprics came up – and were set aside, with the saved revenue going to the state and effective the Catholic church; Anglican, Church of Ireland ministers were ordered not to preach against popery. It’s all little enough – but it must have felt good to the majority. And a bit scary to the English and Scots; where would all this end?

More alarming though was this policy applied to civil administration. 11 new members were added to the Irish PC – most of them Catholics so they would at last have a voice at the top table. Clarendon was instructed to dispense with the oath of supremacy, and make sure Catholics were appointed as sheriffs, and to the Town corporations; 3 Protestants were removed from the senior judiciary and replaced with Catholics, and the same process was underway with local Justices of the Peace. Clarendon did as he was told, while raising concerns about the wide use of the royal dispensing power. But in point of fact, in Ireland this was a change of emphasis and balance rather than principle. James claimed there was no established law precluding Catholics in these roles excepting the oath of Supremacy which was afterall to him, and there had been Catholic judges and JPs in Ireland before 1641.

Most alarming was the lightening-fast transformation of the army; which is where Tyrconnell moved first and fastest. While staying in London with his pal, he convinced James that the Irish officer corps was riddled with Old Cromwellians; actually he was quite wrong, but then this was very much in line with his nickname – Lying Dick Talbot, which is a harsh nickname, doesn’t sound very affectionate, like, I don’t know, cuddles or pumpkin and such like – and probably biassed, but there’s no smoke and all that, and Tyrconnell was determined that his Ireland would seize this chance.

So in May 1686, Tyrconnell was sent back to Ireland as commander of the Irish Army; and within 3 months its composition was transformed. Whereas at the start of the year the whole officer corps was protestant and the overwhelming majority of the rank and file too, by the end pf the year, 40% of officers were Catholic, and 67% of the rank and file. The chief beneficiaries of all these changes were rarely the Gaelic Irish – but  instead Tyrconnell’s constituency, the Old English. It’s important to note that for James and Tyrconnell this wasn’t just about having an army loyal to the monarch and Catholic religion; it was critical because it providing a high status, reputable public career to a vast number of people who had been excluded from such a thing for so long.

But to Scots in Ulster and the New English Protestants all of this was alarming for different reasons; and the spectre of the atrocities of 1641 haunted their imaginations. It’s important to note that there were some strains in the Catholic community as well. Many Irish saw the king as their ally, and looked to him have their estates, political and religious freedoms fully restored to them; many of them had a vested interest in the existing regime, having bought land from Cromwellian soldiers, and actually worried about too much power in the hands of those Catholics who that saw a more radical and alternative future. They didn’t want to t rock the boat too hard, ad they feared the substantial group of Catholics determined to see the future of Ireland independent from a Stuart dynasty whose primary focus was England, not the interests of Ireland. Clarendon warned his brother about this growing support for an alternative Irish future; and that priests encouraged many to think

That this kingdom is the Pope’s and…that the king has no right, further than the Pope gives him authority’

…and that it was therefore

Lawful for them to call in any foreign power to help them

Still, Clarendon’s direct interest in policy changed abruptly in January 1687 when news arrived from his king that he was no longer in control; that he was being replaced by the Earl of Tyrconnell as Lord Deputy of Ireland. And by February 1687 he was gone – and Tyrconnell was supreme in Dublin Castle.

Let us then to Scotland, where James’ reign had got off to a flyer with the parliament there in May 1685, with an explicit recognition of the royal prerogative and absolute power. Again in 1686, in round two, James planned to rerun the 1685 policy; he would use the shining example he expected the Scots to set, before he recalled the English parliament, duly chastened. And so he extended the prorogation of the English parliament from February to July, which would then fall after the Scots met in April and May 1686. Because at Parliament house in Edinburgh, he hoped to establish formal equality for Catholics with Episcopalian Protestants.

