Glorious Revolution

Despite his Catholicism, James became king in 1685 with widespread support, as demonstrated by the rapid defeat of the Argyll and Monmouth Rebellions; less than four years later, he was forced into exile.[7] Often seen as an exclusively English event, modern historians argue James failed to appreciate the extent to which Royal power relied at the local level on the Landed gentry, and the loss of that support fatally damaged his regime. The vast majority of the gentry in England and Scotland were Protestant, while even in largely Catholic Ireland a disproportionate number were members of the Protestant Church of Ireland. Although willing to accept James' personal religious beliefs, his backers did so only so long as he maintained the primacy of the Protestant Church of England and Church of Scotland. When his policies appeared to undermine the existing political and religious order, the result was to alienate his English and Scottish supporters and destabilise Ireland.[8]

James II & VII, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, by Sir Godfrey Kneller. National Portrait Gallery, London

Stuart political ideology derived from James VI and I, who in 1603 had created a vision of a centralised state, run by a monarch whose authority came from God, and where the function of Parliament was simply to obey.[9] Disputes over the relationship between king and Parliament led to the War of the Three Kingdoms and continued after the 1660 Stuart Restoration. Charles II came to rely on the Royal Prerogative since measures passed in this way could be withdrawn when he decided, rather than Parliament. However, it could not be used for major legislation or taxation.[10]

Concern that James intended to create an absolute monarchy led to the 1679 to 1681 Exclusion Crisis, dividing the English political class into those who wanted to 'exclude' him from the throne, mostly Whigs, and their opponents, mostly Tories. However, in 1685 many Whigs feared the consequences of bypassing the 'natural heir', while Tories were often strongly anti-Catholic and their support assumed the continued primacy of the Church of England. Most importantly, it was seen as a short-term issue; James was 52, his marriage to Mary of Modena remained childless after 11 years, and the heirs were his Protestant daughters, Mary and Anne.[11]

There was much greater sympathy in Scotland for a 'Stuart heir', and the 1681 Succession Act confirmed the duty of all to support him, 'regardless of religion.'[12] Over 95 percent of Scots belonged to the national church or kirk; even other Protestant sects were banned, and by 1680, Catholics were a tiny minority confined to parts of the aristocracy and the remote Highlands.[13] Episcopalians had regained control of the kirk in 1660, leading to a series of Presbyterian uprisings, but memories of the bitter religious conflicts of the Civil War period meant the majority preferred stability.[14]

In England and Scotland, most of those who backed James in 1685 wanted to retain existing political and religious arrangements, but this was not the case in Ireland. While he was guaranteed support from the Catholic majority, James was also popular among Irish Protestants, since the Church of Ireland depended on Royal support for its survival, while Ulster was dominated by Presbyterians who supported his tolerance policies. However, religion was only one factor; of equal concern for Catholics were laws barring them from serving in the military or holding public office, and land reform. In 1600, 90% of Irish land was owned by Catholics but following a series of confiscation during the 17th century, this had dropped to 22% in 1685. Catholic and Protestant merchants in Dublin and elsewhere objected to commercial restrictions placing them at a disadvantage to their English competitors.[15]

The political background in England

James's attempts to allow tolerance for English Catholics coincided with the October 1685 Edict of Fontainebleau revoking it for Huguenots

While James's supporters viewed hereditary succession as more important than his personal Catholicism, they opposed his policies of 'Tolerance' under which Catholics would be allowed to hold public office and engage in public life. Opposition was led by devout Anglicans[16] who argued that the measures he proposed were incompatible with the oath he had sworn as king to uphold the supremacy of the Church of England. In an age when oaths were seen as fundamental to a stable society, by demanding that Parliament approve his measures James was seen not only to be breaking his own word but requiring others to do the same. Parliament refused to comply, despite being "the most Loyal Parliament a Stuart ever had".[17]

Although historians generally accept James wished to promote Catholicism, not establish an Absolute monarchy, his stubborn and inflexible reaction to opposition had the same result. When the English and Scottish Parliaments refused to repeal the 1678 and 1681 Test Acts, he suspended them in November 1685 and ruled by decree. Attempts to form a 'King's party' of Catholics, English Dissenters and dissident Scottish Presbyterians was politically short-sighted, since it rewarded those who joined the 1685 rebellions and undermined his supporters.[18]

Demanding tolerance for Catholics was also badly timed. In October 1685 Louis XIV of France issued the Edict of Fontainebleau revoking the 1598 Edict of Nantes which had given French Protestants the right to practise their religion; over the next four years, an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 went into exile, 40,000 of whom settled in London.[19] Combined with Louis' expansionist policies and the killing of 2,000 Vaudois Protestants in 1686, it led to fears Protestant Europe was threatened by a Catholic counter-reformation.[20] These concerns were reinforced by events in Ireland; the Lord Deputy, the Earl of Tyrconnell, wanted to create a Catholic establishment able to survive James's death, which meant replacing Protestant officials at a pace that was inherently destabilising.[21]

Timeline of events: 1686 to 1688

The Seven Bishops prosecuted for seditious libel in 1688

The majority of those who backed James in 1685 did so because they wanted stability and the rule of law, qualities frequently undermined by his actions. After suspending Parliament in November 1685, he sought to rule by decree; although the principle was not disputed, the widening of its scope caused considerable concern, particularly when judges who disagreed with its application were dismissed.[22] He then alienated many by perceived attacks on the established church; Henry Compton, Bishop of London, was suspended for refusing to ban John Sharp from preaching after he gave an anti-Catholic sermon.[23]

