Full of confidence at his progress, in 1688 James decided he would suffer no more equivocation from the Church of England. The Indulgence was re-issued, this time with a command that it be read by every priest from every pulpit – thus aligning them with a policy they detested, making them royal servants. The atmosphere was hot with conflict – and everything was heightened by the news of a birth – of a royal prince and heir.  The Three kingdoms would now permanently be held by a Catholic. At Whitehall, Seven Bishops decided it was time to stand their ground.

 

Download Podcast - 454 Trial of the Seven Bishops (Right Click and select Save Link As)

 

Transcript

 

Last time we heard about the flowering of James’ crusade to use his royal powers, liberate his fellow Catholics, ensure it was permanent for the few years it would take for his mislead subjects to return to Rome – make sure everyone understood that this rights meant he was accountable only to God, and his subjects should just sush and get on with what he told them to. In James’ mind – it was all going swimmingly, and the outcome was assured. In Ireland his mate Tyrconnell was rocking the Catholic world. In 1687 James had issued Declarations of Indulgences in both Scotland and England – and despite a bit of whining here and there, he was utterly confident he had nothing to worry about. OK, he’d had to change tack a bit – ally with Dissenters and well as Catholics to keep things moving, and sideline the Tory Anglicans – but that was OK. Conversions would now start flooding in. If Jimmy II and VII was writing this episode the title would have been ‘Episode 454: Britain Returns to the Path of truth and Light ‘cos God and I ordered it so’.

Now you and I know better; the Sarn’t Major on the throne was failing to see the mutinous mutterings of his Tommies. James had been forced to take absolutely draconian action to get to this place, he was racking up a massive debit in his political account, and although the bailiffs were not yet knocking on the door, they knew his number. I am rather conscious of having repeated Jimmy’s actions a bit much, but in summary to a greater or lesser extent he’d purged or was purging all the major national and public institutions; Judiciary, local shire and town government, PC. He had established an apparatus of commissions to carry out these purges – Commission of the peace for the local magistracy, and a commission for the Boroughs under a Catholic Lawyer to purge Town corporations. Where in a disturbing echo of Louis’ persecution of the Huguenots, sometimes troops were forcibly billeted on towns who were slow to carry out the required purge. And most notoriously, the Ecclesiastical commission. Charles I and William Laud were applauding and whooping so much that Archangel Michael had been reluctantly forced to put them in the chokey for an hour or two to restore calm.

James was confirmed in his almost reckless self-confidence by his summer progress, in August and September 1687, with William Penn at his side. He travelled from Portsmouth to the west to south west, even to the midlands, and no one goes there. In Coventry, James wallowed in a big civic occasion, the locals were all out in force to see him go by, and guess what? Yup, you guessed it – there were bonfires. I’m seriously thinking global warming started in the 17^th century, they are mad for a good bonfire. His presence, and a few meaningful royal hints, elicited another 3 addresses of thanks for his Indulgences.

James promoted his policy of toleration as he went; at Chester he asked the assembled dignitaries to

Join with him in making a Magna Carta for conscience’[1]

He also promoted the divinity of monarchy as he went – using the Stuart Brothers favourite hobby of touching for the king’s evil; in 1687 alone he touched 14,000 people and sent them away with their gold touch coin. The whole tour in his view was a triumph, and washe  convinced that the peoples’

Joyful acclamation and dutiful acknowledgements seemed to be pledges of their compliance

Everything in James’ mind was just tickety-boo.

If he’d been looking more carefully at the apple of his satisfaction, he might have worried that others thought everything was in fact, tickety-poo. Of the 15 cities he visited, 8 still refused to offer an address of thanks. In Oxford, Anthoiny Wood remarked there was a complete absence of the customary cries of ‘Vivat Rex’. There were even some bad signs from his very own court; in the middle of one of these touching ceremonies, he turned to his Gentleman of the Wardrobe, and Colonel of Horseguards, one John Chruchill, and happily asked him what the watching people thought of the ceremonies. Churchill replied acidly that they saw it as paving the way for Catholicism. At the later grand dinner, Churchill [2] was heard having an in-depth discussion with the Dean of Winchester about the rights and wrongs of passive obedience.

