Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:59:24.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Seven Bishops: A Reconsideration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

G. V. Bennett
G. V. Bennett*
Affiliation:
New CollegeOxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For Lord Macaulay the defiance offered by the seven bishops to James II marked a turning-point in English history. It was the story of men who would not stand by as a ‘harsh and inexorable prince’ destroyed constitutional liberties, established a military despotism, and imposed Catholicism by force. The great whig historian was not much given to praise of the clergy in general or bishops in particular, but even he could not withhold his admiration from an archbishop of Canterbury ‘who was ready to wear fetters and lay his aged limbs on bare stones rather than betray the interests of the Protestant religion and set the prerogative above the laws.’ Macaulay’s account of the seven bishops is, however, closely bound up with his view of James II as one of the great villains of English history, and recent historians, while enjoying the rich texture of Macaulay’s prose, find it difficult to accept the version of classical whig historiography. In their work James appears as not so much a tyrant as a peculiarly maladroit politician, not so much an absolutist with wide-ranging ambitions as an obstinate man of narrow religious perspectives. His little army was quite incapable of imposing Catholicism by force on a fiercely protestant nation. James’s aim was as simple as it was injudicious: to achieve civil emancipation for the small minority of his catholic co-religionists by a process of political manoeuvre and manipulation. Now, if this re-interpretation be correct, it is time to extend the process into ecclesiastical history and look afresh at the motives and policies of the seven bishops. I would suggest that what emerges is something quite different from the traditional heroic version but nonetheless an instructive study in the clerical mind of the late seventeenth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 15: Religious Motivation Biographical and Sociological Problems for the Church Historian , 1978 , pp. 267 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 T. B. Macaulay, History of England (Everyman cdn) 2, pp 172-3.

2 Jones, [J. R.], [The Revolution of 1688 in England] (London 1972)Google Scholar; and Miller, [John], [Popery and Politics in England, 1660-1688] (Cambridge 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See Lacey, [Douglas R.], [Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661-1680] (New Brunswick 1969) cap 7 Google Scholar.

4 See Pickavance, R. G., ‘The English Boroughs and the King’s Government: a study of the Tory Reaction, 1681-85’ (Oxford Univ DPhil thesis 1976)Google Scholar. Dr Pickavance argues that the re-modelling of boroughs was an attempt by local tories to control the corporation magistracies which had protected religious dissidents.

5 Curtis, T. C., ‘Some aspects of the history of crime in seventeenth-century England, with special reference to Cheshire and Middlesex’ (John Rylands univ library of Manchester, PhD thesis 1973) p 56 Google Scholar; Miller pp 191, 265, 267; Warwick County Records, 8: [Quarter Sessions Records, 1682-1690, ed Johnson, H. C.] (Warwick 1953) pp lxv Google Scholar, seq. The vast bulk of the cases, though initiated under Elizabethan recusancy statutes, were against protestant dissenters.

6 See Bodl[eian Library] MS Oxford diocesan papers b. 68, fols 9-10, for Fell’s careful summary of presentations at his visitation of 1682; and ibid c. 430, for a volume of incumbents’ replies in June and July 1682, giving accounts of dissenters in their parishes and measures taken to reduce them to conformity.

7 Bodl MS Tanner 35 fol 9, Lamplugh to Sancroft, 29 April 1682. See also Bodl MS Rawl D 372, for a volume containing the returns for Exeter diocese made to James II’s commissioners to enquire into property taken by destraint from dissenters between 1677 and 1688. An analysis shows 1682 and 1683 as the years when convictions were most frequent.

8 See Beddard, R. A., ‘William Sancroft, as Archbishop of Canterbury, 1677-1691’ (Oxford Univ DPhil thesis 1965) cap 5 Google Scholar: ‘The reform of the Church.’

9 Horwitz, H., ‘Protestant reconciliation in the Exclusion crisis’, JEH 15 (1964) pp 201-17Google Scholar. For Sancroft’s hostility to the Finch connection, see Bodl MS Tanner 36 fol 184, Nottingham to Sancroft, 2 December 1681. See also Bodl MS Rawl letters 99 fol 113, for bishop Francis Turner’s notes on the ‘Character of the Latitudinarian Spirit’, in which he refers particularly to Stillingfleet and the London clergy.

