Constitutional Struggle In England

England played but a small part in the affairs of the world during the Seventeenth Century. Under Charles II the King was dominated by Louis XIV, who, through his gold and the mistresses with whom he supplied the degenerate King, kept England in subjection. During the rest of the period civil war or struggles with Parliament prevented England from interfering to any great extent in the affairs of the Continent, although Cromwell’s formidable armies made Europe tremble lest a reunited people should interfere in their politics, as they did during the reigns of William III and Anne to Louis’ regret. The period is, however, one of great importance in English history as the founding of the system of real rule by Parliament.

James I (1603-1625) was the first of the Stuart race. He was the son of Mary of Scotland by Lord Darnley. His mother had been beheaded by Elizabeth in 1587, but when the virgin Queen died the crowns of Scotland and England were united in Mary’s son, who was James VI of Scotland and First of England. He had been King in Scotland almost from his birth. On his accession to the crown of the triple Kingdom, henceforth called Great Britain and Ireland, he was thirty-seven years old. His position in Scotland had been one of great difficulty, largely owing to the Presbyterian clergy, whose constant officious interference with him had grafted in his mind a stern belief in the merits of an Episcopal Church dependent upon the Crown. James was acute in his own limited way, learned and good-humored, but his character was fatally marred by conceit, obstinacy, and indecision. His uncouth manner and ungainly person rendered absurd his claim to be considered a supernaturally gifted King, the “British Solomon,” as he loved to be called. An honest belief in his own abilities and good intentions is always a source of weakness to a man who has little power of work and less appreciation of difficulties.

James was and remained without a policy though a policy was imperatively necessary for one who had to deal with the two great questions which Elizabeth had left unsolved, such as the sovereignty of the State and toleration in the Church. The first ten years of the reign were marked by constant little failures, which were hardly retrieved by the absence of any great mistakes. The King failed to keep in touch with his first Parliament, which lasted from 16o4 to 161o, as completely as he showed himself unable to solve the increasing religious difficulties caused by the rise of the Puritans. Roman Catholics and Puritans alike wished for a relaxation of the laws which bore hardly on them. James at first relaxed the penalties under which the Roman Catholics suffered, then he grew frightened by the increase of their numbers and attempted to check it. The gun-powder plot (1605) was the result, followed by a sharper persecution than ever. The Puritans were invited to a conference with the King at Hampton Court, 16o4. They no longer asked, as many of them had asked in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, to substitute the Presbyterian for the Episcopal Government. All they demanded was to be allowed permission, while remaining as Ministers in the Church, to dispense with certain ceremonies to which they objected. It was the opinion of Bacon that it would be wise to grant their request. But James thought otherwise, as he leaned toward the High Church party.

Elizabeth had left him absolute power. But a strong and glorious hand is necessary to exert authority with-out control, and under a vain and weak Prince Parliament was no longer docile. Trained in a different school of politics, and succeeding by what it is the fashion of the time to speak of as divine right, James failed entirely to understand the position of his predecessors. This misunderstanding of his historical position handed on to his descendants, was the cause of the disasters which attended the Stuart dynasty. The contest between personal monarchy and constitutional government was terminated only by the removal of the Stuarts from the throne. James was often in collision with Parliament, and for the first time since Richard II an attempt was made to levy duties on imports without the consent of Parliament. In vain he sent five members of Parliament to the Tower. The Commons refused him subsidies, and in order to find the money which his extravagances rendered necessary, he resorted to more shameful practices, and offered for sale the court offices; judicial functions were put up at auction, and he created and sold titles. These ill-gotten gains were squandered on his favorites, of whom the most notorious was George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.

When the Thirty Years’ War broke out James profited by the perils of Protestantism in Germany to call a new Parliament. But the Commons refused to vote him supplies unless he would accede to the demands of the Nation, dismiss his favorites, discontinue the granting of monopolies, reverse his Spanish policy, and impose no import or export duties without consent of Parliament. The King dissolved Parliament (1623) and, tempted by the promise of a large dowry, asked the hand of the Spanish Infanta for his son. This was a new offense to the English people. The project failed, thanks to the follies of Buckingham, but the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Henrietta of France, sister of Louis XIII, was almost as unpopular, because it seated a Catholic Princess on the throne of England. James I died in 1625. The most important event of his reign was the new translation of the Bible, completed in 1611.