For Tories, passive obedience was a big issue – THE issue of the day in fact. It was a fundamental tenet of English law, as Restored in 1660, and central to the belief of Tories, that the king could do no wrong. Otherwise you’d stand the danger of dreadful things happening like, you know – holding a king accountable, putting him on trial and who wants that? That of course was the unspoken problem for Tories; what happened when a king didn’t live by the rules – started acting outside of custom – such as you know, just theoretically you understand, just in case any Jacobites are listening – arbitrarily overriding statue law, purging institutions by overriding their customary rights, undermining the established church against their express promise, building a standing army, billeting troops where they weren’t wanted – that sort of thing? What then, I mean what, theoretically speaking, then?

Now you could maintain that principle of royal infallibility by prosecuting his ministers. The problem with that was that a monarch could usually protect them, so it was a blunt weapon. But for most Tories, the only required approach, just as James I had written, was to bow your head, obey the rules of Non-resistance, exercise passive obedience, and wait for times to improve under a new prince. And in this current idiom the new prince was due to be Protestant Mary. But this doctrine was now under massive, massive strain. I mean, go on, let’s add another massive – massive, massive, massive strain. It pushed many to the Magdalen College approach – passive disobedience, mulishness, like the Sussex Country slogan – ‘we won’t be druv’. To cite existing rules and customs, shrug your shoulders, hold up you hands and say ‘sorry guv, love too – just can’t do it’. But as the campaigns of Quo Warranto campaigns under both Charles and James proved, if you have the lawyers on your side, then that passive disobedience is no more than a delaying tactic, and doomed as well.

But that was the response of most of the Anglican and Tory clergy, to comply as little as they could, passive resistance. Their biggest dilemma was how to deal with Dissenters, who would be attracted by James’ attempts to court them. Their best strategy was to urge Dissenters to resist the cry of the Jacobean siren, to distrust, and to carry on coming to Anglican churches despite their misgivings; that they were safer with them, safer to unite under a Pan Protestant banner, than they would be with a Papist and closet absolutist, who they feared would throw aside any pretence of equality and impose a Catholic tyranny as soon as he got the opportunity.

For Dissenters, the call that they were safe with the Anglican church was a tough, tough – OK, let’s go for three again – tough argument, given the last, ooh 25 years of repression and antagonism. William Penn was sceptical, asking what security Anglicans could offer, given they had

Made so fair progress these last six and twenty years in ruining families for non conformity?

Which is a fair question. And for many Anglicans, reaching out to Dissenters, such as Halifax had done with his ‘Letter to Dissenters’, stuck in the throat anyway, but increasing numbers did start to do just that. And just as the distinction between Whig and Tory had begun to disappear from political writing, maybe Protestant could replace Anglican and Dissenter?

Dissenters were sceptical of James’ intentions on their own account of course. The fiery Scottish independent Robert Ferguson, who had been Shaftesbury’s chaplain, agreed with the Levellers that there ought to be liberty of conscience whatever the law, and furthermore that religion was outside any state powers. Like Milton he excluded Catholics, since

Governors may deny liberty to those whose principles oblige them to destroy those that are not of their mind

And before we accuse Ferguson of hysteria and bigotry, let us remember that there was fresh and historical evidence from France and Savoy of the destruction of such liberties. So complete freedom was required, not freedom dependent on kings

Giving it in an illegal and arbitrary manner

As the pamphlet war and the rhetoric from the pulpit ramped up, writers on the court side for their part, mocked and slated Anglicans for their disloyalty, for abandoning their piously held principles of obedience. Obviously the big fear for Anglicans was that if they supported James in a parliament and revoked the Test Acts, he would then pack parliament with Catholics and vote to overturn the Anglican church, and replace it with an established Catholic one. To counter this, Court writers suggested a civil Test loyalty oath, taking religion completely out of it.

From the Netherlands, William began to join the battle. His minister and confidente Gaspar Fagal published an Open Letter which was very widely read, re-read and read out to the illiterate. It repeated the argument William had made to Penn when they met in The Hague. There should be complete freedom of conscience; but the Test Acts should continue to exclude Catholics from Public office to ensure they could not govern

To the prejudice of the Reformed Religion

This was not James’ view though, of course. Catholics must have full political power as well as religious freedom. And he remained confident that enough Tories and Anglicans MPs would continue to stick to their belief in obedience. And that therefore his alliance with Catholics and Dissenters would carry the day in parliament and embed that full equality in Statute law. As part of his plan for such a parliament,  in October 1687, he carried out a fascinating exercise, which can be interpreted in two ways. Let me tell you what he did first.