He often made things worse by political clumsiness; to general fury, the Ecclesiastical Commission of 1686 established to discipline the Church of England included suspected Catholics like the Earl of Huntingdon.[24] This was combined with an inability to accept opposition; in April 1687, he ordered Magdalen College, Oxford, to elect a Catholic sympathiser named Anthony Farmer as president, but as he was ineligible under the college statutes, the fellows elected John Hough instead. Both Farmer and Hough withdrew in favour of another candidate selected by James, who then demanded the fellows personally apologise on their knees for 'defying' him; when they refused, they were replaced by Catholics.[25]

Attempts to create an alternative 'Kings Party' were never likely to succeed, for English Catholics were only 1.1% of the population and Nonconformists 4.4%.[26] Both groups were divided; since private worship was generally tolerated, Catholic moderates feared greater visibility would provoke a backlash. Among Nonconformists, while Quakers and Congregationalists supported repeal of the Test Acts, the majority wanted to amend the 1662 Act of Uniformity and be allowed back into the Church of England.[27] When James ensured the election of the Presbyterian Sir John Shorter as Lord Mayor of London in 1687, he insisted on complying with the Test Act, reportedly because of a 'distrust of the King's favour...thus encouraging that which His Majesties whole Endeavours were intended to disannull.'[28]

James Francis Edward Stuart, circa 1703; his birth created the possibility of a Catholic dynasty

To ensure a compliant Parliament, James required potential MPs to be approved by their local Lord Lieutenant; eligibility for both offices required positive answers in writing to the 'Three Questions', one being a commitment to repeal of the Test Act.[29] In addition, local government and town corporations were purged to create an obedient electoral machine, further alienating the county gentry who had formed the majority of those who backed James in 1685.[30] On 24 August 1688, writs were issued for a general election.[31]

The expansion of the military caused great concern, particularly in England and Scotland, where memories of the Civil War left huge resistance to standing armies.[32] In Ireland, Talbot replaced Protestant officers with Catholics; James did the same in England, while basing the troops at Hounslow appeared a deliberate attempt to overawe Parliament.[33] In April 1688, he ordered his Declaration of Indulgence (an indulgence suspending all laws punishing protestants who rejected the Church of England) read in every church; when the Archbishop of Canterbury and six other bishops refused, they were charged with seditious libel and confined in the Tower of London. Two events turned dissent into a crisis; the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart on 10 June created the prospect of a Catholic dynasty, while the acquittal of the Seven Bishops on 30 June destroyed James's political authority.[34]

The Dutch were concerned by their vulnerable eastern border; in 1672, an alliance with the Electorate of Cologne allowed France to nearly over-run the Republic.

William's key strategic purpose was creating a defensive coalition that would block further French expansion in Europe, an objective not shared by the majority of his English supporters. In 1672, an alliance with the Electorate of Cologne had enabled France to bypass Dutch forward defences and nearly over-run the Republic, so ensuring an anti-French ruler was vital to prevent a repetition. As an ecclesiastical principality of the Holy Roman Empire, Cologne's ruler was nominated by Pope Innocent XI, in conjunction with Emperor Leopold I.[54] Both Louis and James were in dispute with Innocent over the right to appoint Catholic bishops and clergy; when the old Elector died in June 1688, Innocent and Leopold ignored the French candidate in favour of Joseph Clemens of Bavaria.[55]

After 1678, France continued its expansion into the Rhineland, including the 1683 to 1684 War of the Reunions, additional territorial demands in the Palatinate, and construction of forts at Landau and Traben-Trarbach.[56] This presented an existential threat to Habsburg dominance, guaranteeing Leopold's support for the Dutch, and negating French attempts to build German alliances.[57] William's envoy Johann von Görtz assured Leopold English Catholics would not be persecuted and intervention was to elect a free Parliament, not depose James, a convenient fiction that allowed him to remain neutral.[58]

Although his English supporters considered a token force sufficient, William assembled 260 transport ships and 15,000 men, nearly half the 30,000 strong Dutch States Army. With France on the verge of war, their absence was of great concern to the States General and Bentinck hired 13,616 German mercenaries to man Dutch border fortresses, freeing elite units like the Scots Brigade for use in England.[59] The increase could be presented as a limited precaution against French aggression, as the Dutch would typically double or triple their army strength in wartime; William instructed his experienced deputy Schomberg to prepare for a campaign in Germany.[60]

Dutch herring fleet; French tariffs on this lucrative trade helped William build domestic support for military intervention

At the beginning of September, an invasion remained in the balance, with the States General fearing a French attack via Flanders while their army was in England. However, the surrender of Belgrade on 6 September seemed to presage an Ottoman collapse and release Austrian resources for use in Germany. Hoping to act before Leopold could respond and relieve pressure on the Ottomans, Louis attacked Philippsburg. With France now committed in Germany, this greatly reduced the threat to the Dutch.[61]

Instead, Louis attempted to intimidate the States General, and on 9 September, his envoy D'Avaux handed them two letters. The first warned an attack on James meant war with France, the second any interference with French operations in Germany would end with the destruction of the Dutch state.[62] Both misfired; convinced Louis was trying to drag him into war, James told the Dutch there was no secret Anglo-French alliance against them, although his denials only increased their suspicions. By confirming France's primary objective was the Rhineland, the second allowed William to move troops from the eastern border to the coast, even though most of the new mercenaries had yet to arrive.[63]

On 22 September, the French seized over 100 Dutch ships, many owned by Amsterdam merchants; in response, on 26 September the Amsterdam City Council agreed to back William.[64] This was a significant decision since the Council dominated the States of Holland, the most powerful political body in the Dutch Republic which contributed nearly 60% of its budget. French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on 29th, William argued for a pre-emptive strike, as Louis and James would "attempt to bring this state to its ultimate ruin and subjugation, as soon as they find the occasion". This was accepted by the States, with the objective left deliberately vague, other than making the English "King and Nation live in a good relation, and useful to their friends and allies, and especially to this State".[65]