I made a bit of a distinction there, because it’s worth noting that, like the other two Stuart kingdoms, Scotland had its divisions, and if you don’t mind I’d like to bring them back into your mind. I am conscious, the older I get, of repeating myself. Pat and Charle have started a numbering system for my anecdotes, and introduced a 3 strikes and you’re out penalty. But look, in this case I plead that repetition is the mother of education, so please go with it, because it’ll be super relevant when we get to the Claim of Right in 1689. Are we OK with this?

…

Ok, I will take silence as enthusiastic assent.

The Highlands and Islands, then, as always appears to be a patchwork of responses to James, and as much based on local Highland politics as religion – pro government, anti Campbell, episcopalian and, Protestant and Catholic – it’s all there. Elsewhere, it was the Scottish nobility and Episcopalians who had led the monarchically oriented Restoration response to Charles and led the positive support for James in 1685. They fiercely resented the Presbyterians and covenanters who had removed Bishops from the kirk; they held them responsible for the failures which led to humiliation and conquest at the hands of Cromwell and the Commonwealth. So their support for royal supremacy was in part as a bulwark against the Presbyterians. It was a recognition of the mutual interdependence between king and Bishops. They rejected the covenanter doctrine that the king and nobility had no authority over an entirely separate kingdom of God. Hence their support for the act of Royal Supremacy.

For their part, the Presybterians were unreconciled to the Restored Stuarts. Not just because they objected to the bishops and royal authority over the church; but because it had subjected them to consistent, violent and renewed persecution since 1660, in what became known in their histories as The Killing Times. After 25 years of this by 1686, the structure of worship at conventicles was largely shattered and underground, or burst out from time to time at open air meetings where by law, they could be shot on sight if found by government soldiers. In 1685, they had acquired two more martyrs at Wigtown, Margaret Maclauchlan and Margaret Wilson who refused to swear the Oath of Supremacy, were seized the government in Edinburgh, tied to stakes on the town’s mudflats and allowed to drown with the rising tide. But by 1686, James had made sure that level of brutality was reigned in, and now consigned to the past. None the less their organisations were shattered, and their resentment burned bright.

It is possible then to identify two strands within the Presbyterians – the moderates, who worshiped privately, tried to accommodate with the government or worship within the established kirk – a bit like church papists. And then the radicals, such as the Cameronians, who continued to worship in Conventicles and the open air, and who actively and expressly rejected the right of the Stuarts to rule at all. They will seek to reverse the Restoration religious settlement if they could, and find a way to prevent it happening again – just as the original Covenanters had tried to shackle Charles I by law and constitution back in 1638.

OK, sorry sorry sorry, won’t do that again  – until the next time I do it of course. Now the community of Scottish Catholics was tiny, but from the start the two principal officers of state the Drummond brothers, the Earls of Perth and Melfort were Catholic converts. Plus the King’s representative in the forthcoming 1686 parliament, the Earl of Moray, would announce his conversion in 1687. James now appointed more to the SPC, and also made the Catholic Duke of Gordon Lord Lieutenant in the North.

Further down the administrative hierarchy, James granted dispensations to 26 Catholics to allow them to serve as commissioners of taxation. James firmly argued that he was totally within his rights to did this without any reference to parliament – and the senior judges supported him in this. James had a Catholic chapel built in the royal palace, and the Earl of Perth celebrated mass openly, encouraging everyone to do the same – and he wasn’t shy about it; his ceremonies turned out to be so extravagant and over the top, they drew gasps even from Catholics.

There was a reaction even to this level; the pulpits hummed with outrage, so that in October 1685, the Bishop of Edinburgh had to order his clergy to stop ranting so much against popery. Pamphlets were a problem too, so Perth issued orders forbidding the publication of any books

Reflecting on popery

When Lady Perth publicly celebrated mass at Christmas, it caused a riot in the streets, the chapel in their house was trashed, mobs set off charging through the streets. As they mobbed, they came across an aristocrat’s coach, and pulled the occupant out thinking they’d got their hands on the evil Lord Perth. At which point, the lord concerned, who actually turned out to be the Duke of Hamilton, made like Nell Gwyn with something like ‘pray good people be civil, I am the Protestant lord’. The rioters clapped him on the back and said that if it had been Perth

