Question 1
Using these four sources in their historical context, assess how far they support the view that
there was widespread support for offering the crown to William and Mary in 1689.
Source A: A Whig bishop explains how William broke the deadlock between the House of Lords and Commons about the crown.
He [William] called for the marquis of Halifax, the earls of Shrewsbury and Danby and some others to explain himself more distinctly to them. He said no man could esteem a woman more than he did the princess, but he was so made that he could not think of holding anything by apron strings. Nor did he think it reasonable to have any share in government unless it was put in his person and that for the term of life. If they did think to settle it otherwise, he would go back to Holland and meddle no more in their affairs.
Gilbert Burnet, History of My Own Time, Volume 3.
Source B: The diarist John Evelyn recounts the discussion after a meal with the archbishop of Canterbury and other lords and bishops.
15th January, 1689: Various serious matters were discoursed, concerning the present state of the public. I was sorry to find there was, as yet no accord in the judgments of those of the Lords and Commons who were to convene. Some would have the princess made queen without any more dispute, others were for a regency. There was a Tory party (then so called), who were for inviting his majesty again upon conditions and there were Republicans who would make the prince of Orange like a stadtholder*. The Romanists were busy among these several parties to bring them into confusion: most for ambition or other interest, few for conscience and moderate resolutions.
* stadtholder – a viceroy or governor of a province in the Dutch Republic. They did not have royal power.
John Evelyn, diary.
Source C: A Tory MP comments on the discussion about the succession.
The Lords entered into consideration of the same matter, where several motions were made to the same purpose as there was the day before in the House of Commons. Some were for recalling the king upon conditions (but those very few). Others were for the government to be continued in the king’s name, and the prince to have the executive power of it by name of regent or protector. Others were for having the king forfeit the crown and the prince of Orange elected into it. Others for having the said prince and princess crowned, as it was in the case of Philip and Mary*, and to hold it by descent in right of his wife. At last, the Lords voted to agree with the Commons in the main as to the vacancy of the crown. That vote was only carried by three.
* Mary I ruled England 1553–1558. Although her husband, Philip II of Spain, was crowned, his powers were limited and he would not inherit the throne upon Mary’s death.
Sir John Reresby, Memoirs, 29 January 1689.
Source D: A Tory member of the Lords outlines an argument used in the conference with the Commons in February 1689.
Although the Lords have declared that the king has deserted the government, and thereupon they have made application to the prince of Orange to take upon him the administration of the government and thereby to provide for the peace and safety of the kingdoms. Yet there can be no other inference drawn from thence, but only that the exercise of the government by King James II was ceased. So as that the Lords were and are willing to secure the nation against the return of the said king into his kingdom.
House of Lords Journals, 6 February 1689.
[30]
Answer