He went to all office holders, everyone who took the king’s shilling as it were, and asked three questions

• If elected a MPs would they support the repeal of Test Acts?
• Would they help secure the election of MPs who would support a repeal, and
• Would they live in peace with those of all religious persuasions according to the current Indulgence?

Well that’s interesting. Now you can interpret this in two ways. It could have been a bit of thoroughly sensible market research as James thought about calling a parliament; had he achieved enough through his promotion, his political writers, his offer to Dissenters – and most importantly, by his purges – had he done enough to get a result? Or as Tinkerbell might have it, an honest attempt to understand the mood of his people? The more sinister Captain Hook approach is to suggest that this was just one further step in packing parliament and purging opponents – that by their answers, James would identify further targets of purging. Instructions to the agents carrying out the survey rather support the Captain Hook idea, because agents with instructed to identify if officials were

Fit and proper or whether they are omitted to be put in government

And he duly did get useful information, which he used for further purges; one example of notes returned by an agent, for example included the comment

This is one of the worst of them fit to be turned out

And duly purges continued; the Lords Lieutenant who had overseen the survey were next; 19 from the total of 35 were replaced, and 13 of those new men were Catholic. By the spring of 1688, over 1200 officials had been replaced in Town Corporations, by, in the words of one

Papists, and where not Papists, fanatics[3]

James also launched an attack on the London Livery companies, given their influence over elections in the all-important London – he used his judiciary to remove and amend charters on 50 companies, and by February 1688 had removed 1795 liverymen.[4]

The answers to James survey were also very interesting – and remember that this is after more than one wave of purging. Only about a quarter responded positively to the first two questions about repealing the Test Acts; and if you strip out Catholics, it was just 16%.[5] But to the third question – are you happy to live with people who worship differently, the response was close to 100% positive, yes they could. It seems William was absolutely on the money in his view; religious toleration was fine, everyone could live with that. But given all the evidence from over the channel and from the memory of the Irish 1641 revolt and the Marian persecutions, no one was yet prepared to trust Catholics with the power to govern. A member of the Mostyn family in North Wales wrote of his fear of what would happen if

if we shall be so base & treacherous…to give up our walls & bulwarks & open them a passage through them [6]

In Europe, James actions were drawing wide attention, not just from William and Louis. In the Hapsburg court in Vienna, the Catholic Emperor Leopold worried that

James drives on too fast and his design to promote the Catholic religion lies too open

Interesting that.

And so matters carried on, and everyone struggled with their conscience. And then, on 23^rd December 1687 all these worries were turned up to 11 when a Royal Proclamation hit the street appointing January 15^th and 29^th as days of thanksgiving, with the ringing of bells and church services. Because James’ Queen was pregnant.

Everyone had begun to assume that James and Mary could not have children. Poor Mary had suffered miscarriages before and so there would sadly be a good chance she may have to suffer such heartache again; it might be  girl, and take her place in the line behind Mary and Anne. But the response to the thanksgiving from the people lacked a certain amount of enthusiasm, shall we say. Clarendon went to church at St James in Westminster. When the moment came for the thanksgiving prayer, there was no more than a whisper from the congregation

There were not above two or three in the church who brought the form of prayer with them

He noticed.

What did get an enthusiastic response – was the rumour that the whole thing was a fake anyway – ‘the Queens Belly’ was the subject of a blizzard of libels and rumours; in March 1688 Danby wrote suspiciously that

Many of our ladies, say that the Queen’s Belly seems to grow faster than they have observed their own to do

Princess Anne was at the forefront of these rumours. Anne by this stage had already lost 2 daughters and suffered two miscarriages, so the news was even more poignant for her. But she didn’t believe a word of it, and never would, and wrote to Mary

‘I believe when she is brought to bed, nobody will be convinced it is her child, except it prove a daughter. For my part, I declare I shall not, except I see the child and she parted’[7]

James of course was ecstatic. He was immediately convinced that this was God’s favour and will. That God had seen his work, thoroughly approved, and was working with him to make sure it would last for eternity. He wrote to the Pope, and arranged the immediate appointment in January of four vicars-apostolic as ‘bishops in partibus infidelium’, bishops in the lands of the infidels, and four people were duly found. He enforced the appointment of a Catholic Master to Sidney Sussex college Cambridge – universities need to train Catholics for the priesthood after all. And his attitude toward the Anglican church hardened; the purges continued as he moved towards calling a parliament packed with his loyal and obedient supporters to overturn the Test acts.

He did not forget Scotland; in 1688 he again suspended Burgh elections and nominated his own officials. He wrote to Scottish magnates in February to ask them about their attitudes to repealing the Test acts and got a dusty response; The Earl of Hamilton pointedly asked how this could be done

With security to the Protestant religion, our laws and oaths

James commissioned the Catholic Earls to get officers of state to subscribe to a pledge to support the royal policy; they responded that most officers expressed

Such a cruel apprehension of other things farther to be pressed upon them, that it made them extremely uneasy

Most of all though, James resolved to stop this backsliding by the Anglican hierarchy and clergy in England and Wales. There would be no more Mr Nice guy, no more shades of grey.

And so it was that on 27^th April 1688 James re-issued his Declaration of Indulgence. And this time he included the instruction that every minister must read the Declaration from their pulpits on two weekends in May to their assembled congregations. The strategy was clear to everyone; by having it read out, he would force the Church of England to give the impression, up and down the country, in every parish in England and Wales, that the Church of England supported this policy of toleration, and the their belief royal power to command it. James was forcing Anglicans everywhere to choose – God or King.

Well, there were cats amongst pigeons. The Pigeons duly huddled. The clergy of London met in a series of meetings to discuss how they’d respond. They drew in leading political figures – Danby, Halifax, the Earl of Nottingham. They included their bishops – and the ABC Sancroft was part of the tortured discussion. They saw the trap James had laid very clearly, it was

Too obvious to all…[to] ridicule us as unstable complying men

It would imply they agreed with the policy. And there was a strong constitutional and legal issue too

An owning of a power to command the publishing of things that are against the Law

Many also argued angrily that the declaration

Had been solemnly declared in parliament to be illegal

The church in London were very much in step with the mood of the whole country. Up and down England and Wales, the royal will was defied by ministers. The declaration was read out in only 7 London parishes – and in 3 of those, the congregation walked out. Across the country as a whole fewer than 200 parish priests out of 9000 read out the declaration, a stunningly complete rejection of royal authority and James’ policy. Of the 26 Bishops, only 6 asked their clergy to do it anyway.

 

The loyalist press poured scorn on the disloyal clergy and Bishops; one called it

An unquestionable act of Disobedience to the command of the sovereign authority

In reply, one of the Bishops William Sherlock, used that point that while the king might be legally immune, his ministers were not

The king can do no wrong; and therefore if any wrong be done, the crime and guilt is the ministers’ who does it

A series of meetings were held between dissenters and Anglicans. The conclusion of the Dissenters, to William Penn’s distress, was to support the stance of the Anglican church; they preferred to stay under the penal laws, and be able stand in unity with the Anglican church, until such time as toleration could be achieved by proper, parliamentary means.

Meanwhile Archbishop Sancroft had sent urgent messages in greatest secrecy to his bishops that all who could manage it with so little notice meet with him urgently up – and impressively they included the Bishop of St Asaph, all the way from north Wales.  Seven Bishops then, assembled at Lambeth Palace. All day they debated, deep into the night. They didn’t all share the same views by any means; 4 of them would one day be non jurors – bishops who refused to serve William and Mary, on the basis that they were not the rightful hereditary monarchs. But at this point in Maym, they all agreed – they would petition the king against his policy. The Petition was written up by William Sancroft himself with his own hand.

On the 18^th May they were standing in front of James in person, presenting their petition. The Petition professed their undying loyalty – but asked him to reconsider the Declaration, which they anyway refused to read, because they believed it to be illegal, they believed that the king did not have the power he claimed to dispense with the laws of the land. Meanwhile, a similar document had been sent by them to all their clergy.

Well, James was flabbergasted. His

Countenance sunk, and he looked pale

Here are strange words. I did not expect this from you.

He said

You’ve let me down, you’ve let England down, Wales down – but worst of all you’ve let yourself down

Well he didn’t quite say that; he did start to express his fury, outraged at this challenge to

His dispensing power, which almighty God had placed in him

He snatched the petition from them

I will keep this

he said, meaningfully looking at the signatures

This is a standard of Rebellion. I will be obeyed!

The bishops began to move away as he fell into full hissy fit mode. And they heard him mutter

They neither loved him – nor his father but he died for them – but they fought for themselves and not for him

Which, as you will all know from my Lawyers and Clerics episode way back when, is some dramatic rewriting of history since the bishops had indeed loved his father. But anyway, then they picked up their hassocks, lifted their cassocks, and legged it, hairy knees pumping, with the odd flash of buttock. Well I made that up too, sorry.

Over the next couple of weeks, the extent of clerical disobedience became clear – no-one was reading the Declaration. James was appalled; Father Petre was reported to be rather chuffed with how things were going, that it meant the break with the Church of England was surely getting closer  At the start of June, James called a PC meeting to discuss their next steps, any why the next steps should be putting the whole bally lot of them on trial, and that, as Father Petre said,

They should be made to eat their own dung

Which seems unchristian.

Well, the Chancellor Judge Jeffreys, might be a hanging judge, but he was also a political judge, and he told the Council they’d be nutty to give the Bishops the oxygen of a public trial. But the Catholics lords on the Council were hot for it – and so on 8^th June, the Seven bishops found themselves once more standing before James in his majesty, being asked to explain themselves. They took the John Lilburne approach – and refused to answer on the grounds no true Englishman, or indeed Welshman since this was William Lloyd of St Asaph, could be made to incriminate himself.  James spat at them that they would appear before the King’s Bench, they said nah-ha, we is Peers no can do, James’ head exploded and ordered them to be thwown woughly to the floor, and dragged to Tower. Well, rowed up the river to the Tower.

Outside, the news had been spreading that the Brave Bishops were in Whitehall before the king. A crowd had started gathering and it had swelled and swelled as the meeting went on and news spread further and then – there they were – Seven Bishops, with the despised Governor of the Tower, Edward Hales  – the very man who had manufactured the Godden Vs Hale feigned case, bolster of the royal arbitrary power.

Well the crowd went potty as they were taken down towards the river, falling to their knees as the Bishops passed them, crying out

God Bless the Bishops!

The Watermen of the Thames were generally no lovers of bishops – being dissenters to a man, couldn’t stand ‘em, but even they were swept up in the euphoria. And so they joined in with the cries. As they rowed the bishops towards the Tower, people waded into the river reaching out for blessing from the blessed Bishops.

Two days later the Earl of Clarendon was at church, even though it was a Thursday. Very religious that lot. Anyway, during the service, he was disturbed by a lot of whispers, murmurs, muffled discussion. Unable to make out what was going on, he got into his coach; where his servant told him the news. That Queen Mary and James had been delivered of a brand new baby. James and Mary had a son – James Francis Edward Stuart. The heir to the throne was now Catholic. Protestants of the Three Kingdoms could look forward to rule, in perpetuity, by a monarch who did not share their religion.

The King was of course overjoyed ordered special thanksgiving and celebrations. The defined service included a prayer thanking God for protecting King James

From the dangers of war, from the rage of the sea and from the madness of the people

Spoke a bit soon on that one, to be fair. There was a massive fireworks display from the barges of the Thames, costing £25,000  – £3m in today’s money. Whether most people celebrated or not is more doubtful; in Edinburgh extra troops were posted just in case, and few of the nobility went along to the official service. Maidservants asked to bring wood for celebratory bonfires were said to have refused saying

There was no reason of joy

Within a few weeks, church of Scotland ministers had replaced prayers for the prince with prayers to protect against Popery and Arbitrary Rule[8].

Princess Anne had made sure she was away well before the Queen was confined – her normal destination was the spa at Tunbridge Well, but this time she headed for Bath so it was harder to be brought back. And she indulged in all the rumour mongering she could about the baby’s real mother; she wrote to sister Mary

tis possible it may be her child; but where one believes it, a thousand do not

The rumours were rife – a particular favourite would be the Warming Pan scandal – the idea that a baby had been smuggled up to the confinement chamber – and then presented as the royal child.