Following their approval, the Amsterdam financial market raised a loan of four million guilders in only three days, with further financing coming from various sources, including two million guilders from the banker Francisco Lopes Suasso.[66] [lower-alpha 3] The biggest concern for Holland was the potential impact on the Dutch economy and politics of William becoming ruler of England; the claim he had no intention of "removing the King from the throne" was not believed. These fears were arguably justified; William's access to English resources permanently diminished Amsterdam's power within the Republic and its status as the world's leading commercial and financial centre.[68]

Admiral Dartmouth, who spent more time on monitoring his disaffected captains than operational planning

Neither James nor Sunderland trusted Louis, correctly suspecting that his support would continue only so long as it coincided with French interests, while Mary of Modena claimed his warnings were simply an attempt to drag England into an unwanted alliance.[69] As a former naval commander, James appreciated the difficulties of a successful invasion, even in good weather, and as they moved into autumn the likelihood seemed to diminish. With the Dutch on the verge of war with France, he did not believe the States General would allow William to make the attempt; if they did, his army and navy were strong enough to defeat it.[70]

Reasonable in theory, his reliance on the loyalty and efficiency of the military proved deeply flawed. Both the army and the navy remained overwhelmingly Protestant and anti-Catholic; in July, only personal intervention by James prevented a naval mutiny when a Catholic captain held Mass on his ship. The transfer of 2,500 Catholics from the Royal Irish Army to England in September led to clashes with Protestant troops, some of his most reliable units refused to obey orders, and many of their officers resigned.[71]

When James demanded the repatriation of all six regiments of the Scots Brigade in January 1688,[72] William refused but used the opportunity to purge those considered unreliable, a total of 104 officers and 44 soldiers.[73] Some may have been Williamite agents, such as Colonel Belasyse, a Protestant with over 15 years of service who returned to his family estates in Yorkshire and made contact with Danby. The promotion of Catholic former Brigade officers like Thomas Buchan and Alexander Cannon to command positions led to the formation of the Association of Protestant Officers, which included senior veterans like Charles Trelawny, Churchill and Percy Kirke.[74]

On 14 August, Churchill offered their support to William, helping convince him it was safe to risk an invasion; although James was aware of the conspiracy, he took no action.[75] One reason may have been fears over the impact on the army; with a notional strength of 34,000, it looked impressive on paper but morale was brittle while many were untrained or lacked weapons. It also had to fill policing roles previously delegated to the militia, which had been deliberately allowed to decay; most of the 4,000 regular troops brought from Scotland in October had to be stationed in London to keep order. In October, attempts were made to restore the militia but many members were reportedly so angry at the changes made to local corporations, James was advised it was better not to raise them.[76]

Lord Danby; one of the Immortal Seven and William's agent in Northern England

Widespread discontent and growing hostility to the Stuart regime was particularly apparent in North-East and South-West England, the two landing places identified by William. A Tory whose brother Jonathan was one of the Seven Bishops, Trelawny's commitment confirmed support from a powerful and well-connected West Country bloc, allowing access to the ports of Plymouth and Torbay. In the north, a force organised by Belasyse and Danby prepared to seize York, its most important city, and Hull, its largest port.[77]

Herbert had been replaced by Dartmouth as commander of the fleet when he defected in June but many captains owed him their appointments and were of doubtful loyalty. Dartmouth suspected Berkeley and Grafton of plotting to overthrow him; to monitor them, he placed their ships next to his and minimised contact between the other vessels to prevent conspiracy.[78] Lack of funds meant exclusive of fireships and light scouting vessels, only 16 warships available in early October, all third rates or fourth rates, short of both men and supplies.[79]

While The Downs was the best place to intercept a cross-Channel attack, it was also vulnerable to a surprise assault, even for ships fully manned and adequately provisioned. Instead, James placed his ships in a strong defensive position near Chatham Dockyard, believing the Dutch would seek to establish naval superiority before committing to a landing.[80] While this had been the original plan, winter storms meant conditions deteriorated rapidly for those on the transports; William therefore decided to sail in convoy and avoid battle.[81] The easterly winds that allowed the Dutch to cross prevented the Royal Navy leaving the Thames estuary and intervening.[80]

The English fleet was outnumbered 2:1, undermanned, short of supplies and in the wrong place. Key landing locations in the South-West and Yorkshire had been secured by sympathisers, while both army and navy were led by officers whose loyalty was questionable. Even early in 1686, foreign observers doubted the military would fight for James against a Protestant heir and William claimed only to be securing the inheritance of his wife Mary. While still a dangerous undertaking, the invasion was less risky than it seemed.[82]

Panicked by the prospect of invasion, James met with the bishops on 28 September, offering concessions; five days later they presented demands, which included restoring the religious position to that prevailing in February 1685, along with free elections for a new Parliament. Although they hoped this would allow James to remain king, in reality there was little chance of this, since at a minimum he would have to disinherit his son, enforce the Test Acts, and accept the supremacy of Parliament, all of which were unacceptable. In addition, by now his Whig opponents did not trust him to keep his promises, while Tories like Danby were too committed to William to escape punishment.[104]