10 William Lloyd (1627-1717), bishop of St Asaph in 1680, had been closely concerned in the comprehension projects of 1680-1 but later recovered Sancroft’s good opinion by energetic action against dissent in his diocese. See Bodl MS Tanner 35 fols 151, 162, 190; Hart, A. Tindal, William Lloyd (London 1952) pp 48 Google Scholar seq.

11 Beddard, Robert, ‘The Commission for Ecclesiastical Promotions, 1681-84: an instrument of Tory reaction’, HJ 12 (1967) pp 11–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 For the early connections of Turner and Lake with both James and Sancroft, see ibid pp 23-3; for Ken’s early relations with James, see Plumptre, E. H., Thomas Ken (2 ed London 1890) 1, p 260 Google Scholar. John Lake had been nominated to the island-see of Sodor and Man in 1682 by the earl of Derby.

13 Bodl MS Tanner 35 fol 185, Alexander Burnet, archbishop of St Andrews, to Turner, 9 February 1683.

14 Ibid 36 fol 31, Turner to Sancroft, 2 June 1681.

15 Bodl MS Tanner 32 fol 37, Turner to Sancroft, 21 April 1684: he reports that he has moved the duke and the king that Lake should be given the bishopric of Bristol, and they have accepted the archbishop’s motion.

16 Bodl MS Rawl letters 94, fol 276, Dolben of York to Turner, 16 August 1684.

17 The London Gazette, no 2006 (5-9 February 1685).

18 Bodl MS Tanner 32 fol 214, for the text of the speech in Sancroft’s hand; ibid fol 227, Dolben to Sancroft, 23 February 1685, for evidence of the archbishop’s direction that the clergy should address with the local gentry.

19 Ellis, [Henry], [Original Letters] (1 ser, London 1824) 3, p 339 Google Scholar.

20 See Bodl MS Tanner 31 fol 289, White to Sancroft, 9 March 1686; The Camden Miscellany, 2 (1853): Trelawny Papers, ed W. D. Cooper, p 14: Trelawny to Sunderland, 21 May 1686. The orders were issued on 27 February to the civil courts and 18 April to the church courts.

21 Bodl MS Oxf dioc papers b 68, fols 1-8, for Fell’s careful summary of the churchwardens’ presentments. The sixteen popish recusants returned were not proceeded against in the diocesan court: see Bodl MS Archd papers Oxon c. 23, ‘joint-title’ acts, 1681-1686.

22 See Holmes, G., British Politics in the Age of Anne (London 1967) p 323 Google Scholar, for a description of the Trelawny interest, which included East and West Looe, Plymouth, Liskeard and (usually) Tregony and Lostwithiel. For Trelawny’s early connection with James, and his electioneering in 1679, see Collectanea Trelawmana, p 219, Peterborough to Trelawny, 16 Sept. 1679. I am grateful to Mr Francis T. Williams for allowing me to use these transcripts from papers once at Trelawne.

23 Trelawny Papers, p 16: Trelawny to Sunderland, 14 June 1686.

24 Bodl MS Tanner 31 fol 117, Lloyd of Peterborough to dean Simon Patrick, 20 June 1685.

25 HMC 12th Report, 9, Beaufort MSS, pp 89-90, James to the duke of Beaufort, 12 Feb. 1687: ‘What I intend ... is to have the two tests and penal laws repealed, that my Catholic subjects may be in the same condition the rest of my subjects are.’

26 Dr Williams’s Library, Morrice MSS, P fol 491, 7 November 1685, for the account in Roger Morrice’s ‘Entering Book’, 1677-91.

27 The Autobiography of Sir John Bramston, ed Bramston, T. W., CSer (1845) p 217 Google Scholar.

28 Ellis, (2 ser, 1827) 4, p 84: 5 January 1686. For sermons by Turner, Frampton and Ken, see The Diary of John Evelyn, ed de Beer, E. S. (Oxford 1955) 4, pp 499–504 Google Scholar.

29 PRO 31/3/164 (Baschet transcripts of ambassadors’ reports), Barrillon au Roi, 28 January/7 February 1686: ‘II connaît que le parti episcopal sera fort mal aisé à ramener en faveur des Catholiques: il voudra . . . tenter encore si la fermeté ne surmontera point les accoûtumer à souffrir la religion Catholique plutôt que d’être exposés à voir toutes les sectes différentes s’établir.’

