How far did the reigns of William III and Mary resolve the tensions

There were fundamentally four tensions evident before, during and after the revolutions of 1688-9. These were firstly a backlash against James II's attempted reversion to Catholicism which seemingly combined all non-catholic elements of society against him. Secondly was the Whig-Tory rivalry and tension which had been developing since the exclusion crisis1 and was in a sense the font or conclusion of the majority of political conflict and tension in the period.Thirdly was the Court-Country tensions which had strong links with the Whig-Tory rivalry and argument but were more individual and were thus not wholly dependant on party inclination.

Fourthly was the Jacobitism which was far more dominant in the latter stages of the revolutions and afterwards. This essay will attempt to argue that the reigns of William III and Mary served to only eliminate the catholic threat whilst at best leaving the others intact, at worst exacerbating them through the increasing importance and dominance of Parliament.James II's Catholicism caused serious tensions within the contemporary Protestant society. Indeed Craig Rose has estimated that in 1688 only two percent of the country was sympathetic to Catholicism2. James's belief therefore that there was no need to impose Catholicism on his subjects but merely to remove the fear and expediency attached to the Church in Rome and huge numbers of people would flood back to 'the one true faith' seems totally unfounded.

Indeed shortly after his accession James ordered the release of Catholics who had been imprisoned for not attending Protestant church or for not taking oaths and even ordered the exchequer to pay their fines. He also encouraged Catholics to worship openly and promoted a number of Catholics to prominent civilian and military posts, which violated the 1673 Test Act which required all commissioned officers to take Anglican communion.This blatant attempt to introduce religious tolerance and in essence reverse the Protestant reformation in the three British Kingdoms3 caused great tensions between the monarchy and the Church of England, and also the monarch and the House of Commons. On 27th May 1685, only a week after Parliament had convened a grand committee of the House of Commons (comprising some 330 members) agreed to address the King calling for the enforcement of the laws against "all dissenters whatsoever from the Church of England" including Catholics.However in the face of opposition from the crown the Commons eventually drew back and rejected the committee's recommendation. In short James faced a concerted campaign of civil disobedience from his Anglican subjects, and the Church of England resisted him at every turn.

Force was not used - it remained anathema to the Church which prided itself generally on its loyalty to the crown. This resistance and civil disobedience formed the backbone of the tensions evident in the revolutions of 1688-9.In stark contrast to James II, the new monarch William III was a convinced Dutch Calvinist; who in previous state visits, had participated in the worship of the established church but in Holland had clearly resented the services in Mary's Anglican Chapel and had bullied and harassed her chaplains. Whilst on the surface he would thus seem, as a monarch, equally as unattractive to the Anglican church as a Catholic, William could not afford to do without the backing of the Church of England and was convinced by the earl of Nottingham in 1689 to seek an alliance with the church and to attempt the reconciliation of those disaffected elements.Thus whilst the tensions between the Church of England and the fear of Catholic influx from James had all but disappeared the tensions between the Church and the prominently Calvinist William continued throughout his reign. Roger Morrice writing at the time concluded that there was "no doubt to be made that the prince [William III] will preserve the Episcopacy and doctrine of the Church of England but he will not preserve the Tyranny, the Persecution nor the Debaucheries of the Church of England"4.

His analysis was sound enough. If William was to wage a war with France or indeed govern with any sort of domestic harmony, a settlement of the tensions between the Church and dissent needed to be reached. In essence therefore to argue that William and Mary successfully resolved the tensions present in contemporary religion would be to argue that a popular settlement was reached which satisfied all sides.Some of the more extreme Whigs in the convention pressed for the removal of the sacramental tests for office-holders as provided for under the Corporation Act and Test Acts.

However the repeal of these tests was opposed not only by the Tories but also by moderate and staunchly Anglican Whigs such as Lord Devonshire5. Something also had to be worked out to incorporate the non-conformists and dissenters given that they were promised "a due liberty of conscience" by the bishops before the revolution.Nottingham's scheme to broaden the basis of the national church by comprehending the more moderate dissenters, whilst conceding a very limited toleration to those who still remained outside would, he believed persuade many dissenters to join the Anglican church once they realised how easy it was to conform and not bear the inconveniences brought by dissent. The Toleration Bill therefore went through Parliament fairly quickly, being proposed by the Earl of Nottingham and backed by William and Mary, and agreed to as a necessary concession to the non-conformists.When comprehension came to be discussed and attempted to be dealt with, the High Anglican clergy proved unwilling to make the sort of concessions needed to comprehend the more moderate Dissenters, William's speech in the House of Lords proposing to abolish the Test and Corporation acts at around the same time as the two bills were being discussed made the passing of Nottingham's 'Comprehension Act' near impossible given that Anglican anger and alarm were difficult to even "keep within bounds"6.