Salisbury

Faversham

London

Torbay

Wincanton

Exeter

Portsmouth

Hungerford

Reading

Plymouth

Key locations November 1688

Although his veteran force had the capability of defeating the largely untested recruits of the Royal Army, William and his English supporters preferred to avoid bloodshed and allow the regime to collapse on its own. Landing in Torbay provided space and time for this, while heavy rainfall forced a slow advance regardless and to avoid alienating the local population by looting, his troops were well supplied and paid three months in advance. When he entered Exeter on 9 November in an elaborate procession,[lower-alpha 7] he publicly pronounced his objectives were securing the rights of his wife and a free Parliament; despite these precautions, there was little enthusiasm for either James or William and the general mood was one of confusion and distrust.[106] After Danby had the Declaration publicly read in York on 12 November, much of the northern gentry confirmed their backing and the document was widely distributed.[107]

On 19 November, James joined his main force of 19,000 at Salisbury, but it soon became apparent his army was not eager to fight and the loyalty of his commanders doubtful. Three regiments sent out on 15 November to make contact with William promptly defected, while supply problems left the rest short of food and ammunition. On 20 November, dragoons led by Irish Catholic Patrick Sarsfield clashed with Williamite scouts at Wincanton; along with a minor skirmish at Reading on 9 December, also featuring Sarsfield, these were the only substantial military actions of the campaign. After securing his rear by taking Plymouth on 18 November, William began his advance on 21 November, while Danby and Belasyse captured York and Hull several days later.[77]

James' commander Feversham and other senior officers advised retreat; lacking information on William's movements, unable to rely on his own soldiers, worn out by lack of sleep and debilitating nose-bleeds, on 23 November James agreed.[108] Next day Churchill, Grafton and Princess Anne's husband George deserted to William, followed by Anne herself on 26 November. The next day, James held a meeting at Whitehall Palace with those peers still in London; with the exception of Melfort, Perth and other Catholics, they urged him to issue writs for a Parliamentary election and negotiate with William.[109]

On 8 December, Halifax, Nottingham and Godolphin met with William at Hungerford to hear his demands, which included the dismissal of Catholics from public office and funding for his army. Many viewed these as a reasonable basis for a settlement but James decided to flee the country, convinced by Melfort and others that his life was threatened – a suggestion generally dismissed by historians. William made it clear he would not allow James to be harmed, most Tories wanted him to retain his throne, while the Whigs simply wanted to drive him out of the country by imposing conditions he would refuse.[104]

John Churchill, circa 1685; a close friend of James and uncle of his illegitimate son Berwick, his defection to William was a serious blow

The Queen and Prince of Wales left for France on 9 December, James following separately on 10 December.[110] Accompanied only by Sir Edward Hales and Ralph Sheldon, he made his way to Faversham in Kent seeking passage to France, first dropping the Great Seal in the Thames in a last-ditch attempt to prevent Parliament being summoned.[111] In London, his flight and rumours of a "Papist" invasion led to riots and destruction of Catholic property, which quickly spread throughout the country. To fill the power vacuum, the Earl of Rochester set up a temporary government including members of the Privy Council and City of London authorities, but it took them two days to restore order.[112]

When news arrived James had been captured in Faversham on 11 December by local fishermen, Lord Ailesbury, one of his personal attendants, was sent to escort him back to London; on entering the city on 16 December, he was welcomed by cheering crowds. By making it seem that James remained in control, Tory loyalists hoped for a settlement which would leave them in government; to create an appearance of normality, he heard Mass and presided over a meeting of the Privy Council.[113][lower-alpha 8] However, James made it clear to the French ambassador Paul Barillon that he still intended to escape to France, while his few remaining supporters viewed his flight as cowardice, and failure to ensure law and order criminally negligent.[114]

Happy to help him into exile, William recommended he relocate to Ham, largely because it was easy to escape from. James suggested Rochester instead, allegedly because his personal guard was there, in reality conveniently positioned for a ship to France. On 18 December, he left London with a Dutch escort as William entered, cheered by the same crowds who greeted his predecessor two days before.[115] On 22 December, Berwick arrived in Rochester with blank passports allowing them to leave England, while his guards were told that if James wanted to leave, "they should not prevent him, but allow him to gently slip through".[116] Although Ailesbury and others begged him to stay, he left for France on 23 December.[111]

William III and Mary II reigned jointly until her death in 1694, when William became sole monarch

James' departure significantly shifted the balance of power in favour of William, who took control of the provisional government on 28 December. Elections were held in early January for a Convention Parliament, which assembled on 22 January. The Whigs had a slight majority in the Commons and the Lords was dominated by the Tories, but both were led by moderates. Archbishop Sancroft and other Stuart loyalists wanted to preserve the line of succession; although they recognised keeping James on the throne was no longer possible, they preferred Mary either be appointed his regent or sole monarch.[117]

The next two weeks were spent debating how to resolve this issue, much to the annoyance of William, who needed a swift resolution; the situation in Ireland was rapidly deteriorating, while the French had over-run large parts of the Rhineland and were preparing to attack the Dutch.[118] At a meeting with Danby and Halifax on 3 February, he announced his intention to return home if the Convention did not appoint him joint monarch, while Mary let it be known she would only rule jointly with her husband. Faced with this ultimatum, on 6 February Parliament declared that in deserting his people James had abdicated and thus vacated the crown, which was therefore offered jointly to William and Mary.[119]

Historian Tim Harris argues the most radical act of the 1688 Revolution was breaking the succession and establishing the idea of a "contract" between ruler and people, a fundamental rebuttal of the Stuart ideology of divine right.[120] While this was a victory for the Whigs, other pieces of legislation were proposed by the Tories, often with moderate Whig support, designed to protect the Anglican establishment from being undermined by future monarchs, including the Calvinist William. The Declaration of Right was a tactical compromise, setting out where James had failed and establishing the rights of English citizens, without agreeing their cause or offering solutions. In December 1689, this was incorporated into the Bill of Rights[121]

The coronation of Willliam and Mary, Charles Rochussen

However, there were two areas that arguably broke new constitutional ground, both responses to what were viewed as specific abuses by James. First, the Declaration of Right made keeping a standing army without Parliamentary consent illegal, overturning the 1661 and 1662 Militia Acts and vesting control of the military in Parliament, not the Crown.[122] The second was the Coronation Oath Act 1688; the result of James' perceived failure to comply with that taken in 1685, it established obligations owed by the monarchy to the people. At their coronation on 11 April, William and Mary swore to "govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same". They were also to maintain the Protestant Reformed faith and "preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and its doctrine, worship, discipline and government as by law established".[123]

Scotland and Ireland

Parliament House, where the Convention of Estates met in March 1689

While Scotland was not involved in the landing, by November 1688 only a tiny minority supported James; many of those who accompanied William were Scots exiles, including Melville, the Argyll, his personal chaplain William Carstares and Gilbert Burnet.[124] News of James's flight led to celebrations and anti-Catholic riots in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Most members of the Scottish Privy Council went to London; on 7 January 1689, they asked William to take over government. Elections were held in March for a Scottish Convention, which was also a contest between Presbyterians and Episcopalians for control of the Kirk. While only 50 of the 125 delegates were classed as Episcopalian, they were hopeful of victory since William supported the retention of bishops.[125]

On 16 March a Letter from James was read out to the convention, demanding obedience and threatening punishment for non-compliance. Public anger at its tone meant some Episcopalians stopped attending the convention, claiming to fear for their safety and others changed sides.[126] The 1689–1691 Jacobite Rising forced William to make concessions to the Presbyterians, ended Episcopacy in Scotland and excluded a significant portion of the political class. Many later returned to the Kirk but Non-Juring Episcopalianism was the key determinant of Jacobite support in 1715 and 1745.[127]

The English Parliament held that James 'abandoned' his throne; the Convention argued that he 'forfeited' it by his actions, as listed in the Articles of Grievances.[128] On 11 April, the Convention ended James' reign and adopted the Articles of Grievances and the Claim of Right Act, making Parliament the primary legislative power in Scotland.[129] On 11 May, William and Mary accepted the Crown of Scotland; after their acceptance, the Claim and the Articles were read aloud, leading to an immediate debate over whether or not an endorsement of these documents was implicit in that acceptance.[130]

Under the 1542 Crown of Ireland Act, the English monarch was automatically king of Ireland as well. Tyrconnell had created a largely Roman Catholic army and administration which was reinforced in March 1689 when James landed in Ireland with French military support; it took the two years of fighting of the Williamite War in Ireland before the new regime controlled Ireland.

Though he had carefully avoided making it public, William's main motive in organising the expedition had been the opportunity to bring England into an alliance against France.[131] On 9 December 1688 he had already asked the States General to send a delegation of three to negotiate the conditions. On 18 February (Julian calendar) he asked the convention to support the Republic in its war against France; but it refused, only consenting to pay £600,000 for the continued presence of the Dutch army in England. On 9 March (Gregorian calendar) the States General responded to Louis's earlier declaration of war by declaring war on France in return. On 19 April (Julian calendar) the Dutch delegation signed a naval treaty with England. It stipulated that the combined Anglo-Dutch fleet would always be commanded by an Englishman, even when of lower rank; also it specified that the two parties would contribute in the ratio of five English vessels against three Dutch vessels, meaning in practice that the Dutch navy in the future would be smaller than the English. The Navigation Acts were not repealed. On 18 May the new Parliament allowed William to declare war on France. On 9 September 1689 (Gregorian calendar), William as King of England joined the League of Augsburg against France.

While the 1688 revolution was labeled "Glorious" by Protestant preachers two decades later,[133] its historiography is complex, and its assessment disputed. Thomas Macaulay's account of the Revolution in The History of England from the Accession of James the Second exemplifies the "Whig history" narrative of the Revolution as a largely consensual and bloodless triumph of English common sense, confirming and strengthening its institutions of tempered popular liberty and limited monarchy.[134] Edmund Burke set the tone for that interpretation when he proclaimed that:

The Revolution was made to preserve our ancient indisputable laws and liberties, and that ancient constitution of government which is our only security for law and liberty.[135]

An alternative narrative emphasizes William's successful foreign invasion from the Netherlands, and the size of the corresponding military operation. Several researchers have emphasized that aspect, particularly after the third centenary of the event in 1988.[136] The invasion story is unusual because the establishment of a constitutional monarchy (a de facto republic, see Coronation Oath Act 1688) and Bill of Rights meant that the apparently invading monarchs, legitimate heirs to the throne, were prepared to govern with the English Parliament. It is difficult to classify the entire proceedings of 1687–1689 but it can be seen that the events occurred in three parts: conspiracy, invasion by Dutch forces, and "Glorious Revolution".

It has been argued that the invasion aspect had been downplayed as a result of British pride and effective Dutch propaganda, trying to depict the course of events as a largely internal English affair.[137] As the invitation was initiated by figures who had little influence, the legacy of the Glorious Revolution has been described as a successful propaganda act by William to cover up and justify his invasion.[138] The claim that William was fighting for the Protestant cause in England was used to great effect to disguise the military, cultural and political impact that the Dutch regime had on England.

A third version, proposed by Steven Pincus, underplays the invasion aspect but unlike the Whig narrative views the Revolution as a divisive and violent event that involved all classes of the English population, not just the main aristocratic protagonists.[139] Pincus argues that his interpretation echoes the widely held view of the Revolution in its aftermath, starting with its revolutionary labelling. Pincus argues that it was momentous especially when looking at the alternative that James was trying to enact – a powerful centralised autocratic state, using French-style "state-building". England's role in Europe and the country's political economy in the 17th century rebuts the view of many late-20th-century historians that nothing revolutionary occurred during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89. Pincus says it was not a placid turn of events. In diplomacy and economics William III transformed the English state's ideology and policies. This occurred not because William III was an outsider who inflicted foreign notions on England but because foreign affairs and political economy were at the core of the English revolutionaries' agenda. The revolution of 1688–89 cannot be fathomed in isolation. It would have been inconceivable without the changes resulting from the events of the 1640s and 1650s. The ideas accompanying the Glorious Revolution were rooted in the mid-century upheavals. The 17th century was a century of revolution in England, deserving of the same scholarly attention that 'modern' revolutions attract.[139]

James II tried building a powerful militarised state on the mercantilist assumption that the world's wealth was necessarily finite and empires were created by taking land from other states. The East India Company was thus an ideal tool to create a vast new English imperial dominion by warring with the Dutch and the Mughal Empire in India. After 1689 came an alternative understanding of economics, which saw Britain as a commercial rather than an agrarian society. It led to the foundation of the Bank of England, the creation of Europe's first widely circulating credit currency and the commencement of the "Age of Projectors".[140] This subsequently gave weight to the view, advocated most famously by Adam Smith in 1776, that wealth was created by human endeavour and was thus potentially infinite.[141]

• Baker, Derek (2009). Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521101783.
• Bander, James (2014). Dutch Warships in the Age of Sail 1600 – 1714. Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1848321571.
• Baxter, Stephen B (1966). William III. Longmans. OCLC 415582287.
• Beddard, Robert (1988). A Kingdom without a King: The Journal of the Provisional Government in the Revolution of 1688. Phaidon. ISBN 978-0-7148-2500-7.
• Black, Jeremy (2016). A History of the British Isles. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137573612.
• Bosher, JF (February 1994). "The Franco-Catholic Danger, 1660–1715". History. 79 (255): 5–30. doi:10.1111/j.1468-229X.1994.tb01587.x. JSTOR 24421929.
• Burchett, Josiah (1703). Memoirs of transactions at sea, during the war with France, beginning in 1688 and ending in 1697. The Admiralty.
• Carpenter, Edward (1956). The Protestant Bishop. Being the Life of Henry Compton, 1632–1713. Bishop of London. London: Longmans, Green and Co. OCLC 1919768.
• Childs, John (1980). The Army, James II, and the Glorious Revolution. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-0688-3.
• Childs, John (1984). "The Scottish brigade in the service of the Dutch Republic, 1689 to 1782". Documentatieblad Werkgroep Achttiende Eeuw.
• Childs, John (1987). The British Army of William III, 1689-1702 (1990 ed.). Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0719025525.
• Claydon, Tony; Levillain, Charles-Édouard (2016). Louis XIV Outside In: Images of the Sun King Beyond France, 1661–1715. Routledge. ISBN 978-1317103240.
• Coffey, John (2013). "Chapter 4". In Pope, Robert (ed.). Church & State 1570–1750; the Emergence of Dissent in T&T Clark Companion to Nonconformity (2016 ed.). Bloomsbury T&T Clark. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-0567669933.
• Coward, Barry (1980). The Stuart Age: England 1603–1714 (1994 ed.). Longman. ISBN 978-0582067226.
• Dalrymple, John (1790). Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland; from the Dissolution of the last Parliament of Charles II till the Capture of the French and Spanish Fleets at Vigo. Strahan & Cadell.
• Davies, D. (1989). "James II, William of Orange and the admirals". In Cruickshanks, Eveline (ed.). By force or default? The revolution of 1688–1689. John Donald. ISBN 978-0-85976-279-3.
• Davies, JD (2004). "Legge, George, first Baron Dartmouth". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/16352. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
• De Krey, Gary S. (2008). "Between Revolutions: Re-appraising the Restoration in Britain". History Compass. 6 (3): 738–773. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2008.00520.x.
• Duffy, Christopher (1995). Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World 1494–1660. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415146494.;
• Engels, Friedrich (1997). "Introduction to Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". In Feuerbach, L.; Marx, K.; Engles, F. (eds.). German Socialist Philosophy. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-0748-1.
• Fagel, Gaspar (1688). A LETTER, Writ by Mijn Heer FAGEL, PENSIONER of HOLLAND, TO Mr. JAMES STEWART, Advocate; Giving an Account of the PRINCE and PRINCESS of ORANGE's Thoughts concerning the Repeal of the TEST, and the PENAL LAWS. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
• Field, Clive (2012). "Counting Religion in England and Wales: The Long Eighteenth Century, c. 1680–c. 1840" (PDF). The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 63 (4): 693–720. doi:10.1017/S0022046911002533.
• Glozier, Mathew (2000). "The Earl of Melfort, the Court Catholic Party and the Foundation of the Order of the Thistle, 1687". The Scottish Historical Review. 79 (208): 233–238. doi:10.3366/shr.2000.79.2.233. JSTOR 25530975.
• Goodlad, Graham (2007). "Before the Glorious Revolution: The Making of Absolute Monarchy?". History Review. 58.
• Hammersley, Rachel (2005). French Revolutionaries and English Republicans: The Cordeliers Club, 1790–1794. Royal Historical Society. ISBN 978-0861932733.
• Harris, Tim (2006). Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9759-0.
• Harris, Tim (1993). Politics under the later Stuarts. Longman. ISBN 0-582-04082-5.
• Harris, Tim; Taylor, Stephen, eds. (2015). The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1783270446.
• Harris, Tim (1999). "The People, the Law, and the Constitution in Scotland and England: A Comparative Approach to the Glorious Revolution". Journal of British Studies. 38 (1): 28–30. doi:10.1086/386180. S2CID 144374498.
• Hertzler, James R. (1987). "Who Dubbed It "The Glorious Revolution?"". Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. 19 (4): 579–585. doi:10.2307/4049475. JSTOR 4049475.
• Hoak, Dale (1996). Hoak, Dale; Feingold, Mordechai (eds.). The Anglo-Dutch revolution of 1688–89 in 'The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688–89'. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-2406-7.
• Holmes, Richard (2009). Marlborough; England's Fragile Genius. Harper Press. ISBN 978-0007225729.
• Holmes, Richard (2007). Wellington:The Iron Duke. Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0-00-713750-3.
• Horwitz, Henry (1977). Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-0661-6.
• Huygens, Constantijn (1881). Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, den zoon, gedurende de veldtochten der jaren 1688, Volume I. Kemink & Zoon.
• Israel, Jonathan; Parker, Geoffrey (1991). Israel, J.I. (ed.). Of Providence and Protestant Winds: the Spanish Armada of 1588 and the Dutch armada of 1688 in The Anglo-Dutch Moment; Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its world impact. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-39075-0.
• Israel, Jonathan I (2003). The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521544061.
• Israel, Jonathan (1989). The Dutch Republic and the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688/89 in England. Greenwich: Trustees National Maritime Museum. pp. 31–44. ISBN 9780948065033.
• Jackson, Claire (2003). Restoration Scotland, 1660-1690: Royalist Politics, Religion and Ideas. Boydell Press. ISBN 978-0851159300.
• Jardine, Lisa (2008). Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland's Glory. Harper. ISBN 978-0-00-719734-7.
• Jones, Clyve (1973), "The Protestant Wind of 1688: Myth and Reality", European Studies Review, 3 (3): 201–221, doi:10.1177/026569147300300301, S2CID 145465379
• Jones, J. R. (1988). The Revolution of 1688 in England. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-99569-2.
• Lynch, Michael (1992). Scotland: a New History. Pimlico Publishing. ISBN 0712698930.
• Macaulay, Thomas Babington (1889). The History of England from the Accession of James the Second. Popular Edition in Two Volumes. Vol. I. London: Longmans.
• Maer, Lucinda; Gay, Oonagh (2008). The Coronation Oath. House of Commons Library. p. 4.
• Marquess of Cambridge (1966). "The March of William of Orange from Torbay to London – 1688". Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. XLIV.
• McKay, Derek; Scott, H. M. (1984). The Rise of the Great Powers: 1648–1815. Longman. ISBN 0582485541.
• Miller, John (1978). James II; A study in kingship. Menthuen. ISBN 978-0413652904.
• Miller, John (1973). "The Militia and the Army in the Reign of James II". Historical Journal. 16 (4): 659–679. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00003897. JSTOR 2638277. S2CID 159475416.
• Mitchell, Leslie (2009) [1790]. "Introduction". In Burke, Edmund (ed.). Reflections on the Revolution in France. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-953902-4.
• Pincus, Steve (2009). 1688: The First Modern Revolution (2011 ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-17143-3.
• Prud'homme van Reine, Ronald (2009). Opkomst en Ondergang van Nederlands Gouden Vloot – Door de ogen van de zeeschilders Willem van de Velde de Oude en de Jonge. Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers. ISBN 978-90-295-6696-4.
• Quinn, Stephen. "The Glorious Revolution". Economic History Association EH.net. Retrieved 1 October 2020.
• Rodger, N.A.M (2004). The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649–1815. Penguin Group. ISBN 978-0-393-06050-8.
• Schuchard, Keith (2002). Restoring the Temple of Vision: Cabalistic Freemasonry and Stuart. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12489-9.
• Schwoerer, L.G. (2004). The Revolution of 1688–89: Changing Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-52614-2.
• Schwoerer, Lisa (1977). "Propaganda in the Revolution of 1688–89". The American Historical Review. 82 (4): 843–874. doi:10.2307/1865115. JSTOR 1865115.
• Sowerby, Scott (2013). Making Toleration: The Repealers and the Glorious Revolution. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-07309-8.
• Speck, William Arthur (1989). Reluctant Revolutionaries. Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285120-8.
• Speck, William Arthur (2002). James II. Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-28712-9.
• Spielvogel, Jackson J (1980). Western Civilization. Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 1285436407.
• Stanhope, Philip Henry, 5th Earl of (2011). Notes of Conversations with the Duke of Wellington 1831–1851. Pickle Partners Publishing. footnote 90. ISBN 978-1-908692-35-1.
• Stapleton, John M. (2003). Forging a Coalition Army; William III, the Grand Alliance and the Confederate Army in the Spanish Netherlands 1688–97 (PHD thesis). Ohio State University.
• Stephen, Jeffrey (January 2010). "Scottish Nationalism and Stuart Unionism: The Edinburgh Council, 1745". Journal of British Studies. 49 (1, Scotland Special Issue): 47–72. doi:10.1086/644534. JSTOR 27752690. S2CID 144730991.
• Swetschinsky, Daniël; Schönduve, Loeki (1988). De familie Lopes Suasso: financiers van Willem III. Zwolle. ISBN 978-90-6630-142-9.
• Szechi, Daniel (1994). The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688–1788. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719037743.
• Szechi, Daniel; Sankey, Margaret (November 2001). "Elite Culture and the Decline of Scottish Jacobitism 1716–1745". Past & Present. 173.
• Troost, Wouter (2016). "The Image of William III in Amsterdam after His Ascent to the English Throne: The Case of the Sheriffs' Election in 1690". Dutch Crossing. 40 (3): 206–218. doi:10.1080/03096564.2016.1139783. S2CID 155630754.
• Troost, W. (2001). Stadhouder-koning Willem III: Een politieke biografie. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren. ISBN 90-6550-639-X.
• Troost, Wouter (2005). William III the Stadholder-king: A Political Biography. Routledge. ISBN 978-0754650713.
• Vallance, Edward (2007). "The Glorious Revolution". BBC History. Retrieved 15 August 2010.
• Van der Kuijl, Arjen (1988). De glorieuze overtocht: De expeditie van Willem III naar Engeland in 1688. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw. ISBN 978-90-6707-187-1.
• Vries, Jan de; Woude, Ad van der (1997). The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57061-9.
• Van Nimwegen, Olaf (2020). De Veertigjarige Oorlog 1672-1712: de strijd van de Nederlanders tegen de Zonnekoning (The 40 Years War 1672-1712: the Dutch struggle against the Sun King) (in Dutch). Prometheus. ISBN 978-90-446-3871-4.
• Wakeling, George Henry (1896). King and Parliament (A.D. 1603-1714). Scribner. ISBN 978-0-524-03867-3. Retrieved 26 March 2021.
• Walker, Peter (1956). James II and the Three Questions: Religious Toleration and the Landed Classes, 1687-1688. Verlag Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3039119271.
• Webb, Stephen Saunders (1995). Lord Churchill's Coup: The Anglo-American Empire and the Glorious Revolution Reconsidered. Alfred Knopf. ISBN 978-0394549804.
• Williams, E. N. (1960). The Eighteenth-Century Constitution; 1688–1815. Cambridge University Press. OCLC 1146699.
• Western, John R. (1972). Monarchy and Revolution. The English State in the 1680s. London: Blandford Press. ISBN 978-0-7137-3280-1.
• Windeyer, W. J. Victor (1938). "Essays". In Windeyer, William John Victor (ed.). Lectures on Legal History. Law Book Co. of Australasia.
• Wormsley, David (2015). James II: The Last Catholic King. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0141977065.
• Young, William (2004). International Politics and Warfare in the Age of Louis XIV and Peter the Great: A Guide to the Historical Literature. IUinverse. ISBN 978-0595813988.

• Ashley, Maurice (1966). The Glorious Revolution of 1688. Hodder & Stoughton. Also published by Panther History (1968).
• Cruickshanks, Eveline (2000). The Glorious Revolution (British History in Perspective). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-23009-8.
• DeKrey, Gary S. (2007). Restoration and Revolution in Britain: A Political History of the Era of Charles II and the Glorious Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-65103-2. A scholarly history of the era.
• Glassey, Lionel K. J., ed. (1997). The Reigns of Charles II and James VII and II. ISBN 978-0-333-62500-2. Articles by scholars.
• Hamowy, Ronald (2008). "Glorious Revolution". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 208–11. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n125. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
• Harris, Tim (2006). Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-14-101652-8.
• Harris, Tim and Stephen Taylor, eds (2013). The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy: The Revolutions of 1688–91 in their British, Atlantic and European Contexts. Boydell. ISBN 978-1-84383-816-6.
• MacCubbin, R. P.; Hamilton-Phillips, M., eds. (1988). The Age of William III and Mary II: Power, Politics and Patronage, 1688–1702. College of William and Mary in Virginia. ISBN 978-0-9622081-0-2.
• McCaffrey, Carmel (2006). In Search of Ireland's Heroes. Ivan R Dee. ISBN 978-1-56663-615-5.
• Miller, John (1997). The Glorious Revolution (2 ed.). ISBN 978-0-582-29222-2.
• Ogg, David (1956). William III. A brief scholarly biography.
• Onnekink, David (2007). The Anglo-Dutch Favourite: The Career of Hans Willem Bentinck, 1st Earl of Portland (1649–1709). Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-5545-9.
• Pincus, Steven C. A. (2005). England's Glorious Revolution 1688–89: A Brief History with Documents. Bedford/St. Martin's. ISBN 978-0-312-16714-1.
• Prall, Stuart (1972). The Bloodless Revolution: England, 1688. Anchor Books. OCLC 644932859.
• Vallance, Edward (2006). The Glorious Revolution: 1688 – Britain's Fight for Liberty. Brown Little. ISBN 978-1-933648-24-8.
• Wennerlind, Carl (2011). Casualties of Credit: The English Financial Revolution, 1620–1720. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674047389.

Wikiquote has quotations related to Glorious Revolution.

• Weiss, B.: "Medals of the Glorious Revolution: The Influence of Catholic-Protestant Antagonism", ANS Magazine, Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 6–23. American Numismatic Society, New York, 2014.
• Glorious Revolution on In Our Time at the BBC
• BBC staff. "Charles II (1630–1685)". BBC History. Retrieved 15 August 2010.
• Catholic Encyclopedia editors. "English Revolution of 1688". Catholic Encyclopedia.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
• The Civil War team, presented by Tristram Hunt (7 January 2001), Aftershocks – The Glorious Revolution, open2.net (BBC & Open University)
• Quinn, Stephen (17 April 2003), "The Glorious Revolution of 1688", in Whaples, Robert (ed.), EH.Net Encyclopedia
• Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, ed. (2008–2009). "History of the Monarchy >United Kingdom Monarchs (1603–present) >The Stuarts >Mary II, William III and The Act of Settlement > William III (r. 1689–1702) and Mary II (r. 1689–1694)". Official web site of the British Monarchy.
• Wilkes, Donald E. Jr.; Kramer, Matthew. "The Glorious Revolution of 1688". Retrieved 15 August 2010.