History of Civilization in England, Vol. 1 of 3

by Henry Thomas Buckle

[686] The Toleration Act was passed in 1689. A copy of it is given by the historians of the dissenters, who call it their Magna Charta. See Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters, vol. i. pp. 187–198. The historian of the Catholics equally allows that the reign of William III. is ‘the era from which their enjoyment of religious toleration may be dated.’ Butler's Memoirs of the Catholics, vol. iii. pp. 122, 139. This is said by Mr. Butler in regard, not to the Protestant dissenters, but to the Catholics; so that we have the admission of both parties as to the importance of this epoch. Even the shameful act forced upon William in 1700 was, as Mr. Hallam truly says, evaded in its worst provisions. Const. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 332, 333.

[687] Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iv. pp. 102, 355, and his Chief-Justices, vol. ii. pp. 95, 116, 118, 136, 142, 143. See also Barrington's Observations on the Statutes, pp. 23, 102, 558; and even Alison's Hist. of Europe, vol. i. p. 236, vol. ix. p. 243; an unwary concession from such an enemy to popular liberty.

[688] This was effected before the end of the seventeenth century. See Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iv. pp. 121, 122. Compare Lord Camden on Literary Property, in Parl. Hist. vol. xvii. p. 994; Hunt's History of Newspapers, vol. i. pp. 161, 162; Somers Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 555; and a more detailed account in Macaulay's Hist. of England, vol. iv. pp. 348 seq. 540 seq.; though Mr. Macaulay in ascribing, p. 353, so much to the influence of Blount, has not, I think, sufficiently dwelt on the operation of larger and more general causes.

[689] Mr. Cooke (Hist. of Party, vol. ii. pp. 5, 148) notices this remarkable rise of the monied classes early in the eighteenth century; but he merely observes, that the consequence was to strengthen the Whig party. Though this is undoubtedly true, the ultimate results, as I shall hereafter point out, were far more important than any political or even economical consequences. It was not till 1694 that the Bank of England was established; and this great institution at first met with the warmest opposition from the admirers of old times, who thought it must be useless because their ancestors did without it. See the curious details in Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue, vol. iii. pp. 6–9; and on the connexion between it and the Whigs, see Macaulay's Hist. of England, vol. iv. p. 502. There is a short account of its origin and progress in Smith's Wealth of Nations, book ii. chap. ii. p. 130.

[690] Frequently misunderstood, even by those who praise it. Thus, for instance, a living writer informs us that, ‘great as have been the obligations which England owes, in many different views, to the Revolution, it is beyond all question the greatest, that it brought in a sovereign instructed in the art of overcoming the ignorant impatience of taxation which is the invariable characteristic of free communities; and thus gave it a government capable of turning to the best account the activity and energy of its inhabitants, at the same time that it had the means given it of maintaining their independence.’ Alison's Hist. of Europe, vol. vii. p. 5. This, I should suppose, is the most eccentric eulogy ever passed on William III.

[691] On their sudden repentance, and on the causes of it, see Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. v. p. 71.

[692] Mackintosh's Revolution of 1688, pp. 81, 191. After the death of Archbishop Dolben, ‘the see was kept vacant for more than two years,’ and Cartwright hoped to obtain it. See Cartwright's Diary, by Hunter, 4to, 1843, p. 45. In the same way, we find from a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Clarendon Corresp. vol. i. p. 409) that in May 1686 uneasiness was felt because the Irish bishoprics were not filled up. Compare Burnet, vol. iii. p. 103. Carwithen (Hist. of the Ch. of England, vol. ii. p. 492) says, that James had intended to raise the Jesuit Petre to the archbishopric.

[693] Lamplugh was translated from the bishopric of Exeter to the archbishopric of York in November 1688. See the contemporary account in the Ellis Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 303, and Ellis's Original Letters, second series, vol. iv. p. 151. He was a most orthodox man; and not only hated the dissenters, but showed his zeal by persecuting them. Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. i. pp. 94, 95. Compare an anecdote of him in Baxter's Life of Himself, folio, 1696, part iii. pp. 178, 179.

[694] In a letter, dated London, 29th September 1688 (Ellis, Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 224, and Ellis's Orig. Letters, second series, vol. iv. p. 128), it is stated, that the Bishop of London's ‘suspension is taken off.’ See also Somers Tracts, vol. ix. p. 215. This is the more observable, because, according to Johnstone, there was an intention, in December 1687, of depriving him. Mackintosh's Revolution, pp. 211, 212.

[695] This disposition on the part of the king again to favour the bishops and the church became a matter of common remark in September 1688. See Ellis Correspond. vol. ii. pp. 201, 202, 209, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227; Clarendon Correspond. vol. ii. pp. 188, 192. Sir John Reresby, who was then in London, writes, in October 1688, that James ‘begins again to court the Church of England.’ Reresby's Memoirs, p. 357. Indeed, the difficulties of James were now becoming so great, that he had hardly any choice.