Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:56:04.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. The Guildhall Declaration of 11 December 1688 and the Counter-Revolution of the Loyalists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Robert Beddard
Robert Beddard
Affiliation:
Oriel College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Wee can neither Swear a new Allegiance nor Transfer ye Old; nor Assist at any Coronation while K.[ing] James the second Liue's. In these few words penned on 17 February 1689, within days of the proclamation of William and Mary, Bishop Turner of Ely scaled the heights and plumbed the depths of the loyalists’ dilemma. The unexpected manner in which the Revolution had been accomplished entailed upon churchmen a deep and bitter conflict of loyalties. Certainly none were more afflicted than the Cavalier politicians, prelates and magnates of the Church of England party, who less than a decade before had drawn together in defence of the lawful succession, the established religion and the privileges of the governing classes. As one might suspect, the re-emergence of the Cavalier leaders in the autumn of 1688, from the isolation into which they had been ungenerously thrown by the King's espousal of Indulgence, had important repercussions on events following James's abandonment of government. Yet, while contemporary attitudes to civil obedience have received close study, curiously little attention has been given to the role of James's supporters in the practical politics of the crisis, especially in its initial stages.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1968 , pp. 403 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. Rawlinson D836, fo. 115 v: Turner to [? his brother, Dr Thomas Turner, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford]. The text of this interesting letter is printed in R. A. Beddard, ‘The Loyalist Opposition in the Interregnum: a Letter of Dr Francis Turner, Bishop of Ely, on the Revolution of 1688’, B[ulletin of the] I[nstitute of] H[istorical] R[esearch], XL (1967), 101–9. Cited below as ‘The Loyalist Opposition’. Unless otherwise stated all MS. references are to collections in the Bodleian Library.

2 See C. F. Mullett, ‘A Case of Allegiance: William Sherlock and the Revolution of 1688’, and ‘Some “Paradoxes” of the “Glorious Revolution”’, Huntington Library Quarterly, x (1946—7), 83—103, 317—22; ‘Religion, Politics, and Oaths in the Glorious Revolution’, Review of Politics, x (1948), 462–74.Google ScholarCherry, G. L., ‘The Legal and Philosophical Position of the Jacobites, 1688–1689’, Journal of Modem History, XXII (1950), 309–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCragg, G. R., From Puritanism to the Age of Reason (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 179–89.Google ScholarEvery, G., The High Church Party 1688–1718(London, 1956), pp. 29–32, 61–6.Google Scholar G. M. Straka, ‘The Final Phase of Divine Right Theory in England, 1688–1702’, E[nglish] H[istorical] R[eview], LXXVII (1962), 638–58, and Anglican Reaction to the Revolution of 1688 (State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison, 1962).

3 Luttrell, N., A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs (Oxford, 1857, 6 vols.), I, 485.Google ScholarHist. MSS. Comm., XIIth Report, Appendix, Part VII: Le Fleming (London, 1890), p. 228.

4 For evidence of the growth of the Yorkist reversionary interest around the Hydes and Sancroft, see Beddard, R. A., ‘The Commission for Ecclesiastical Promotions, 1681–84: An Instrument of Tory Reaction’, The Historical Journal, X (1967), 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Beddard, R. A., ‘The Loyalist Opposition’, pp. 103, 106.Google Scholar

6 Hist. MSS. Comm., XVth Report, Appendix, Pt. I: Earl of Dartmouth (London, 1896, 3 vols.), in, 141: Rochester to Dartmouth, Whitehall, 25 December 1688. Cited below as Hist. MSS. Comm., Dartmouth.

7 Singer, S. W. (ed.), The Correspondence of Henry Hyde, Earl of Clarendon and of his brother Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester (London, 1828, 2 vols.), 11, 208–11.Google Scholar This contains Clarendon's diary for the years 1687–90. Cited below as Clar. Corr.

8 Hist. MSS. Comm., IXth Report, Appendix, Pt. II: Alfred Morrison (London, 1883), p. 461: Bishop Henry Compton to Danby, Nottingham, 2 December 1688. Compare the similar sentiments in James's Reasons for withdrawing himself a second time, dated at Rochester, 22 December 1688, reprinted in [W. Kennett], A Complete History of England(London, 1706, 3 vols.), III, 504–5. Cf. Hist. MSS. Comm., Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry (London, 1899–1926, 3 vols.), 11, Pt. I, 35: James II to Secretary Middleton.