30 Bodl MS Tanner 138 fol 53, Lloyd to Sancroft, 24 March 1686.

31 Bodl MS Tanner 31 fol 277, White to Sancroft, 1 March 1686; ibid 30 fol 45, 27 May; ibid fol 37, Lloyd of Norwich to Sancroft, 21 May; ibid fol 50, Trelawny to Sancroft, I June; ibid fol 63, Lake of Chichester to Sancroft, 18 June; ibid fol 104 Turner to Sancroft, 16 August.

32 Morrice MSS P fol 568, 17 July 1686: ‘The Spiritual Courts are open again, and they are very busy in receiving presentments, in issuing out citations and processes, etc., and injunctions are gone out from the Bps ... to all ministers in their dioceses strictly to enjoin and require all churchwardens to present those that come not to church, or that received not the sacrament the last Easter.’

33 Miller p 205, quoting GLC Archives, Middlesex section, MR/RC/9.

34 Monice MSS P fols 536, 547, 568, 572, 579, 609. For the especially harsh treatment of quakers at this time, see Vann, R. T., The Social Development of English Quakerism (Cambridge, Mass., 1969) p 92 Google Scholar.

35 Bodl MS Tanner 30 fol 37, Lloyd to Sancroft, 21 May 1686; The Rector’s Book, Clayworth, Notts, ed Gill, Henry and Guilford, E. L. (Nottingham 1910)Google Scholar.

36 Monice MSS P fols 602, 609-10; The Diary of John Evelyn, 4, p 519; Miller p 210.

37 Bodl MS Tanner 30 fol 92, Sancroft to James, 29 July 1686, giving his recommendation of Dr Robert South (‘who your Majesty mentioned’) and Dr James Jeffreys for the vacant bishoprics. See also ibid 31 fols 166-75, for a diatribe from Parker, addressed to the king, abusing Sancroft for obstructing his promotion, circa July 1685. For the clandestine manner of Cartwright’s appointment by the king and his subsequent career as an agent of royal policies, see The Diary of Dr Thomas Cartwright, Bishop of Chester, CSer (1843).

38 Morrice MSS P fol 615. On 2 August Sir John Baber, a court agent, told Morrice that ‘the Court was in great distress, finding the Church restive and uncompliant, and had therefore taken a great displeasure against it, and it should be made to feel the effects of it’: ibid fol 594.

39 Warwick County Records, 8, pp 198-207; Worcestershire R[ecord] 0[fficc] ‘Quarter Sessions Book, 1686, no 3’.

40 Canterbury Diocesan RO, ‘Consistory: Office Book, 1675-98’, fol 154; West Sussex RO, ‘Chichester Consistory Detection Book, 1682-1692’. In the Worcester consistory court, however, the last process for not receiving the sacrament was on 7 November 1685: Worcestershire RO, ‘Consistory Detecta Act Book 33’, fol 86. I am grateful to the Revd Evan Davies for these references.

41 Bodl MS Tanner 29 fol 11, Lloyd to Sancroft, 29 April 1687. For the sudden increase of dissenting activity, see Morrice MSS Q, fol 96, 16 April; Diary of John Evelyn, 4, p 546; Bodl MS Tanner 29 fol 47, Trelawny to Sancroft, 1 July. For James’s doubts about the wisdom of his own policies, see PRO 31/3/168, Barrillon au Roi, 24 March/3 April 1687: ‘Je crois que, dans le fonds, si on ne pouvait laisser que la religion Anglicane et la Catholique établies par les lois, le roi d’Angleterre en serait bien plus content.’

42 See Jones, J. R., The Revolution of 1688 in England (London 1972)Google Scholar for an excellent analysis of the campaign to pack parliament.

43 The Diary of John Evelyn, 4, pp 577-8: 1 April 1688.

44 [The] Correspondence of Henry Hyde, Earl of] Clarendon, ed Singer, S. W. (London 1828) 2 p 177 Google Scholar; Morrice MSS Q, fol 255; BL Add MSS 3451J, fols 67-8 (Mackintosh transcripts): James Johnston’s report of 27 May 1688.

45 [‘The Autobiography of Simon] Patrick’, in Works, ed Taylor, A. (London 1858) 9 p 510 Google Scholar; Morrice MSS Q fol 255.