The result therefore of William's grievously miscalculated speech was to make the Toleration bill, intended originally only to apply to those small numbers of intransigent non-conformists not included in the Comprehension bill, apply to nearly half a million "sober and respectable citizens"7. What was achieved therefore in the reigns of William and Mary was certainly not what Anglicans such as Nottingham wanted, the Toleration bill without the Comprehension bill, which in turn would encourage separatism and thereby undermine the whole integrity of the Church of England which it had been the aim of the Tories all along to protect8.Thus Bennett argues that during the first and middle years of William and Mary's reign there were still, despite efforts, tensions evident within the Church9. However these tensions were not as fundamental as the divisions and tensions between James II and the Church of England which were major factors in the precipitation of revolution in 1688. During the course of 1689 it became possible that there might be total rupture between William and the Church of England clergy, whereas before 1688 there had at least been the appearance of ecclesiastical unity throughout the three kingdoms.The reigns of William III and Mary therefore resolved some religious tensions whilst creating and increasing others.

The removal of the catholic threat embodied within a very tolerant monarch with the introduction of a Dutch Calvinist was a roughly equal swap. It was only the shrewd political intervention of the earl of Nottingham which staved off disaster and allowed William a degree of domestic religious quiescence after the revolutions of 1688-9. There is no doubt that the tension between the Whigs and the Tories throughout the period and beyond was a key element which William and Mary failed to resolve.The view that parliamentary politics between 1689 and 1714 revolved around the conflict of the Whig and Tory parties in both the House of Commons and outside is deeply rooted in the historiography of the period10. However whilst in the sphere of political conflict pride of place must be given to the Whig-Tory struggle, other elements on the political scene must be taken into account: the importance played by the monarch (not just William and Mary but also Anne), the persistence after 1689 of the conflict between Court and Country and also the extent of Jacobitism in the country.

These tensions are evident in the revolutions of 1688-1689 and evidently were not resolved (but not exacerbated) in the reigns of William III and Mary. Few Whigs had been under any illusions about the consequences of James II's ascension: since 1681 they had been pilloried and proscribed and many of their leaders driven into exile. But the Tories too were to have their shocks in the shape of James's crude attacks on property and settled institutions created a growing group of bewildered Tories and ex-Court politicians.However, whatever the differences between Whig and Tory and the conflict and tensions between them both were protestant and both were furiously anti-catholic and anti-French. Therefore when James II turned on the Church of England he shattered the remaining illusions of the Tories, made insignificant the divides between them and the Whigs and drove them into alliance11: "Whig and Tory was forgotten a year or two ago" wrote a contemporary observer, and only the distinction between Protestant and Papist made use of"12.One therefore returns to the religious tension and conflict between James's Catholicism and the vastly Protestant nation.

In this one sees that religious loyalty and belief was far superior to political and that even Whig/Tory differences were insignificant to the protection of their faith against a reversion to Catholicism. "Fear of popery has united: when that is over, we shall divide again" warned a Whig politician, Pollexfen, in the House of Commons on 29th January 168913.Indeed in some respects the reigns of William III and Mary after the revolution of 1688-9 heightened the Whig-Tory tensions. The continuing need for unprecedented sums of money for the war ensured that there would be regular annual parliaments (even though this was not mandatory), and given that Westminster was the great focus of, and stimulus to, the struggle of Whig and Tory, the tensions and struggle continued.Moreover later in his reign in 1694, when William was forced to accept the Triennial Bill, the constant certainty of regular general elections and the very short period of intermission between them "kept the country at large at, or very near boiling point politically for years on end"14. The chief reason for the perpetuation of party strife was the fact that politics continued to be dominated by issues which divided the members of the House of Commons along Whig/Tory lines.

The issue of dissent survived as a major source of conflict even with the contributions of the Toleration act and the good intentions of Nottingham (to introduce the Comprehension act as well) which were dashed by William's rash speech. The Whig 'low Church' criticism of High Anglican religious intolerance and their beliefs in liberty of conscience and religious toleration for all Protestants and the 'High Church' position generally held by the Tories is a classic example of this elemental and indelible party divide.The reigns of William III and Mary therefore can be seen to have failed to resolve the tensions between Whigs and Tories. Ironically it was only through James II and the resultant fear of popery that the two parties were united. With the introduction of regular annual parliaments and then the introduction of guaranteed triennial general elections, the parliamentary political scene held more tension than before.Thus whilst the Whig/Tory tensions evident in the revolutions of 1688-9 were combined efforts to remove the catholic threat posed by James, and therefore obviously with his departure this particular tension dissolved, the reigns of William and Mary served to increase the forum for political tension and did not come close to resolving the tensions inherent in the struggle between the Whigs and the Tories.