9 Beddard, ‘The Loyalist Opposition’, p. 106. Their motive was generally understood to be ‘to Consult about the means of Securing their Laws, Libertyes, Religion, and preserving the peace & tranquillity of this Citty’, see Brit[ish] Mus[eum], Egerton MS. 3361 (Leeds Papers), pp. 1–2: ‘The Interregnum or The Proceedings of the Lords of ye Council & others from ye withdrawing of K: James to the meeting of ye Convention. 1688.’ Turner therefore corrects the account given in Gilbert Burnet's earlier draft: ‘But the disorders of this Inter Regnum began to be much apprehended, so the Lord Mayor called a meeting of all the Privy Councellours and Peers that were about the Towne…’ Brit. Mus., Harleian MSS. 6584, fo. 297, which is not printed in Foxcroft, H. C., A Supplement to Burnet's History of My Own Time (Oxford, 1902)Google Scholar. This explains the statement in Burnet, G., The History of the Reign of King James II (Oxford, 1852), p. 398.Google Scholar

10 Hist. MSS. Comm., 1st Report, Appendix: Sir John Salusbury Trelawny (London, 1870), p. 52. The damaged portions of the text have been supplied and the spelling of ‘strnage’ corrected.

11 Dr Williams's Library, London, Morrice MS. Q (’ The Entring Book: Being an Historical Register of Occurrences from April An: 1677 to April 1691. Vol: 2’), pp. 360—1. The point occasioned dispute.

12 Feiling, K., A History of the Tory Party, 1640–1714 (Oxford, 1924), pp. 229–32, 237.Google ScholarTurner, F. C., James II(London, 1948), pp. 417–19, 421, 422–4, 433–5.Google ScholarKenyon, J. P., Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, 1641-1702 (London, 1958), pp. 217–19.Google Scholar

13 Sachse, W. L., ‘The Mob and the Revolution of 1688’, Journal of British Studies, IV (1964), 42–3.Google ScholarBeloff, M., Public Order and Popular Disturbances 1660–1714 (London, 1938), pp. 40–1.Google Scholar

14 Morrice states that ‘All the Lords Spirituall and Temporall in Town being sent for to Whitehall 23. appeared, and before noone on Tuesday the 11th went to the Lord Mayor at Guildhall and were about 28. there’. Dr Williams's Library, Morrice MS. Q, p. 347. Ailesbury was told by the Duke of Hamilton that the lords would assemble at ten o'clock.

15 Beddard, ‘The Loyalist Opposition’, p. 106.

16 Rochester lost no time in the emergency. He it was who sent word of James's withdrawal to Turner, see above, p. 405.

17 Sancroft had been forbidden the Court on account of his refusal to assist the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, see D'Oyly, G., The Life of William Sancroft (London, 1821, 2 vols.), 1. 233.Google Scholar

18 A variant story is of interest in the light of the loyalists' active co-operation. Ailesbury states that Sancroft begged ‘ that he might not be put into the chair, and proposed to me the Earl of Rochester, and he accordingly presided’. Memoirs of Thomas [Bruce], Earl of Ailesbury, written by himself (Roxburghe Club, Westminster, 1890, 2 vols.), n, 197. No authority repeats the story. Ailesbury's account needs to be taken in conjunction with other and more reliable sources. Cited below as Ailesbury, Memoirs.

19 [Lees, F.], ‘The Life of the Author’, prefixed to A Compleat Collection of the Worksof …John Kettlewell(London, 1719, 2 vols.), I, 79–80.Google Scholar Cited below as [Lees], Life of Kettlewell.

20 The other was the Earl of Mulgrave's secretary, Mr Richard Cooling. Dr Williams's Library, Morrice MS. Q, pp. 350, 387. B.M. Stowe MS. 370 f. 2. The Works of John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave (4th ed., London, 1753, 2 vols.), 11, 74:Google Scholar ‘ Some Account of the Revolution’. Hist.MSS. Comm., Dartmouth, III, 139, 141. Gwyn was commonly known as ‘ Lord Rochester’s gwine', so identified was he with his master, see Dictionary of National Biography. He opposed making William and Mary sovereigns. K. Feiling, A History of the Tory Party, p. 497.

