1D - Political developments and conflicts: Exclusion, its aims, methods and its failure
The Exclusion Crisis tried to prevent a Catholic king from inheriting the Crown, yet James II succeeded in 1685. Learn how the campaign failed and why James then lost the support which had defended his hereditary right, connecting religious aims with the methods of royal government.
Exclusion and the Catholic succession
Charles II had no legitimate surviving child, so his brother James, Duke of York, stood to inherit the Crown. James's Catholicism made this prospect alarming to many Protestants. A hereditary successor might use royal appointments, courts and military power to favour Catholics. The Popish Plot allegations of 1678 intensified the fear, although the alleged conspiracy was fabricated. Their political effect arose from belief in them and the atmosphere in which they circulated.
Exclusion meant a statutory attempt to prevent James from succeeding. It was more than a demand to dismiss an unpopular minister: it challenged the normal operation of hereditary right. Supporters argued that protection of Protestant religion and lawful government justified intervention. Opponents feared that altering succession would weaken monarchy and reopen the instability associated with civil war.
Shaftesbury became a leading organiser. Some supporters looked to Charles's illegitimate Protestant son, the Duke of Monmouth, while others favoured an alternative Protestant succession without agreeing on Monmouth. This diversity mattered. A coalition could agree that James was dangerous yet disagree over who should replace him or how far Parliament should determine the Crown. The opposition was powerful, but it did not possess a single uncontested solution.
The methods of Exclusion
The campaign operated through Parliament and public mobilisation. Three short Parliaments met in 1679, 1680 and 1681. Exclusion supporters used electoral organisation, petitions, pamphlets and anti-Catholic demonstrations to press their case. London provided important networks and an audience beyond the narrow electorate. The emerging Whig alignment could present itself as defending the Protestant nation against a dangerous Court.
In the Commons, supporters linked supply to satisfaction over the succession. This used the Crown's financial needs as leverage: a King needing taxation would have to negotiate. They also pursued Catholic suspects and challenged ministers. Yet an English bill required agreement from both Houses and the monarch. A Commons majority could not enact exclusion on its own.
Opponents mobilised around loyalty to Church and hereditary monarchy. Those called Tories argued that law and succession should be protected from aggressive parliamentary campaigns. Some preferred restrictions on a future Catholic king rather than exclusion. Halifax's resistance in the Lords was important in defeating the bill in November 1680. The disagreement was not simply Catholic against Protestant. Many anti-exclusion politicians were strongly Protestant and thought exclusion endangered the constitution they wanted to defend.
Why Exclusion failed
Charles refused to sacrifice his brother's hereditary claim. He dissolved the Oxford Parliament in March 1681 after only a brief sitting and summoned no further Parliament during his reign. Meeting at Oxford reduced the opposition's access to its London base, while dissolution stopped the immediate legislative pressure. Improving ordinary revenues and renewed French financial support helped Charles govern without parliamentary grants, weakening the opposition's financial weapon.
The Tory reaction then reduced Whig influence. The Crown attacked opponents through legal proceedings and altered local and borough government. The loss of the City of London's charter in 1683 and wider changes to corporations weakened Whig access to office, juries and electoral influence. Leading opponents were imprisoned, executed or driven into exile. The Rye House Plot revelations in 1683 associated opposition with violence and enabled attacks on figures beyond the plot's immediate participants.
Opposition weaknesses also mattered. Exclusionists depended on an alliance of religious, constitutional and personal interests. Fear of renewed civil conflict made some moderates recoil from their pressure. The failure therefore cannot be explained solely by clever royal tactics or solely by Whig mistakes. Charles's resources and powers made repression possible; loyalist support and opposition division made it politically sustainable.
James's peaceful accession in February 1685 is clear evidence that Exclusion failed in its immediate aim. But it does not prove that the succession was no longer controversial. The crisis had established powerful arguments, networks and distrust which could reappear if the new King threatened Protestant institutions.