Charles I (1625-1649) was a decorous, dignified, determined, and dangerous copy of his feebly tyrannical father. He could not rightly read the signs of the times. He failed to understand the people, and he raised a storm of feeling which could not be; quelled or cajoled, and he paid the cruel penalty in defeat, deposition, and death. The favor shown the Catholics by the King offended the Nation, and Buckingham remained the favorite of the son as he had been of the father. The struggle with Parliament recommenced immediately. This Assembly was composed of cadets of great families, and citizens of the middle class, who, having acquired wealth under the Elizabethan reign, filled all the liberal professions. The custom was to vote the right of tax for the duration of the reign. The lower House refused to grant it for more than a year, and Charles, exasperated, dissolved Parliament. The Parliament of 1626 went farther. They lodged an accusation against Buckingham. They were dissolved again. In the hope of acquiring some popularity, Buckingham persuaded Charles to support the Protestants of France and send a fleet to the succor of Rochelle. The expedition failed through the incapacity of its general (1627). This failure strengthened Parliament, who obliged the King to sanction the Petition of Rights, and then addressed him two remonstrances, one against the illegal imposition of imports, the other against his favorite, whom they blamed for the public misery. The King dissolved Parliament again, and a fanatic, John Felton, assassinated Buckingham. Charles then appointed Archbishop Laud and the Count of Strafford to the Ministry, and decided to govern without a Parliament in defiance of the British Constitution. But with no Parliament there were no supplies. Consequently, he had no means to interfere in the great events which agitated all Europe, and this abstinence lowered the English Government in the estimation of the King’s subjects. Enormous fines were imposed on those who opposed his plans. The cruelty of Laud against the dissenters, as in torturing Leighton and Prynne, increased the public discontent, which manifested itself by the sympathy it showed the steadfast citizen Hampden when he opposed the impost of ship-money by illegal process (1635). Scotland attacked by Laud, in its Presbyterian faith, protested by an insurrection at Edinburgh (1637), and formed the association at once political and religious of the Covenant (1638), which the English army, led by Strafford, refused to fight in 164o.

After eleven years without a Parliament the King confessed himself conquered, and called a fifth Parliament, that which became famous under the name of the Long Parliament, and which, going to extremes, took away the right of taxation and judicial authority, abolished special tribunals, proclaimed its own periodicity, and brought a capital accusation against Count Strafford, who was beheaded in 1641. At the same time a formidable insurrection broke out among the Irish, who killed 40,000 Protestants. When the King asked for means to suppress the rebels, Parliament responded by bitter remonstrances, and passed the militia bill, which put the army under its own control. Charles tried to arrest the leaders of the opposition in the midst of the Assembly, and failing, he quitted London in the midst of civil war.

Parliament held the capital, the large cities, the seaports, and the fleet. The King had the support of most of the nobility, more accustomed to arms than the middle-class militia. In the shires of the north and west the royalists or the cavaliers prevailed, while the Parliamentary party or roundheads, were in the counties of the middle and southeast, the richest sections of the country, and which close together formed a belt around London. At first the advantage was with the King. From Nottingham, where he had raised his standard, he marched on London. The Parliamentary force, beaten at Edge Hill and at Worcester (1642), redoubled its energy. Hampden raised a regiment of infantry among his ten-ants, friends, and neighbors. Oliver Cromwell, who then began to come out from his obscurity, formed in the counties of the east, from the sons of farmers and squires, regiments who opposed religious enthusiasm to the sentiments of honor which animated the Cavaliers and the Parliamentary troops conquering at Newbury, allied themselves with the Scotch by a solemn covenant. Parliament was a coalition of parties; the Presbyterians, though abolishing the hierarchy in the Church, wished to preserve it in the State, while the Independents, opposed nobles as they opposed Bishops, the political sovereignty of the King as well as his religious supremacy. The Puritans were divided into numerous sects, Levelers, Anabaptists, and Millenarians. Their leaders were able men, the greatest of which was Oliver Cromwell, a genius in statecraft and war, who forms the subject of a special article in the volume, “World’s Great Warriors.” With his squadrons, called Ironsides, Cromwell gained the victory in the battle of Marston Moor in 1644, and then that of Newbury, which saved the Revolution. This success helped the Independents, who, although a minority in Parliament, nevertheless succeeded in passing a bill of renunciation, by which the deputies agreed not to exercise any public function, and whose effect was to deliver the army to the control of the Independents. Cromwell then prosecuted the war with vigor. The last army of the King was crushed at Naseby (1645), while his lieutenant, Montrose, was beaten by the Scotch Covenanters. The King in despair, went to the camp of the Scotch, who sold him to Parliament for £400,000.