21 Echard, L., The History of the Revolution (London, 1725), p. 194:Google Scholar Northumberland acquainted Rochester of his intention of going to the Prince, ‘ but the Earl advis'd him to a shorter Way, to assemble his Troop of Guards, and declare for his Highness, which he did'. Others followed the Duke's example.

28 Hist. MSS. Comm., Dartmouth, III, 135–7, 140–1: Philip Musgrave to Dartmouth, 13 and 15 December; Phineas Bowles to Dartmouth, 25 December 1688.

23 Beddard, ‘The Loyalist Opposition', p. 106 and note 3.

24 It was printed as The Declaration of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, In and about the Cities of London and Westminster, Assembled at Guildhall, 11 December 1688. Quotations are taken from the copy in the P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], London, S.P. 31/4, fos. 205–6. Cited below as The Declaration. A somewhat distorted version is given in Dr Williams's Library, Morrice MS. Q, p. 348. The text is reprinted in [E. Bohun], The History of the Desertion, Or An Account of all the Publick Affairs in England, From the beginning of September 1688. to the Twelfth of February following (London, 1689), p. 94, and [Kennett], A Complete History of England, III, 500. The twenty-nine signatories were: Sancroft of Canterbury, Lamplugh of York, Pembroke, Dorset, Mulgrave, Thanet, Carlisle, Craven, Ailesbury, Burlington, Sussex, Berkeley, Rochester, Newport, Weymouth, Mews of Winchester, Lloyd of St Asaph, Turner of Ely, Sprat of Rochester, White of Peterborough, Wharton, North and Grey, Chandos, Montague, Jermyn, Vaughan Carbery, Culpepper, Crewe and Ossulston.

25 [Lees], Life of Kettlewell, 1, 80. Ailesbury, Memoirs, n, 197.

26 Foxcroft, H. C., The Life and Letters of Sir George Savile, Bart., First Marquis of Halifax (London, 1898, 2Google Scholar vols.), II, 57, and note 3 for Halifax's query: ‘What was that clause?'. Halifax, along with Nottingham and Godolphin, had been sent by James to treat with the Prince of Orange. He notified Orange of the need to return to London for consultation with the King on 10 December. He attended the peers two days later and took the chair in Sancroft's absence. Brit. Mus., Addit. MSS. 28, 103 (Historical Autographs), fo. 72. Miss Foxcroft has suggested Carbery and Weymouth as Halifax’s informants on this occasion, op. cit. II, 34, 17–33. He, along with the other newcomers, Kent, Anglesey and Nottingham, signed the order to Edward Jones, printer at the Savoy, to print the Declaration, Whitehall, 12 December, P.R.O., S.P. 31/4, fo. 206.

27 For Gwyn's journal, see G. Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, Appendix, pp. 477–9. The owner of the journal has been traced, but to date it has not been found.

28 Hist. MSS. Comm., XIth Report, Appendix, Pt. V: Earl of Dartmouth (London, 1887), pp. 229–30.

29 Sprat's inclusion in the drafting committee is itself noteworthy, for he—far more than the Earl of Rochester—was implicated in the hated Ecclesiastical Commission. It shows that the majority did not share Halifax's well-advertised scruples on that count. Cf. Singer, Clar. Corr. 11, 203.

30 Gwyn's journal in Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, Appendix, p. 478.

31 For Orange's Declaration of 10 October 1688, see [Kennett, ], A Complete History of England, III, 492–3.Google ScholarBurnet, , History of the Reign of King James II, pp. 341–3.Google Scholar

32 Miss Pinkham is therefore wrong in claiming that a free parliament was a ‘big concession to the Whigs’. It was what all self-regarding sections of the political nation wanted, as a cure for all ills. Lucile Pinkham, William III and the Respectable Revolution (Harvard, 1954), p. 73.

33 Beddard, ’The Loyalist Opposition’, p. 106.

34 See James II's ‘Instructions for our Right Trusty & Entirely beloved Cousin George Marquis of Halifax, Our Rt Trusty & Rt Well Beloved Cousin Daniel Earle of Nottingham & Our Rt Trusty & Welbeloved Councellor Sidney Lord Godolphin Our Commissioners to the Prince of Orange’. Whitehall, I December 1688. All Souls, Oxford, MS. CCLXXIII (Wynne Papers, vol. LXXIII), item 1.

35 von Ranke, L., A History of England Principally in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford, 1875, 6 vols.), Iv, 445–6, 452, 45sff.Google Scholar

36 Tanner MSS. 28, fos. 249, 250: two versions of the petition in Archbishop Sancroft's hand. Turner again had a part in its drafting, see ibid. fos. 251–2. It was also printed later, see P.R.O., S.P. 31/4, fo. 195.

37 Of the twenty-nine Guildhall lords, no less than twelve had signed the petition of 16 November, despite the efforts of Halifax and Nottingham to sabotage the scheme (they were successful in preventing Weymouth from signing). The twelve signatories were: Sancroft, Lamplugh, Lloyd of St Asaph, Turner, Sprat and White of the spirituality, and Dorset, Burlington, Rochester, Newport, Chandos and Ossulston of the temporal peerage. Singer, Clar. Corr. II, 201–5. Foxcroft, The Life and Letters of…First Marquis of Halifax, I, 503; II, 10–13.

38 Singer, Clar. Corr. II, 209–10. Turner, James II, pp. 434–5. Braybrooke, (ed.), The Autobiography of Sir John Bramston (Camden Society, London, 1845), p. 337.Google Scholar

39 Ailesbury, Memoirs, II, 197.

40 Beddard, ’The Loyalist Opposition’, p. 106. Turner's ’many ‘probably included those lords who were in arms or who had joined Orange's entourage already. These included some of James's most militant enemies in the Convention Parliament.

41 Ailesbury, Memoirs, II, 197—8.

42 These were Sancroft, Lamplugh, Turner, White, Sprat and Mews of the bishops, together with the lay lords, Rochester, Craven, Weymouth, Mulgrave, North and Grey, and Thanet. Feiling, A History of the Tory Party, p. 240.

43 These were Pembroke, Ailesbury, Berkeley, Chandos, Jermyn and Crewe. Crewe alone of these six lords did not enter his protest against the vacancy, but he did vote for a regency. For the thirty-eight lords that dissented from declaring the throne vacant, see Journals of the House of Lords (s.a.s.l.), xiv, 118–19, and MS. Rawlinson A163, fo. 73. For Clarendon's list of the ’Lords who were for a Regency’, see Singer, Clar. Corr. 11, 256 and note.

44 The loyalists ‘ploy of joining ‘together with each of our friends to keep all to a moderation ‘was unable to silence their opponents. Ailesbury, Memoirs, n, 197‐8.

45 Turner admits that without the Guildhall government ’wee had…bin a State of Banditi, & London had certainly bin the Spoyle of the Rabble’. Beddard, ’The Loyalist Opposition’, p. 106. That the City authorities were unequal to the task, see Mackintosh, Sir James, History of The Revolution in England in 1688 (London, 1834), p. 533.Google Scholar

46 ‘An Apology for ye Suffering Bishops unjustly reflected upon in Some late Pamphetts [sic] With an Account of their Carriage in Severall Transactions Just before, & after ye Revolution’ is to be found in MS. Rawlinson D836, fos. 77ff. There are two variant texts of the ‘Apology’ in the same collection, both of which are corrected by Francis Turner's pen, ibid. D41 and C735. They all vary in title, phrase and length, though Macray's Catalogue lists the first, from which quotations have been taken, as ‘a perfect copy’. Another copy survives at St John's College, Cambridge, a notoriously Jacobite foundation over which Turner had once presided as master, see MS. S21. It was left to the College's safe keeping by William Lloyd, the deprived Non-juring bishop of Norwich and Sancroft's appointed successor in the metropolitical office. Cited below as ‘An Apology’.

47 A Vindication of the Late Archbishop Sancroft, And of his Brethren, The rest of the Depriv'd Bishops, From the Reflections of Mr. Marshal In His Defence of Our Constitution in Church and State (London, 1717). It is usually attributed to Hilkiah Bedford. Cited below as the Vindication.

48 ‘An Apology', MS. Rawlinson D836, fo. 105. This portion of the narrative is not printed in the Vindication.

