The Catholic question

Model answer

A is the Test Act of 1673, which revealed that James was a Catholic. B is the Popish Plot of 1678.

Model answer

Coleman's letters were important because they seemed to confirm that Oates was telling the truth. Edward Coleman, a Catholic convert who was secretary to Mary of Modena, the Duchess of York, was named by Oates and arrested at the end of September 1678. Among his papers were letters he had written in the mid-1670s to Louis XIV's confessor, Père La Chaise. They spoke of 'a mighty work' - 'the conversion of three kingdoms' and 'the utter subduing of a pestilent heresy'. The letters did not mention any plan to kill the king, but to most Protestants they proved that a real Catholic conspiracy existed, so Oates's wilder claims seemed believable.

Secondly, the letters drew suspicion onto the heir to the throne. Coleman had worked for James and now served his wife, so his schemes seemed to come from the heart of James's household. Many people concluded that a Catholic succession would bring the plans in the letters to fruition, which strengthened the case for keeping James off the throne.

Thirdly, the letters linked Catholicism with France and with destroying Parliament. Coleman had asked for French money to help Charles rule without Parliament. This seemed to confirm the long-standing fear of 'popery and arbitrary government', turning the plot from a religious scare into a political crisis about the future of Parliament and English liberties.

Finally, the letters had direct consequences. Coleman was tried, convicted of treason and executed on 3 December 1678, the first victim of the plot. Together with Godfrey's murder, the letters helped persuade Parliament to declare a 'hellish plot', pass the second Test Act excluding Catholics from Parliament and begin attacking James, which led to the Exclusion campaign. Historians now see the letters as genuine but foolish intrigue rather than proof of Oates's plot, but in 1678 they were taken as evidence that Oates was right.

Model answer

The Whigs' main method was to use Parliament. In May 1679 they introduced the first Exclusion Bill, which passed its second reading in the Commons by 207 votes to 128. Charles stopped it by proroguing Parliament on 27 May and dissolving it in July. This showed the Whigs' central problem: however large their majority in the Commons, the king could send Parliament home.

The Whigs therefore turned to elections and public pressure. They won majorities in the elections of 1679, but Charles delayed the meeting of the new Parliament by repeated prorogations for a year. In response the Whigs organised a national petitioning campaign in 1679-80, demanding that Parliament be allowed to meet; their opponents sent addresses 'abhorring' the petitions, so the two sides became known as Petitioners and Abhorrers. The Green Ribbon Club organised huge pope-burning processions through London on 17 November 1679 and 1680, and after the Licensing Act lapsed in 1679 Whig pamphlets and prints poured out, keeping fear of the Popish Plot alive. Some Whigs also promoted the Duke of Monmouth as an alternative heir, and his progress through the West Country in 1680 drew large crowds.

When Parliament finally met in October 1680, the second Exclusion Bill passed the Commons in November. But on 15 November the House of Lords rejected it by 63 votes to 30, after the Earl of Halifax spoke repeatedly against it. The angry Commons attacked Halifax and refused money, and Charles dissolved Parliament in January 1681.

The Whigs won the election again and made a final attempt at the Oxford Parliament in March 1681, where Whig MPs arrived with armed followers. Charles offered a compromise - James would be king in name while a Protestant regent ruled - but the Whigs insisted on a third Exclusion Bill. Secure with a secret French subsidy, Charles dissolved Parliament after a week. Each Whig method failed for the same reason: the king's power to prorogue and dissolve, supported by the Lords and by growing Tory fears of a return to 1641, was stronger than a Commons majority.

Model answer

Charles II's determination to protect his brother's right to the throne was the most important reason why the Exclusion Bills failed, because only the king could prorogue and dissolve Parliament, and he used that power whenever exclusion came close. However, his determination succeeded only because the House of Lords, Tory opinion and his growing financial independence were on his side.

Charles's determination is clear throughout the crisis. He believed the succession was a matter of God-given hereditary right and would not abandon his brother. He refused to legitimise Monmouth and publicly denied that he had ever married Lucy Walter. He tried to appear reasonable by offering 'limitations' on a Catholic successor in 1679 and a regency compromise at Oxford in 1681, but he would never accept exclusion itself. As Figure 1 shows, he stopped the first bill by proroguing Parliament in May 1679 and dissolving it in July. He then delayed the next Parliament by repeated prorogations, dissolved it in January 1681 and dissolved the Oxford Parliament after only a week when the Whigs introduced the third bill. A weaker king might have given way, as Charles I had given way to Parliament in 1641.

However, the second bill was defeated not by Charles but by the House of Lords, which rejected it by 63 votes to 30 in November 1680 after the Earl of Halifax spoke repeatedly against it and the bishops voted against it. This was vital, because it meant exclusion was stopped by the normal working of the constitution and Charles did not need to use his veto, which would have looked like tyranny.

The Whigs' own weaknesses also mattered. They were divided over who should replace James: some backed Monmouth, others James's Protestant daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange. Their campaign depended on the Popish Plot, but after a jury acquitted the Queen's physician, Sir George Wakeman, in July 1679, Oates's credibility began to collapse. Their methods - petitions, pope-burning processions and armed followers at Oxford - allowed the Tories to claim that 1641 was coming again, and many moderates decided that a Catholic king was less dangerous than another civil war, especially as James's heirs were Protestant. The Scottish Parliament's Succession Act of 1681 showed that Scotland would support James, making that danger real.

Finally, money freed Charles from dependence on Parliament. Just before the Oxford Parliament he secured a secret subsidy from Louis XIV, and his customs revenue was rising with trade. This meant he could dissolve Parliament without fear of bankruptcy, and after March 1681 he never called another.

Overall I largely agree. Charles's determination was the main reason because, without it, the Commons' huge majorities would eventually have forced exclusion through. But his determination only succeeded because the Lords blocked the second bill, the Whigs discredited themselves and moderates feared civil war, and French money and trade revenue meant he could manage without Parliament. Charles provided the will; these other factors gave him the means.