46 “Clarendon Corr, 2 p 171; Bodl MS Tanner 28 fols 29-33.

47 See Thomas, [R.], [‘The Seven Bishops and their Petition, 18 May 1688’], JEH, 12 (1961) pp 64-5Google Scholar, for a comparison of this draft with the petition as presented. I regret that I cannot accept Dr Thomas’s general thesis which, by viewing the situation through the eyes of Roger Morrice and James Johnston, seriously underrates the role of the bishops and exaggerates that of the London clergy and the dissenters.

48 For the nonconformist reaction, see Lacey, pp 210-12. Morrice gives the draft as it was communicated to him by Dr Edward Fowler and which he describes as the ‘Comprehensive Sense of the Clergy’: Morrice MSS Q fol 259, 15 May.

49 Bodl MS Tanner 28 fol 34, for the corrected draft in Sancroft’s hand. For the clearest account, see ‘Patrick’, p 510.

50 See Ibid p 511, for the bishops’ report to Sancroft and for James’s special reproach to Turner. Bishop Compton did not sign the petition since he was under suspension.

51 See Bodl MS Tanner 28 fols 5-6, for a draft of’A Letter from a Clergyman in the Citty of London to his Friend in the Country containing his reasons for not reading the Declaration’. Within two hours of the bishops’ petition having been delivered what claimed to be a copy of it was hawked about the streets, and this has given rise to speculation as to who was responsible for such publication. In fact, what was printed was the earlier draft circulated among London clergy and dissenting ministers: see Thomas p 67.

52 Jones p 124. For the bishops’ deliberate earlier decision not to give recognizances, see Bodl MS Tanner 28 fol 60, Turner to Sancroft, ‘Friday morning’ [8 June 1688].

53 Clarendon Corr 2 p 179, 28 June 1688: ‘Lord Dartmouth had been with the Bishop of Ely, to persuade him to make application to the King; which got air, and was like to have been very inconvenient, had not the Bishop been very steady.’

54 For Turner’s notes on the trial and the popular manifestations, see Bodl MS Rawl letters 99, fols 107-8: ‘My heart bled for my Master in his Agony.’ See also Miller pp 251-2, for the general breakdown of government control in the localities.

55 Bodl MS Tanner 28 fol 121; see also Bodl MS Rawl letters 99 fol 108.

56 Bodl MS Tanner 28 fol 139, Trelawny to Sancroft [August 1688]; ibid fol 183, Lloyd to Sancroft, 26 September.

57 Bodl MS Rawl letters 99 fol 176, George Hickes to Turner, 3 September 1688.

58 Bodl MS Tanner 28 fol 170, Turner to Sancroft, 3 September 1688. For the clearest account of the consultations, see Beddard, Robert, ‘Observations of a London clergyman in the Revolution of 1688-9: being a excerpt from the Autobiography of Dr William Wake’, The Guildhall Miscellany, 2, 9 (1967) p 414 Google Scholar.

59 Clarendon Con 2 p 188: 22 September 1688. See ako BL Add MSS 34512 fol 101, for Van Citters’s dispatch of 21 September.

60 Clarendon Corr 2 p 190.

61 Bodl MS Tanner 28 fol 185, Turner to Sancroft, ‘seven at night’ [29 September 1688]: ‘Good My Lord, press for Expedition with some such kind expression as this that otherwise the Trap will be fallen upon us ere we are aware.’

62 Bodl MS Tanner 28 fols 187-8, for the version as delivered, and fol 189 for the archbishop’s much corrected draft.

63 See Turner’s later account for his belief that if James had accepted the bishops’ demands he would have created a loyalist party for himself in spite of the invasion: Bodl MS Rawl D 836 fol 87.

64 When on 3 January 1689 Tenison suggested that the terras of a comprehension should be prepared ‘in pursuance of the petition which the Seven Bishops had given to the King’, Sancroft replied ‘that when there was a convocation those matters would be considered of’: Clarendon Corr 2 p 240.

65 See Beddard, Robert, ‘The Guildhall Declaration of 11 December 1688 and the Counter-Revolution of the Loyalists’, HJ, 11 (1968) pp 403-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a letter bitterly critical of Sancroft’s ‘strange, obstinate passiveness’, see Bodl MS Rawl letters 99 fols 113-16, Turner to [Thomas Turner], 17 February 1689.