49 Beddard, ‘The Loyalist Opposition’, p. 106.

50 Gwyn's journal in Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, Appendix, pp. 478–9. Lord Wharton clearly took the initiative, in that he was responsible for the double reading of the committee's draft in the first place.

51 What Ailesbury preferred to call ‘the violent party’ or later on ‘the adverse lords’. Ailesbury, Memoirs, II, 198, 199, 201. Turner's phrase, ‘a strong Party of Lds’, should be construed in terms of their violence of opposition rather than their strength of numbers. Cf. above, p. 412.

52 Attention has recently been drawn to the ‘greatly inflated’ importance of the ‘ Immortal Seven' in the historiography of 1688: see the most stimulating lecture by Kenyon, J. P., The Nobility in the Revolution of 1688 (University of Hull Publications, 1963), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar Cf. Browning, A., Thomas Osborne Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds 1632–1712 (Glasgow, 1944–1951, 3 vols.)Google Scholar, I, 379ff. Cited below as Browning, Danby.

53 Beddard, ‘The Loyalist Opposition’, p. 106.

54 ‘An Apology’, MS. Rawlinson D836, fo. no, which is quoted in part in the Vindication, pp. 29, 30. The peer is not named.

55 The Declaration, Public Record Office, S.P. 31/4, fos. 205–6.

56 Ailesbury, Memoirs, II, 198. He owned the truth of Sancroft’s remark, adding ‘as also that I would never have done, had the King left a regency’.

57 Beddard, ‘The Loyalist Opposition’, p. 106.

58 Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, Appendix, p. 479.

59 See Cardwell, E., Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England (Oxford, 1839, 2 vols.), II, 316–19.Google Scholar Cf. D’Oyly, G., The Life of William Sancroft (London, 1821, 2 vols.), I, 263–4.Google Scholar

60 The Declaration. Public Record Office, S.P. 31/4, fos. 205–6.

61 Gwyn's journal in Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, Appendix, p. 479. ‘An Apology’, MS. Rawlinson, D 836, fo. 106. B.M. Stowe MS. 370, fo. 5.

62 For one example among many, see the broadsheet entitled ‘ Extract of the States General their Resoluti[on] Thursday, 28th. October. 1688’. William is stated as having not ‘the least insight or intention’ of removing King James, ‘much less to make himself Master’ of the country. St John's College, Cambridge, MS. K35, item 9. For an alternative attempt to explain these statements as cover propaganda, see S. B. Baxter, William III (London, 1966), PP- 235–7.

63 L. von Ranke, A History of England, IV, 478.

64 Lingard, J., The History of England (6th ed.London, 1855, 10 vols.), x, 181.Google Scholar

65 Gwyn's journal in Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, Appendix, p. 478. Middleton did not attend the Lords.

66 Hist. MSS. Comm., XIIth Report, Appendix, Pt. VII: Le Fleming, p. 228: 11 December 1688.

67 The Declaration. Public Record Office, S.P. 31/4, fos. 205–6.

68 ‘An Apology’, MS. Rawlinson D836, fo. 108.

69 The Works of John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave (London, 1753, 2Google Scholar vols.), 11, 74: ‘Some Account of the Revolution’. Significantly, Rochester declined the office, see B.M., Stowe MS. 370, fo. 6.

70 Gwyn's journal in Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, Appendix, p. 479. Dr Williams’s Library, Morrice MS. Q, p. 349. The choice of Culpepper perhaps indicates the strength of the opposition to the loyalists. Equally, Weymouth's presence attests to the range of sympathies within the ranks of the conservatives. He was decidedly not of the Lambeth party.

71 Burnet, History of the Reign of King James II, pp. 398–9. It was a common enough delusion at the time, cf. Brit. Mus., Egerton MS. 3361, p. 2 and Cambridge University Library, MS. Eee 1215.

72 Vindication. The Preface.

73 Ibid. p. 27, quoting almost verbatim from ‘An Apology’, MS. Rawlinson D836, fo. 103.

74 Ailesbury, Memoirs, 11, 197.

75 ‘An Apology’, MS. Rawlinson D836, fo. 105. The mover is further styled ‘a certain Popular Lord’ by Lees in Life of Kettlewell, 1, 81.

