Declaration of Indulgence

Declaration of Indulgence
Name	Declaration of Indulgence
Date	1672, 1687
Location	England, Scotland
Type	Royal proclamation

Declaration of Indulgence The Declaration of Indulgence refers to two royal proclamations issued by Charles II of England in 1672 and by James II of England in 1687 that suspended penal laws against Roman Catholics, Protestant Dissenters, and other nonconformists in the kingdoms of England and Scotland. Both proclamations intersected with major legal institutions such as the High Court of Justice, debates in the Parliament of England, and controversies involving the Church of England, producing constitutional conflicts that contributed to the Glorious Revolution.

Background and Context

The first proclamation arose amid the aftermath of the English Civil War, the Restoration of Charles II, and the religious settlement that had reasserted the Test Acts. European politics—particularly the Thirty Years' War aftermath and the expansion of French absolutism under Louis XIV of France—influenced royal calculations, as did domestic anxieties following the Popish Plot and the rise of the Whig–Tory divide. The second proclamation by James II of England occurred against the backdrop of the Exclusion Crisis, ongoing fears of Catholic succession, alliances with Ireland and Scotland, and the king’s patronage ties to figures such as Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon’s successors and advisors from the Court of Whitehall.

Text and Legal Provisions

Both proclamations claimed to exercise the royal prerogative to issue suspensions and dispensations, invoking precedents from Tudor and Stuart practice associated with figures like Henry VIII and Elizabeth I of England. The 1672 instrument authorized the suspension of penal statutes enacted by the Parliament of England, while the 1687 proclamation asserted broader powers, purporting to dispense with statutes affecting corporations, oaths, and officeholding that derived from acts such as the Act of Uniformity 1662 and the Corporation Act 1661. Legal challenges centered on statutory interpretation before institutions including the Court of King’s Bench and the House of Lords, raising questions about the limits of royal prerogative vis-à-vis common law writs such as the writ of habeas corpus.

Motivations and Political Debate

Supporters framed the proclamations as instruments of tolerance influenced by continental examples like the Edict of Nantes and by Protestant figures sympathetic to comity, including Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury at times earlier in his career. Opponents—drawing on polemics from writers such as John Locke and politicians in the Whig party—argued that the proclamations threatened the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights 1689 precursor debates and the principle upheld at the Trial of the Seven Bishops. The controversy engaged influential institutions and figures including the Bench of Bishops, the Convocation of the Church of England, and legal luminaries affiliated with the Middle Temple and Inner Temple.

Implementation and Enforcement

Implementation varied regionally across London, the City of Westminster, York, and provincial boroughs governed by corporate charters revoked or adjusted under the Corporation Act 1661. