OCR Specification focus:
‘James’ attempts to win non-conformist support; use of dispensing power; attempts to pack Parliament; remodelling of corporations.’
James II’s reign from 1685 to 1688 was shaped by his determination to strengthen royal authority and secure Catholic toleration, yet his methods provoked suspicion and opposition.
James II’s Religious and Political Aims
James II ascended the throne in 1685 with clear objectives. He sought to:
Strengthen the monarchy after years of instability.
Secure greater toleration for Catholics and extend concessions to Protestant non-conformists.
Re-establish control over Parliament and corporations to ensure political loyalty.
James’ personal Catholicism was well known, and his policies quickly reflected his determination to reduce the dominance of the Anglican Church and alter the existing religious balance.
The Dispensing Power
The most controversial tool James employed was the dispensing power. This was the claimed right of the monarch to set aside or “dispense with” the application of existing laws.
Dispensing Power: The monarch’s prerogative to suspend or exempt individuals from the operation of certain laws, even if those laws had been passed by Parliament.
James used this power to appoint Catholics to military and political offices, directly challenging the Test Acts of 1673 and 1678, which required public officials to take Anglican communion and swear oaths rejecting transubstantiation.
His actions raised constitutional alarm because they bypassed parliamentary authority and undermined the Protestant safeguards established during the Restoration settlement.
In April 1687 James issued the Declaration of Indulgence, suspending penal laws and the Test Acts by prerogative to court Dissenters.
Title page of the 1687 Declaration of Indulgence. James II proclaimed liberty of conscience and attempted to suspend statutory penalties against Catholics and Protestant Dissenters by prerogative. This document exemplifies the policy at the heart of his outreach to non-conformists. Source
Attempts to Win Non-conformist Support
James II understood that support from Protestant non-conformists—groups such as Baptists, Congregationalists, and Quakers—could weaken the dominance of the Anglican establishment. His strategy was to appeal to their longstanding grievances against religious restrictions.
In 1687, he issued the Declaration of Indulgence, suspending penal laws against Catholics and dissenters.
He sought to portray himself as a champion of religious liberty, hoping non-conformists would side with him against the Anglican elite.
Some dissenters welcomed relief from persecution, but many remained wary of aligning with a Catholic monarch whose primary goal appeared to be Catholic emancipation.
This outreach campaign created a paradox: while dissenters desired toleration, they feared that James’ policies were less about liberty and more about advancing Catholicism.
To widen his base, James courted non-conformists, promising liberty of conscience and placing some Dissenters in office under dispensations.
Engraving of a Quaker meeting in London (c.1678–79). It demonstrates how Dissenters gathered outside the established church—groups James hoped to win through indulgence. The satirical elements (e.g., mocking figures) reflect contemporary hostility and are not required by the syllabus. Source
Packing Parliament
To consolidate his religious and political objectives, James attempted to reshape the political landscape by ensuring that future Parliaments would be compliant.
Electoral influence: He sought to replace unreliable MPs with loyal candidates.
Royal pressure on boroughs: By intervening in local government, he attempted to secure the return of pro-Catholic or pliant members.
Manipulating institutions: James used his authority to intimidate or remove those who resisted his policies.
His ultimate aim was to pack Parliament with supporters who would repeal the Test Acts and legalise Catholic toleration through statute. This was a direct challenge to parliamentary independence and was perceived as a dangerous encroachment on English constitutional practice.
Remodelling of Corporations
A crucial part of this political strategy was the remodelling of corporations—the governing bodies of towns and boroughs that controlled local elections.
Corporations: Chartered municipal bodies with the authority to govern towns and boroughs, including the right to elect Members of Parliament.
James used the legal mechanism of quo warranto proceedings (writs challenging the legitimacy of borough charters) to dissolve existing corporations and reissue them with new constitutions. These reconstituted bodies were staffed with officials loyal to the Crown and sympathetic to Catholic toleration.
By doing this, James sought to:
Guarantee that boroughs returned MPs favourable to his policies.
Weaken the entrenched Anglican gentry who dominated local government.
Extend central royal control deeper into the political structure of the nation.
The result was widespread resentment. Many saw this as a direct attack on the independence of English political life and a return to authoritarian government.
He also remodelled corporations, using quo warranto and new charters to purge Whig office-holders and install reliable men before a fresh Parliament.
The Great Hall of Guildhall, home of the City of London Corporation. Municipal corporations like London’s were purged and refilled under Crown pressure in the 1680s. This interior situates the civic institution targeted by remodelling. Source
Broader Reactions and Consequences
James’ reliance on the dispensing power, manipulation of corporations, and courting of non-conformists alienated significant sections of society:
Anglican Tories, who initially supported James’ succession, began to turn against him due to his disregard for the Church of England.
Whigs, already hostile to Catholic influence, were confirmed in their opposition.
Non-conformists, though momentarily attracted by promises of toleration, largely failed to give James lasting support.
The broader population increasingly feared that James intended to establish an absolutist Catholic monarchy, undermining the Protestant constitution.
Significance for 1685–1688
The years from 1685 to 1688 reveal the growing crisis of James’ rule:
His dispensing power appeared unconstitutional and tyrannical.
His attempts to win non-conformist support failed to overcome mistrust.
His efforts to pack Parliament were perceived as illegitimate manipulation.
His remodelling of corporations undermined local autonomy and fuelled resentment.
Together, these policies eroded James’ support base, contributing directly to the political and religious tensions that culminated in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
FAQ
The dispensing power was not entirely new, but James’ sweeping use of it broke precedent. Earlier monarchs had used it sparingly in exceptional circumstances.
By regularly suspending the Test Acts to appoint Catholics and Dissenters, James undermined the principle that laws passed by Parliament should bind the king as well as subjects. Many feared this created an unchecked royal prerogative, edging England towards absolutism.
Earlier monarchs, such as Charles II, often persecuted non-conformists to protect the supremacy of the Anglican Church.
James, by contrast, offered toleration and office-holding opportunities in return for political loyalty. His motivation, however, was self-interested: rather than a principled commitment to liberty, it was designed to weaken the Anglican establishment and create allies for Catholic toleration.
Some Quakers and Baptists were initially more open to James’ promises, as they had long endured harsh penalties under the Clarendon Code.
However, even among these groups, enthusiasm was limited. Suspicion of Catholicism, combined with memories of Stuart authoritarianism, led many to doubt the king’s sincerity. Most Dissenters valued toleration but feared it would be a temporary means to advance Catholic dominance.
The City of London held unique political weight:
Its Corporation had symbolic and practical authority as the nation’s leading financial hub.
Its MPs carried prestige and influence.
Control of London elections could shift the wider political climate.
By remodelling London’s Corporation and replacing Whig officials with loyalists, James hoped to showcase his power and secure reliable parliamentary representation. Yet this heavy-handed tactic deepened resentment among merchants and aldermen.
Remodelling corporations did more than alter parliamentary representation.
It displaced long-serving local elites, replacing them with officials loyal to the Crown.
Decision-making in towns became more centralised, reducing the autonomy of boroughs.
Civic identity and traditions were disrupted, as charters embodying local privileges were revoked.
These changes created discontent not only among political elites but also among townspeople, who saw their corporate independence diminished in favour of royal control.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
What was the dispensing power used by James II between 1685 and 1688?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for recognising that it was the king’s prerogative to suspend or exempt individuals from the operation of existing laws.
1 mark for noting that James used it to bypass the Test Acts and appoint Catholics or Dissenters to office.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how James II attempted to remodel corporations in order to strengthen his control over Parliament.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying the use of quo warranto proceedings to challenge borough charters.
1 mark for noting that existing charters were revoked and replaced with new ones.
1 mark for explaining that new charters allowed the Crown to install loyal officials.
1 mark for recognising the aim of securing boroughs that would elect MPs supportive of royal policy.
1 mark for stating that this weakened the independence of the Anglican gentry who previously dominated local government.
1 mark for recognising that this was part of James’ wider plan to ensure a compliant Parliament that could repeal the Test Acts.