They would have pulled him into as many pieces as they had broken windows of his house

No doubt Hamilton laughed along heartily. ‘Oh gosh…gooly…well well’

It was not just riots and ministers at the pulpits who objected either; there were royal supporters who saw trouble ahead. James Canaries, had been a consistent loyalist, and utterly rejected radical Presbyterians, but he produced a written sermon with the conclusion that they should beware of the dangers of a Catholic king also

A king in a Popish country must either live at his Holiness’ beck, or else on the confidence of any army

I must say that these kind of sermons do sound a lot more interesting than dear old Reverand Walters of my youth, which might be on more like, I don’t know, the significance of the Fat King and the Left-Handed Tribe, Judges 3:12–30. I looked that up, obviously, who says AI isn’t useful.

Anyway, James’ plan now was to introduce complete freedom for all Catholics, and do it at the April parliament. To make a start, in March 1686 he consulted with a group of his closest advisors; the response to the plan was mixed. Hamilton in particular held the view it could only possibly work if Dissenters were an equal part of it; but at this point, this James not prepared to concede. Toleration of worship is one thing, but in his view, the radical Presbyterians were out and out rebels, trying to destroy his dynasty.

James prepared the ground – a series of pamphlets appeared supporting catholic emancipation, and hammering home the supremacy of Royal prerogative. Some clergy joined in the campaign from the pulpit  – the Archbishop of St Andrews and the Bishop of Edinburgh for example. But elsewhere in the church there were signs of resistance; the Bishop of Aberdeen, for example, received a petition from his diocese demanding he do nothing to support Catholic relief.

So the parliament opened, and the heavens opened too, the clouds lowered, so foul was the weather that it has gone down in history as the Black Rainy Parliament. The bill the Earl of Moray introduced to parliament was simple, that Catholics be admitted to the full protection of law; there was nothing about Dissenters.

You might wonder at all of this – I mean, if he could do this all through the royal prerogative anyway, why bother with parliament? The answer was not restricted to James’ mind; a Scottish Bishop opposed to this policy of toleration, argued for obedience with the royal will. Because, you know, hold tight,

A protestant successor would rescind all

The king is absolute – but don’t worry, he won’t be around for long, his heir is a Prot, so just live with it. James therefore wanted to embed Catholic relief in statute law – to make it harder to rescind. Conversely, he offered nothing to Dissenters because, as he wrote

An act of parliament gives them some shadow of right

Just like Charles before him – Protestant Dissenters must be taught their salvation came only from the king’s hand.

Well, I’m not going to lie to you – it didn’t go well. Just like in England, the bishops were supposed to be the most loyal supporters of royal authority – and yet many now broke ranks, alongside even normally loyal episcopalian nobles. Eventually Moray tried again with a more limited bill, the bare minimum, simply to give Catholics immunity from prosecution. So many amendments and restrictions were proposed that by 15^th June, once more James had heard enough – and he prorogued the Scottish parliament too.

His failure to persuade the Scottish political elite to submit to Catholic emancipation blew a hole in James’ strategy; where now was the idea that the Scots would provide an example to the English? He admitted to the French Ambassador that

The affairs of Scotland had not taken the turn he at first expected

So he decided the security of statute law must wait; and he revealed Plan B to the Council in August  – he would offer Catholics equality through his prerogative. Before he could do this – once more, the groundwork must be laid. So, sleeves were rolled up, and he got to work.

He started with a purge of the Scottish P Council to ensure support – 4 sceptics were removed, and Catholics appointed. He must have the support of the ecclesiastical church, a pillar of royal authority. So He removed the most powerful of the sceptical bishops from his post, the Bishop of Glasgow – not something he could do in England as it happens. A proclamation was made, which forbade ministers from preaching anything that criticised the king or government; presbyterian literature was proscribed, but no action against the printing of Catholic works. Where he strayed into almost certainly illegal territory was in the royal burghs; Their right to elect councillors was removed, and burgh officers imposed by royal appointment. By the start of 1687 James was ready to act – to issue a Declaration of Indulgence.