The Presbyterians would willingly have treated with their captive. Supported by the army, Cromwell “purged” the Parliament, expelling all the Presbyterian members, and the Independents had the King cited before a court of justice, which sent him to the scaffold on January 30, 1649.

Then began the only English Republic. The Government set up was a Government by the committees of a Council of State, nominally supporting themselves in the House of Commons, although the members who still retained their places were so few that the Council of State was sufficiently numerous to form a majority of the House. Monarchy and the House of Peers were formally abolished. Ireland, being Catholic, protested against the revolution, and Scotland, remembering that the Stuarts came of a Scottish race, rebelled through feelings of National pride. Resistance in Ireland was suppressed by Cromwell in 1649. Scotland was conquered at the battle of Dunbar, and the son of the late King, the future Charles II, was overthrown at Worcester (1651), and the country was forced to recognize the power of the Parliament at London. In 1653 Cromwell, realizing that the country was tired of the Long Parliament, now called the “Rump,” drove out the members with the aid of his soldiers and fastened a sign with the words, “House to Let” on the door. Cromwell saw that it was necessary to have one controlling head for the State, and he assumed this position as Lord Protector. He did all that was in his power to do to prevent his authority from degenerating into tyranny. He summoned two Parliaments, of only one House, and with the consent of the second Parliament he erected a second House, so that he might have some means of checking the lower House without constantly coming to personal collision with it. In form his Government was better than that of the Stuarts, but it had one fatal defect, it rested on the rule of the sword. The National will was opposed to him. But during his administration of affairs he brought about order by the sword and commerce thrived. England again became respected abroad, and Spain and France sought his alliance. But, like Elizabeth, he became the defender of Protestantism and threatened to punish the Pope if he did not cease the persecution of the Reformed Church. The Dutch and the Spanish. were defeated by his great Admiral Blake, and England became mistress of the seas. Cromwell died in 1658 and his son, Richard, who succeeded him, retained power for only a few months. Tyranny or Anarchy seemed the only choice for the people of England, and when Monk dissolved the “Rump Parliament,” which had reassembled and formed a new Parliament, every one knew that it would recall the Stuarts.

So by the choice of both Presbyterians and Cavaliers Charles II became King without conditions.

Charles II (1649-1685) was one of the most worthless men that ever filled a throne. Defeat, exile, and poverty had wrought in him a fixed resolve not, as he said, “to go again upon his travels,” through the exercise of such an open and unendurable tyranny as had caused his father’s ruin. Having known both good and evil in mankind he rejected all belief in the one and deliberately made his choice companion of the other. Charles him-self was in his heart a Catholic, but prudence kept him from the course which proved his brother’s ruin. His own experience in Scotland and his favorite vices made the Presbyterian form of worship and the rigid virtue of the Puritans alike distasteful. Apart from this he cared nothing for religious quarrels, and only valued the Episcopalian system because its votaries were strong sup-porters of the royal prerogative. In fact he was thoroughly selfish and cared only for himself. Frivolous and debauched, he soon found himself forced through need of money to make himself dependent upon the Commons for the sake of receiving money, or upon some foreign power for the sake of receiving a pension. First he sold Louis XIV Mardick and Dunkirk, two of the conquests made by Cromwell. After the triple alliance of The Hague, which his people imposed upon him in order to check France in the Netherlands, he sold himself to France, and Louis paid him a pension of 2,000,000 francs until his death. This was money well spent, for it kept England from playing a prominent part in international politics. Although Parliament forced Charles to join the Swedes and Dutch in 1668 to rescue the Spanish Netherlands, and in 1674 to oppose France and bring about the peace of Nimeguen, these profited England nothing. In fact during the war with the United Provinces from ‘664 to ‘667 (just at the time when the Plague of London happened in ‘665, and the Great Fire of ‘666), the Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames, a thing which no enemy’s fleet had done since the time of the Danes.