Watching all of this with horrified eyes from the Netherlands were William and Mary. Their worry would have been no news to anyone, it was very much a subject of speculation – Aphra Behn openly wrote

Methinks I hear the Belgic Lion roar

And lash his angry tail against the shore

Enraged to hear a Prince of Wales born

William’s situation in his fight to resist Louis had developed, some good news, some bad. The Expulsion of the Huguenots, and a trade war launched by the French had at least united the Dutch political scene, and States general and Stadholder were now fully aligned. The Spanish looked to the Dutch to help them keep the Spanish Netherlands out of Louis grasping mitts, and a new King in Prussia, William III, was more consistently anti French.

In Vienna, the Emperor Leopold was also free from the threat of the Ottomans after their defeat in 1683 outside the city walls. He shared Louis’ religion of course, and so might have been a potential ally for France; but the old Habsburg-French rivalry was as alive as ever. And more specifically Louis’ aggression was now focussed on Germany and the Rhineland, using the law to try and claim rights and gain possession of small princedoms and city states.

So there was great potential for William to build an alliance to contain France. But the bad news was that William now saw the hope of a stable and powerful Three Kingdoms joining that alliance going up in smoke. Or even the worse – the prospect of an Anglo French alliance As a result, his policy was hardening; Gilbert Burnet thought that as early as May 1688, in the chaos of the Second Indulgence, William had decided he must now physically intervene. The birth of James’ son was an additional blow; now his wife Mary Stuart was no longer next in line to inherit the throne. It was an additional spur.

From May, then, William had been building a potential invasion fleet, big enough to transport 15,000 troops[9]. It is very unlikely he had any thought at this stage of seizing the throne or any such; that would have been needlessly radical and anti monarchical. No, his aim was to bring the Three Kingdoms into line against France. To do that James’ policies must be stopped, an d reversed, and parliament’s influence restored; he would do whatever required to force James to hold a free election for parliament, since he fully expected that parliament to be virulently anti French. Because that’s the way we roll, until M Macron sent us the Bayeux Tapestry – now it’s all smiles.

William was already intervening, with hearts and minds stuff, propaganda;  such as Fagel’s open letter to the people which setting his out approach to religious toleration, courting both dissenters and Anglicans. He now had a substantial group of expat rebels around him in the Hague, Scots and English. His ambassador Zuylestein was sent to congratulate James on the birth of his son – but Zuylestein spoke with a forked tongue…his real job lay to work with a secret network of supporters, including Danby, Russell, Sidney, Compton, Cavendish and others. To make a plan.

On 15^th June, the Bishops had appeared at Westminster Hall from the Tower to hear the charges against them, accompanied by 21 noblemen, among them Cavendish, Halifax, and Danby. The prosecution’s case against them was that by publishing their petition, they were all guilty of sedition. They pleaded not guilty, and were granted bail.

They walked out of Westminster Hall into a frenzy. All the eyes of London were on them, again the streets rang with cheers, people fell to their knees as they walked, asking for their blessing. Bonfires were lit to celebrate their release; so fervid was the atmosphere, the Bishops didn’t dare move outside Lambeth Palace as they prepared for the big day. The big day of the trial was set for 29^th June.  Over the next few weeks, the Bishops would receive a stream of visitors and well-wishers eager to help prepare their case.

On the day of the trial Westminster Hall was a circus. Rammed with people inside and out – and the there was no doubt at all whose side they were on, and it didn’t wear a crown. As the august royal officials came in they were jostled and jeered despite all that stuff about status and dignity and all; James chief minister Sunderland was

Kicked on the breach

You can guess what a breach is I guess. As he cried out, another onlooker raised his fist to the all-powerful Secretary of State. When he appeared in the courtroom, he was greeted with cries from the gallery of

Kill the popish Dog

Which also seems unchristian. I might say by the by that 1688 is the year when the word ‘mob’ enters the English language, which is apparently a shortening of the Latin Mobile Vulgus, the fickle common people.