Returning, then to England and Wales, I was reflecting that one of the hardest things in history, it seems to me, is to get a feel of the vibe of past ages, the way people thought, the sort of day to day environment that affects us all so much, but doesn’t come off the page of dry, flat text. I’m always put in mind of Henry VIII’s last, nasty years – when his weight, ulcers, appalling health and being wheeled about in a cart must have made him a bit vicious. There was a lot of itchy wool around, it was cold, no wi fi to distract you, the world around was a bit incomprehensible, full of phenomena inexplicable without a God.

I warble, what I am driving towards is what the atmosphere under James would have been like. Firstly with his character; and here, incidentally, could I say that I am very grateful for those of you who write in with interesting opinions and comments, I really enjoy it, and don’t want to mention names for fearing missing someone out, but there was one from Phil the other day, including a quote which I looked up. It relates to when James was later at court in France, where Madame de Sévigné commented on him. She was a famous letter writer, who spoke very warmly of Mary of Modena’s wit and character, but on James – not so much. “Quand on l’écoute, on comprend pourquoi il est ici” she said, when you listen to him, you understand why he’s here. James’ manner was narrow minded, pre-emptory, inflexible, demanding of obedience without debate – that would have a vibe amongst those that met and worked with him.

More generally, there will have been the vibe about Catholicism, which we have tried to cover, but would have affected everybody in ways it’s difficult to understand these days. So the presence of the Mass, publicly held by the most powerful and revered figures in the realm, the King and Queen, that would have impressed people more than we might imagine. Diplomatic relationships had been re-established with the Papal curia, and now there were papal representatives around the Palace and London – and there were Catholic dioceses being put in place, even a Papal Nuncio. Meanwhile the Archbishopric of York, second most important church office in the land – it was vacant and left so. Almost as though it’s revenue, collected by the crown, was funding these new Catholic institutions. Unsettling. And in politics, people could now see Catholic advisors constantly around James, in public, and behind doors. Through 1686 and into 1687, this grew more and more pronounced, and a figure emerged in the public imagination – Farther Edward Petre.

Edward Petre was made Jame’s Dean of the Chapel Royal; more importantly he was a close confidente. Worst of all for his public reputation – Petre was a Jesuit, and since the Reformation Jesuits had been the bogey people of the Protestant British Isles. As James I put it to parliament in the wake of the Gunpowder plot

As for the persons of the Jesuits, I do utterly condemn them… they are the very spouts and ministers of all the mischief and treachery

But now – the king had a Jesuit at his side, in his pocket. Petre had plenty of the skills of a courtier ‘a fair smooth tongue, and a very affable way of flattery’

it was said; but he was not used to the wiles of court, and therefore Sunderland would callously use him, and his influence with the king, to establish the hegemony of his faction at court, and remove the likes of Clarendon and Rochester. Petre had royal influence – and people know it – his chambers were rammed with people seeking patronage, because it was known he got results.

And so he became a lightening-rod for anxiety about James’ rule – not just at court but among the public, so much so that he would become a popular figure in the effigy burning hooleys of 5^th November. He, though, seems to have been indifferent to the hatred, and concerned mainly with his status within the church – he had James badger the pope to have him made a bishop – even, madly, to have him made ABY. I mean – can you imagine how that would have looked? A Jesuit Catholic in England’s second most senior position? If anything speaks to James’ reckless self-confidence, that might well be up there in top place. The pope saved him from himself by refusing to allow any such thing – and so James then tried to have Petre made a Cardinal.

James made him a member of the Privy Council too; and as Sunderland removed his rivals, the PC became more and more homogenous.