In domestic politics there are five well marked periods into which the twenty-five years of Charles’ reign may be divided. The first lasted only about a year, and witnessed the attempt of the first Parliament to settle the outstanding question of religion and politics on a moderate basis. Its place was taken by the “Cavalier” Parliament, which set to work to strengthen the revived monarchy, reestablish the Anglican Church, and persecute all other creeds. This was during the full tide of the reaction against the ideals of Puritanism. The second period, ‘662-‘672, finds this Parliament gradually losing confidence in the King, whose schemes of toleration it hated and whose Minister it impeached. The King and his councilors, aided and abetted by his foreign mistresses, now trafficked with Louis, and there gradually appeared a fair possibility of a complete reaction against the restored monarchy. Two parties were formed; one that of Parliament, whose religious policy had been outraged, another the popular party, which hated the foreign intrigues and persecuting statutes to which the King had assented. The third period (1672-‘679) was the one in which this two-fold opposition failed to combine against the Crown, and Charles was able to play off one of his opponents against the other. It was in 1673 that Parliament, suspecting Charles of favoring Catholicism, voted the Test Act, which obliged officials to declare under oath that they did not believe in transubstantiation, and which thus closed public employment to Roman Catholics, and their exclusion lasted until 1829. The Popish plot, imagined by the wretched Titus Oates, and the memory of the Great Fire of 1666, which had been attributed to the Catholics, provoked extremely rigorous measures, and eight Jesuits were hanged. In the fourth period (1679-1681) a great opposition, the beginning of the future Whig party, was formed and the attempt made to oust the King’s brother, the Duke of York, an avowed Catholic, from the succession to the Crown. This question divided the Nation and the popular party, and in the hands of immoderate men wrecked their own cause, but during this period the Whigs passed the famous habeas corpus act of 1679, which confirmed the law of personal security, written in the Magna Charta, but so often violated, and which provided that every prisoner must be examined by the Judge within twenty-four hours after arrest, and released or set at liberty under bail if the proofs were insufficient. The last period (1681-1685) found the King secure and triumphant, free from Parliament and his other enemies. Charles died in 1685.

James II (1685-1689) came to the throne as a hero of a victory which others had won. The Whigs were crushed. The attack on hereditary right was now but an episode in a discredited movement, the cry of a fallen party. The reaction in favor of monarchy was as complete at the end of Charles’ reign as it had been in 1660. Indeed it was, in a sense, stronger, for it was the result of a double lesson; the threats of the “Exclusionists” who passed the Test Act, had reminded men of the Anarchy of the Rebellion. Yet this reaction was not at the bottom so much in favor of the Crown as for the cause of peace. Louis XIV was now paramount in Europe; all other nations saw a menace to their safety in his illimitable claims and his unscrupulous raids.

James II was fifty-two years old. He was a hard worker, a man of business, an experienced soldier, sailor, and administrator. He was without the lazy hesitancy of his grandfather, and lacked the noble resignation of his father, while he possessed to the full the obstinate belief in the Stuart mission, which had clogged the one and ruined the other. He reigned barely four years. In that short time he managed to alienate the Church of England, which had preached divine right and nonresistance for nearly a Century; to restore the Whig party to a supremacy which lasted for upward of eighty years, and finally to uproot his dynasty from its firm hold in the hearts of the English people. Under James the fear of a Roman Catholic King vanquished the fear of a civil war. The reason is to be sought, like the clew to most of the Seventeenth Century problems, in religion; James was a bigoted Roman Catholic, and while he persecuted to the death Presbyterians in Scotland, he determined to remove all restrictions on the political and religious position of the Roman Catholics in England. The laws which had been passed against Non-conformists of all sorts fell into two clear divisions. First, the penal laws, which forbade and punished the exercise of their religion; secondly, the Tests, which refused them all political and military office, unless they denied by word and deed their dearest beliefs. The former involved religious persecution, the latter political death. The penal laws might perhaps, in a short time, have been mitigated; for they were cruel and bloody, and many enlightened men disliked them. Meanwhile there would have been little difficulty in using the “Prerogative of Dispensing” to pardon those who were threatened with the more terrible punishments. Gradually men would have learned that punishment for religious opinion is no part of man’s duty to man or God. But the Tests, on the other hand, were considered by the majority, in the case of the Roman Catholics, as necessary for the National safety; and, in the case of Protestant Dissenters, as a useful means of keeping enemies out of power. James’ attempts to break down the barriers which divided his co-religionists from the best and highest places in the land are the main features of his reign. Like Charles, he relied on Louis’ gold and on an army; but, unlike Charles, he had no idea what things were possible and what were not. James pursued his schemes till an exasperated Nation called and welcomed his nephew and son-in-law to deliver it. Then he fled. No doubt toleration was a good object, but Englishmen had reason to distrust Roman Catholics, who aimed at supremacy, and had perpetually endeavored since the Reformation to overthrow the Government by conspiracy or by open force. When James found the Nation resolute against his plan he endeavored to carry it out against their will and their laws. Thus the revolution which ensued turned on the old question Is the King a personal ruler and above the law of the land? This question was at last to be answered in the negative.