The Bishop of Chester turned up to have a look and support his king; Thomas Cartwright was James’ favourite Bishop, very supportive of his policies, and a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission. No one asked for his blessing – instead they yelled at him with accusation of a

Grasping Wolf in sheep’s attire

They also, I am horrified to say, indulged in fat shaming, he had a bit of a paunch shall we say, so there was general laughter when it was suggested

He had the Pope in his belly

None of this seems commensurate with the dignity of due legal process. I apologise on behalf of the great English public.

There had been a right old barney with Jury selection, in which the Defence seems to have done a decent job, successfully arguing to remove Catholics and most royal officials – though not quite all those subject to royal influence, as we shall see. Then the Prosecution started, the Solicitor general put the charges of sedition, conspiring to

Diminish regal authority, and royal prerogative, power and government

And their evidence was the publication of the petition. The Bishops’ defence was that they couldn’t be accused of diminishing the royal prerogative, since the royal in question didn’t have a legal right to the dispensing prerogative power anyway. Back and forth it went all day, until finally evidence and arguments were all heard, and the four judges each did their summing up. The Jury were sent to deliberate.

There passed time, and more time…and still no decision came. Eventually the jury were all locked up. Not in the Tower or anything – that was the gig then, quick decisions were encouraged, and so when locked up for the night they were left without food, or candles – and a general ‘get on with it’ command.

As it happens, most of the Jury were quickly decided in the Bishops favour. It was just two men holding everything up – Mr Done, a royal Macebearer, and one Michael Arnold. He resolutely insisted hour after hour that his conscience was not satisfied. If he held out, would a retrial be demanded? Could he persuade the others that they must bow to the royal command? Of course, Michael Arnold had another problem – he was the royal brewer.

Whatever I do, I am sure to be half ruined.

He wept.

If I say not guilty, I shall brew no more for the King, and if I say guilty, I shall brew no more for anybody else

The following morning at 10 am, the Jury filed in. The Clerk of the court addressed the foreman, one Sir Roger Langley – were the accused guilty or not guilty of sedition. Langley replied

Not Guilty

Outside, there was ‘shout of thunder’ at the news. Inside, the Earl of Halifax threw his hat in the air, everyone was shouting, and clapping. Out into Palace Yard they spilled, people on their knees again, bishops blessing left right and centre. The Jurymen were mobbed, hugged, hands shaked and congratulated, there were tears. As they went home, the noblemen who’d been there threw money out of their coaches, urging the people

To drink the health of the king, the Prelates and the Jury

You will not be surprised to hear there were church bells rang and hey! Who’da thunk it – bonfires. Ooh – and lest I forget – Pope burnings. Everywhere it was notable that Dissenters joined right in – this was a Protestant celebration, not simply an Anglican one –  letters would even be received from Scottish Presbyterians – who were as unfriendly to Bishops as is possible to imagine. As news rippled out from London it was accompanied by bells, bonfires and pope burnings across the country – Bedford, Bristol, Cambridge, Gloucester, Lichfield, Norwich, Oxford, Tamworth, Buckinghamshire, Leicestershire. A medal would be struck with seven bishops on one side, a Jesuit and monk on the other, digging at the Foundations of the church of England, with the words

The gates of hell shall not prevail against her

The king was at Hounslow Heath with his army at the time, preparing them for any disorder. As he reviewed a contingent, suddenly from the camp came wild shouts and huzzahs – the news of the acquittal had arrived. Slightly worrying for James that his very own army seemed to be celebrating his own humiliating defeat.

That evening, while he cursed and reflected on this massive PR disaster and on what action to take, a group of seven men had decided their very own course.

[1] Jackson, C: ‘Deviland’, p471

[2] Speck, W: ‘ONDB James II’

[3] Vallance, E: ‘The Glorious Revolution’, pp93-97

[4] Lincoln, M : ‘London and the 17^th Century’, p270

[5] Harris, T: ‘’Revolution’, p231

[6] Southcombe, George; Tapsell, Grant. Restoration Politics, Religion and Culture: Britain and Ireland, 1660-1714 (British History in Perspective) (p. 96). Bloomsbury Publishing.

[7] Gregg, E: ‘ODNB Anne’

[8] Harris, T: Revolution’, p368

[9] Claydon, A: ONDB William III’