But back to that vibe thing; not only were there people like Petre around, but it was clear the PC was not the only place where the most important decisions were made; that James had an inner clique around him, a smaller circle. Which seems to have been dominated by folks with a particularly  aggressive view of what might be achieved both for royal power and the cause of Catholicism – Petre, Sunderland, Melfort, the Catholic peer the Earl of Arundel.

James’ policy in England and Wales had the same broad shape to that of Ireland and Scotland, but adjusted for context. He could not remove Bishops as he could in Scotland, and therefore for most of 1686, his policy was to work with the church hierarchy – and why not? They and other Tories were the very basis of his support. Even his first objective, though, to raise the status and availability of Catholic worship, was not to their taste.  He opened catholic schools, including two Jesuit schools in London, and he believed education of the public in a wider sense would bring converts – he sanctioned the publication of numerous books, pamphlets, broadsheets and devotional manuals to support catholicism. By the spring there were catholic chapels established in many English cities, though they sometimes resulted in local riots – predictably from the Apprentice boys in London, a notoriously rowdy lot, but also Worcester, Coventry and Bristol where there was even a popular procession, called ’a scoff against popery’.

It seems that Anglican ministers were not helping either – sermons attacking popery escalated. In March James issued a declaration ordering clergy to avoid religious controversies. It didn’t really work – ministers complained that after all helping parishioners understand their best path to salvation was pretty much their job description. So when John Sharp the Dean of Norwich delivered such a sermon in May, it was decided to make a public example of him. His Bishop, Henry Compton, was ordered to suspend him. Compton was proving a bolshey bishop. He refused, demanding the right of a proper legal review. Which pulled James into a highly contentious decision.

The decision concerned, in July 1686 was to set up the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, under the leadership of Chancellor Judge Jeffrey. James’ thinking was this; he couldn’t remove Bishops, But Compton and other bishops appeared to be allowing Ministers to do as they would, so he needed a way to force them to do their duty – as he defined their duty. And he was a bit shocked by the blizzard of anti papal preaching, he’d expected more loyalty. So although formally the commission was supposed to monitor preaching, it’s first act was to suspend Henry Compton. He went home and indulged his love for gardening apparently – possibly the source of the phrase ‘garden leave’? Possibly, possibly not. The trouble was – this new Commission looked just like the old High Commission – the one Charles and Laud had used to impose their reforms, the one a civil war had been fought over. Compton at once became a protestant martyr; Princess Mary wrote to him from The Netherlands, since he was her old tutor, expressing her sympathy. Probably technically within the King’s rights, quite a few even of the Tories thought The Commission illegal, and it was certainly widely resented.

James’s plan meant he had to find a way to establish his dispensing power without challenge. Actually he’d continued to use it – very notably with the Quakers, for whom he’d issued a general instruction of relief which saw 1,200 released. Obviously a Good Thing to us – but a Bad Thing to Anglicans, with corresponding capital letters.

Just as a by the way, this allows me to introduce an interesting wrinkle-ette of the Glorious Revolution, which is the relationship between James and William Penn. Penn was something of a fan; I’ve already mentioned I think, that he felt James’ approach to religious liberty in New York was an indication of James’s belief in toleration. He was something of a networker was Penn, and knew quite a few people in the government – Sidney Godolphin who was in the Treasury and Mary of Modena’s household, and the head honcho, Sunderland. Penn had gained wide respect for his views on toleration, and so in May 1686, James approved an official visit by him to the Hague. Penn had already met William and Mary in 1680, in a campaign for greater liberty for Quakers. Now his objective was to get their support for James’ plans for toleration in the Three Kingdoms.

As it happens – it was not a success, and possibly shows that William and Mary’s nous was more substantial than James’ nous, and is really interesting that William essentially foresaw the problems James would have if he carried on his path. So; William assured Penn that of course he was in favour of toleration – but couldn’t agree with the politics of going about it. He made the point that whatever he did James could not find success simply with the support of Dissenters, because it would ignore the primary base of support for the monarchy, the Anglican Tories, and would be political suicide. Fascinating; a basic fact James will not appear to have grasped. Anyway, we’ll hear more of Penn next year.