A rebellion occurred in Scotland during James’ reign. Archibald, Earl of Argyle, son of the great Covenanter who had been beheaded in 166o, had landed in the Western Highlands early in 1685 to rouse his countrymen in defense of their religion; but the scheme was badly organized, and the rising was easily suppressed. A far more dangerous foe was now in arms in the South. The Duke of Monmouth, the natural son of the late King, had been living in Holland, where he was surrounded by many refugees of the old Exclusion and Whig party. Relying on his undoubted popularity in England he landed at Lyme Regis (June, 1685), and declared for a free Parliament and relief of Dissenters. He received no support from the Prince of Orange, who was not likely to compromise his future by such a scheme. At Taunton the invader was proclaimed as King, but after a brief moment of success his followers were cut to pieces on Sedgmoor (July 6). He was captured and executed, after a piteous appeal to his uncle’s mercy. His adherents, and all who had been concerned in the rising, were cruelly punished by the soldiers of Colonel Kirke and the judicial murders of Chief-Justice Jeffreys, who conducted the memorable. “Bloody As-size” in the southwestern countries with reckless blood-thirstiness.

In the year 1688 came the two events which strained the loyalty of the Nation beyond its limits. The King’s order in Council (May, 1688) that the “declaration” should be publicly read in church nerved the Bishops to a memorable resistance. The birth of an heir to the throne in June led all classes of English to look over-sea to Holland for help, since a peaceful change upon James’ death was no longer possible, after the appearance of a Popish heir. A letter was sent to William of Orange, inviting him to come and deliver the land from the galling bonds of a “Popish” Prince. The Whig deliverer landed at Torbay, November 5, 1688. James had made some efforts at conciliation, but to little purpose. The Bishops refused to exhort the Nation not to resist their King. In a short while the invader was joined by the foremost Whigs; and a large part of the army, under the influence of Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough, who had been sent to Salisbury to oppose William, deserted the royal cause. As the invader drew nearer London, James, after sending his wife and child to France, endeavored to follow them; but he was captured and brought back to the capital. William had not claimed the Kingdom, but had merely declared in favor of a free Parliament and Toleration, with a maintenance of the Tests and other bulwarks against Popery. Nothing was settled, though bloodshed had been avoided. The next step was critical. It was an anxious moment for all. James was told that he could not stay in Lon-don, and was allowed to select a place of refuge. He chose Rochester, and promptly fled thence to France. After much debate, Parliament declared that James, having broken “the original contract between King and people and withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, has abdicated the Government, and the throne is thereby vacant.” The scruples of the Tories had been removed by William’s announcement that he would go home unless they made him King, and that he would not stay here as his wife’s “gentleman usher.” William and Mary were promptly declared King and Queen of England.

William, Prince of Orange, and Stadholder of the United Provinces, was now King of England, not as Mary’s husband, but together with her as the chosen successor of James. He was just forty years old, and had profited by his experience in a way that was to make him able to rule England and play the foremost part in European politics. It has been said that William was never young. He had been born and bred amid intrigues, revolutions, plots, and had grown to manhood with the roar of French guns in his ears. He was cold and hard in manner, had wretched health, and was personally unattractive. His ambition had been to make himself and his beloved Holland a power in Europe, and his chance had been so opportunely seized that he hoped to add the name and resources of England to that League of Augsburg, which the restless Louis XIV had roused against himself in 1686. The Pope, the numerous German Princes, the Emperor, and the King of Spain had long been anxious to check the daring monarch who swooped down now on the Pyrenees, now on Italy, now on the Rhine or the Sambre. If William, backed by the English Nation and the English navy, could lead the way, there would be some chance of making headway even against so great a power as that wielded by Louis.