James and the opportunity of 1685
James inherited a stronger royal position than the Exclusion campaign had suggested. The predominantly Tory Parliament of 1685 granted him substantial revenue. Many Anglicans accepted a Catholic ruler because they valued hereditary right and expected him to protect the Church and govern lawfully. James initially promised such protection. His Protestant daughters, Mary and Anne, also made his Catholic reign appear potentially temporary.
Monmouth's rebellion in England and Argyll's rising in Scotland in 1685 failed. Their defeat demonstrated the Crown's military strength and the weakness of immediate armed opposition. The harsh punishment following Monmouth's defeat, associated with the Bloody Assizes, spread fear. James enlarged his army and retained Catholic officers, arguing from the need for security.
This created a crucial change in the relationship with his supporters. A loyal Parliament could approve suppression of rebellion yet resist an enlarged standing army and Catholic appointments contrary to the Test laws. James refused to accept that distinction. He prorogued Parliament in November 1685 and it did not meet again in his reign. Confidence based on lawful kingship was being replaced by concern that the King intended to govern above the political and religious safeguards his supporters valued.
Royal power and Catholic restoration
James aimed to remove the disabilities faced by Catholics and to secure their place in public life. He also pursued stronger royal authority. Royal prerogative meant powers belonging to the monarch, including executive appointments and command of government. Absolutism describes government in which royal authority is not effectively restrained by representative institutions. James's attempts to enlarge prerogative and bypass parliamentary obstacles encouraged fears of absolutism; this does not mean he successfully established an unrestricted monarchy. His aims reinforced each other: laws restricting Catholics obstructed his religious policy, so overcoming them involved enlarging the practical reach of royal prerogative.
Distinguish dispensing with a law in a particular case from suspending its operation more generally. James issued dispensations allowing Catholics to hold offices despite the Test Acts. The judgement in Godden v Hales in 1686 upheld his dispensing power, but a favourable legal decision did not settle political legitimacy. Changing personnel in the judiciary increased suspicion that courts were being made instruments of policy.
The Ecclesiastical Commission established in 1686 gave the Crown a means of disciplining church institutions. Intervention at Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1687, where the fellows were displaced after resisting the King's candidate for the presidency, suggested that corporate rights were unsafe. Catholic appointments, public worship and institutions encouraged fear of a Catholic restoration. Such policies favoured a small religious minority while alienating the Church on whose support the monarchy had depended.
The Declarations of Indulgence in 1687 and 1688 suspended religious penalties for Catholics and dissenters. Relief was real for some recipients, and James sought support from Protestant nonconformists as well as Catholics. But a policy of toleration introduced through disputed prerogative could threaten the legal security of every group. It is possible to recognise the value of religious relief and still explain why its political method provoked resistance.
The loss of James's alliance
James tried to secure a Parliament willing to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts by reshaping local officeholding and questioning prospective supporters about repeal. This threatened both Anglican interests and the independence of the Political Nation. Replacing loyal officials because they refused religious policy revealed that defence of hereditary monarchy had not secured their position.
The order to read the renewed Indulgence in churches in 1688 brought the conflict to a climax. Seven bishops petitioned against compliance, arguing that the declaration relied on an unlawful power. Their prosecution and acquittal made passive, loyal churchmen visible opponents of the King. In June, the birth of a son to James's Catholic queen, Mary of Modena, raised the prospect of a lasting Catholic dynasty rather than eventual succession by Mary.
Consider the original practice interpretation: “James fell simply because he was Catholic.” His religion explains fears and the direction of his policies, but not why a Tory Parliament initially supported him or why former loyalists later deserted him. The change requires examination of methods: appointments, disputed prerogative, intervention in institutions and the attack on bishops. Religion and arbitrary government were intertwined rather than competing, wholly separate causes.
Exclusion failed because Charles retained resources, institutional powers and loyalist support. James then endangered that support by pursuing Catholic relief through methods which threatened Anglican institutions and lawful government.