76 James's view had not changed, see Hist. MSS. Comm., Dartmouth (London, 1887), p. 226.

77 Dalrymple, J., Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland (4th ed.Dublin, 1773, 2 vols.), 1, 271.Google Scholar Dr Williams's Library, Morrice MS. Q, p. 347. R. R. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom (London, 1894–95, 3 vols.), II, 535.

78 The Works of John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, 11, 74–5.

79 Hist. MSS. Comm., Xlth Report, Appendix, Pt. V: Dartmouth, pp. 228–9.

80 ‘An Apology’, MS. Rawlinson D836, fo. 103. The allusion is to Acts xix. 36.

81 [Ralph, J.], The History of England (London, 1744—46, 2 vols.), 1, 1062.Google Scholar His comment on their address, ‘ whether inspir'd by their own Zeal, or led by the artful Management of the Intriguers…is uncertain’, seems to echo the words of the Apologist. Ralph's account and a scrutiny of the address shows that the City did not restrict itself to ‘a generous Emulation’ of the peers. Cf. Maitland, W., The History of London from its Foundation to the Present Time (London, 1756, 2 vols.), I, 487.Google Scholar Cited below as Maitland, History of London.

82 The texts of the addresses are printed in [Kennett], A Complete History of England, III, 501.

83 The arrival of the City deputation was given precedence in the ‘Relation du Voyage d'Angleterre’: ‘Le magistrat de Londres y envoya une forte deputation pour le [Prince] complimenter, le remercier et l'inviter de venir au plutôt à leur ville. La milice de la de ville en fit autant.’ Hist. MSS. Comm., VIIth Report, Pt. I, Appendix: Denbigh, p. 227: 13/23 December 1688. The manner of the delivery was suitably grandiose, see Hist. MSS. Comm., XlVth Report, Appendix, Pt. IV: Kenyon (London, 1894), p. 208. Dr Williams's Library, Morrice MS. Q, p. 350. Maitland, History of London, 1, 487.

84 The lords’ mission was noticed in the ‘Relation’ as no more than ‘pour notifier à Son Altse ce qui s'etoit passé et pour luy faire compliment’. Hist. MSS. Comm., VIIth Report, Pt. I, Appendix: Denbigh, p. 227.

85 ‘ Memoirs Civil & Ecclesiasticall from the time in which the landing of the Prince of orange was apprehended to the time of King James's going away. December 1688: by Francis Turner Lord Bishop of Ely’. Brit. Mus., Addit. MSS. 32,096, fo. 334. The transcript was made by George Harbin, Turner's erstwhile domestic chaplain. The text of the memoirs, which survives only in fragmentary copies, has been prepared for publication.

86 Singer, Clar. Corr. II, 224–5. It will be remembered that the elder Hyde was also bent on saving the King. See above, p. 407.

87 Turner's ‘Memoirs Civil & Ecclesiasticall’, Brit. Mus., Addit. MSS. 32,096, fo. 334. The Earl's own account of that day's happenings contains precisely the same phrase, ‘all was nought’, cf. Singer, Clar. Corr. II, 225. The four lords returned to London ‘and gave their Lops his Highnesse[s] kind acknowledgement for their Address &c.’ Dr Williams's Library, Morrice MS. Q, p. 360.

88 On 13 December it was commonly reported that ‘ye toun is vnivarselly pleased & hopes to see his highness ye P[rince] hear in a day or too; which will satle ye destrackions wee are att present in ‘. Carte MS. 239, fo. 336. Cf. Hist. MSS. Comm., Xlth Report, Appendix, Pt. V: Dartmouth, p. 232: Lady Dartmouth to Dartmouth, 12 December 1688. She records that as a result of the popular disturbances ‘every body is in great frights and wish for the Prince of Oringe's coming to quiat things’. William used the London deputies to return ‘to the City his most gratefull acknowledgement for their Address, and their invitation of him thither, which he would readily close with as soon as ever his Methods would admitt him‘. Dr Williams's Library, Morrice MS. Q, p. 360. The City authorities gladly accepted the responsibility, which the lords had deliberately declined, of preparing or appointing ‘a convenient place for your reception within this city’. No mention was made of a royal residence however. Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Commons of London to William, 17 December 1688, printed in Japikse, Correspondentie van Willem III en van Hans Willem Bentinck, III, 87–8.

89 [Ralph], The History of England, 1, 1062. His title was self-appointed.