The reign of William may be divided into five periods. The first two years (1689-1691) were occupied with the settlement of Scotland and Ireland, for James and Louis made a great attempt to keep William out of their path by giving him work in Ireland. This expedient would, if successful, have tied the King’s hands very effectually. But all fears of a Jacobite Ireland were allayed by the battle of Boyne. From 1692 to 1695 William struggled unsuccessfully with his greatest foe on the Continent, while he contrived to keep his Government efficient at home by intrusting more and more power to the Whigs. The death of Mary marks the close of this second period. The third consists of two years (1695-1697), in which the power of France was successfully tired out, while the continued domination of the Whigs secured a strong war policy. With the Peace of Ryswick (1697) the Nation, led by the Tories, ceased to support William; and in the fourth period (1697-1701) his Parliaments became more and more unmanageable, while on the Continent the tardy death of the Spanish King raised the greatest political problem of the age, and started the wars of the Spanish succession. Just as the French King was about to seize all those gains which the English jealousy against William was pouring into his hands, the death of James II occurred. The recognition of his son as King of England, which Louis promptly made, once more stung the English into a warlike temper. The fifth period (1701-1702), therefore, shows William and his adopted country again at one, but with the last and fiercest struggle still to come. At this moment William died.

Anne (1702-1714), the younger daughter of James II by his first marriage, became Queen on William’s death by the express terms of the act of settlement of 1701. She was likely to be popular, for she was a Stuart, and yet a sincere member of the Anglican Church. The Tories would see in her a representative of the family whose misdeeds they were so anxious to forgive. The Whigs would approve of a Queen succeeding by laws framed against the enemies of England’s liberties. She was a good woman, without much will of her own. Thus it was easy to influence her. And it was necessary for those who wished to secure power to do so, for she retained a good deal of the importance in politics which had belonged to her predecessors. She sat in the Council, and the Ministers were her nominees, or the nominees of those who worked upon her feelings.

The Constitution was, as we have seen, changing. A time was coming when the sovereign would be obliged to chose Ministers trusted by the Commons and the country. The existence of parties had forced William to do so. This was becoming even more necessary in Anne’s reign. Indeed, her greatest change of Ministers in 1710 was the result of a National and party agitation, which carried the Queen along with it. This presents a great contrast to the early days of the period, when the Stuart Kings had endeavored to maintain Ministers in opposition to the movement of the time. The extension of this system was destined in the end to solve the problem of English Government. But meanwhile the fact remains that Anne was sufficiently her own mistress to be unwilling to make changes except under pressure. Thus her easily-led nature became a most important political matter. Her personal influence was perhaps heightened by the fact that her husband, Prince George of Denmark, was a man of no political weight. There was “nothing in him,” according to Charles II, who professed to have “tried him drunk and tried him sober.”

The reign may be divided into three periods. In the first (1702-1708), the European was foremost. The National enthusiasm set the war going, and the genius of Marlborough, the hero of Blenheim, made it successful. The Queen was completely under the influence of the wife of her great commander; the Whigs secured a majority in Parliament, and the Ministers were chosen from among them. Louis was beaten on all sides and sued for peace, which was at first refused. The union of England and Scotland was made (1707) under the title of Great Britain. In the second period (1708-1710) the strife of the parties at home is all-important. Wearied by the long war, the Nation refused to support Marlborough, as they had refused to support William. The danger seemed over. The influence of the Duchess was undermined, and Queen Anne ceased to take pleasure in the society of a “brawling woman in a wide house.” A Tory reaction occurred. Churchmen raised their voices against toleration, and the foolish prosecution of one of them gave away the dignity of the Government, who) their popularity being already gone, could not long hope to retain office. The struggle ended in a victory for the Tories, and thus incidentally for the principle of party government. A Tory Ministry was soon appointed, and in the third period (1710-1714) the Revolution settlement trembled in the balance. Peace was made with France, a peace perhaps necessary, perhaps just, yet in terms far less glorious than England’s victorious armies were considered to have earned. The Tory Ministers plotted for a Tory triumph, perhaps for a Stuart restoration. The death of Anne, however, found this Ministry divided by a quarrel between its leaders, and the Whigs were able to obtain sufficient influence in the Council to secure the succession of George I.