If the existence of a strong Whig-Tory structure, it must be remembered that political reality was never quite that simple.In the first place one can see that divisions both political and ideological existed within each of the parties. In the second place it is important to recognise that with time both parties underwent some degree of ideological transformation. This transformation represented a consistent outgrowth of existing Whig or Tory principles, but the fact that it occurred to a greater or lesser extent with different individuals helps to explain why such a broad spectrum of opinion existed within the two parties15. The most striking change that occurred was with regard to the parties' respective attitudes towards Court-Country issues.

Over time the Country platform became increasingly associated with the Tory party whilst the Whigs in turn essentially became a Court dominated party. It cannot be denied that Court-Country tensions did exist, yet is a testament to party loyalty that the Court, despite the resources of patronage and influence at its disposal, largely failed to establish itself as an independent interest16. The Country platform came to be supported largely by Tories for the simple reason that the logic of the anti-executive position as it developed in William's reign was essentially Tory.It was the war which had led to the great increase in government patronage and hence also the potential for Court influence, and this was, by and large a Whig war. Essentially therefore in one sense one can see the Court-Country tensions, in a simplified form, as another angle of the Whig-Tory tensions and dispute.

Although it was more a question of individual belief and situation essentially the majority of Whigs supported the Court and the majority of Tories the Country.During the reigns of William III and Mary the increase in the level of parliamentary debate consequently increased the tensions between Whig and Tory and thus essentially increased the tensions between Court and Country. In many respects the revolution and lack of redefinition of the Crown's powers in 1689 meant that the old conflict and tensions between Court and Country did not reach a satisfactory resolution under the reigns of William III and Mary. Jacobitism was mentioned earlier as a tension within society which the reigns of William and Mary failed to resolve.

It was a complex phenomenon and thus generalisations about its nature and significance are difficult to make or defend. There were various different types and whilst the paucity of the source material17 makes even the identification of Jacobites difficult it is obvious that it was a problem which increased in prominence and importance during the reigns of William and Mary. Many historians stress the importance of Stuart legitimism as being fundamental to Jacobitism and indeed this was a significant element both of the movement and the tensions it created.However Tim Harris argues that Jacobitism was far more potent as a negative force, as an "ideology of opposition", as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with various post-revolution developments, rather than as a positive commitment to a Stuart restoration18.

It became attractive to a number of groups in the 1690s including commonwealth Whigs, although at this time it had little support in society at large. It developed into a movement which was primarily Tory in nature and an attachment to Country ideology with a deep hostility to the Whigs and dissenters (and what they stood for), which was its main defining characteristic19.However most Tories, whatever the Whigs might say, were not Jacobites and could quite happily and genuinely remain Tories after the revolutions of 1688-9 without wishing to see James II or his heirs restored to the throne. However whilst it is obvious that party identity and membership did not constitute compulsory Jacobite sympathies or contempt (depending on whether one was a Tory or a Whig) it is also clear that much of the opinion of the Jacobites was divided along party lines.However regardless of this the Jacobite tensions were not resolved, and indeed by their very nature were exacerbated, by the reigns of William III and Mary. In essence therefore the tensions evident in the revolutions of 1688-9 were: firstly a backlash against James II's attempted reversion to Catholicism which seemingly combined all non-catholic elements of society against him.

Secondly was the Whig-Tory rivalry and tension which had been developing since the exclusion crisis20 and was in a sense the font or conclusion of the majority of political conflict and tension in the period.Thirdly was the Court-Country tensions which had strong links with the Whig-Tory rivalry and argument but were more individual and were thus not wholly dependant on party inclination. Fourthly was the Jacobitism which was far more dominant in the latter stages of the revolutions and afterwards. The reigns of William and Mary served to remove the threat of Catholicism by the flight of James which in turn increased the tension with Jacobitism.The increase in Parliamentary dominance and regularity inherently increased the tensions and conflict between the Whigs and the Tories which was then self-perpetuating due to the regularity of general elections and the annual calling of Parliament. The Court-Country tensions remained as the age-old problems still remained and were not resolved and Whig-Tory party loyalty was subsequently attached to each side and thus this issue too became embroiled in the general political tensions of the period.

In conclusion therefore the reigns of William III and Mary served to resolve very few of the fundamental tensions within contemporary society. The accession of a non-catholic monarch eliminated the most obvious tension of the 1688-9 revolutions that of a fear of catholic influx, however this was not due to the abilities of William or Mary merely the unsuitability of James II as a British monarch.The Whig-Tory tensions which were put aside during the revolutions to offer a united front against Catholicism re-emerged and were just as, if not more, vigorous than before. Therefore the reigns of William and Mary did not resolve the fundamental tensions in society, that of religious rifts, dissent, political tensions between Whigs and Tories, Court and Country and the Jacobites, merely eliminated the Catholic threat.