So, in the light of the knockback in parliament, James needed a way to demonstrate his right to dispense with penal laws, Test acts and so on. And in June he manufactured the perfect opportunity – a test case, arf arf. I’m not sure Charles should really have dissed his little brother’s intelligence so much; it would be a bit of a master stroke tactically speaking. Whether strategically brilliant – well time will tell.

Anyway, Sir Edward Hales, baronet, was a Kentish Man, born west of the Medway, and he was a colonel – and a Catholic who had been granted a dispensation by James for his position. He would remain closer to James, incidentally, and accompany him to a famous outing to Kent later in the reign – watch this space.

Anyway they cooked up a plan; Hales’ coachman, Arthur Godden, would bring a case against him under the test acts, claiming his £500 prize for dobbing him in. Then they could see if the use of the Royal Prerogative that gave Hales his army commission would hold up in a court of law. And so it was, that the case was scheduled to come before the King’s bench.

James obviously needed to right answer if this ‘mock action’ was to work, and so he trawled and interviewed the 12 judges of King’s Bench to sound out their views on the case. Jeffreys was happy, no problem. Lord Chief Justice Jones on the other hand replied

None but the indigent, ignorant or ambitious people would give their judgements as he expected

Not sure which one of those applied to Jeffreys, but clearly it applied to many others. Now, the Commonwealth of course had removed the right for the Head of State to dismiss Judges at their pleasure, only for proven malpractice; but of course the good old Restoration had brought it back. So, James summarily dismissed 6 judges, half of the bench, and replaced them with more compliant judges. Bravo, Restoration!

Lord Justice Jones was one of those dismissed of course. And he replied to his king on the news

“For my place, I care not. I am old and worn out in the service of the law; but I am sorry to find your Majesty determined to violate those laws which I have sworn to maintain”

As a result – the case, Godden Vs Hales went the way James wanted – at a canter 11-1, and James had his test case to demonstrate he could dispense with the Test Acts. Everyone was aware of the significance of this; the following day, a verse was stuck to the gates of Westminster comparing the judges to Judas, ending

What madness slaves! What is’t could ye provoke

To stoop again unto the Romish Yoke?

May ye be cursed and all your hopes demolished

To perish by those laws ye have abolished

I mean it’s not Tennyson, but what it lacks in art, maybe makes up in impact. But whevs, James had his green light. In a conversation with the French Ambassador, James made a prediction that his MPs would be

More disposed to behave well, when they saw that without their assistance, so many matters of importance could be effected

And that

His resolution was not to reign precariously

By which I assume he meant he had no intention of ruling at the beck and call of those people in parliament.

In August James went on a tour of the west country, touching for the king’s evil in vast numbers as he went. He may have reflected that his New Reformation was well on track, that he had made solid progress – he had a big standing army, of which 10% of the officer corps were Catholic, recusancy laws were no longer being applied against Catholics – nor Quakers; he had won a test act confirming his dispensing power, broken the Anglican monopoly of worship, and established a tool, in the Ecclesiastical Commission, through which to discipline the Anglican bishops and clergy and bend them to his will.

But there has been a political cost. He had failed to win round parliament; and that was critical to him, because, again he still had no catholic heir, and needed to embed toleration in law. He was facing considerable opposition from the Anglican ministers, and many of the Bishops – typified by Henry Compton, so he was failing to get them to close down the preaching against popery from pulpits up and down the country. In October, James was gratified at the enthusiastic celebration of his birthday, but November 5^th did not go well; neither the secular authorities nor the Bishops had managed to keep a lid on the virulent anti popery of the celebrations. So…over the winter of 1686-7 James may have decided to fly in the face of William’s view; the Tory Anglican alliance was clearly not delivering what he wanted. So he’d have to attract a different constituency, different allies. Maybe those noisy Dissenters held the key, whatever William dn Mary thought.  He would forge an alliance of common interest between Catholics and Dissenters.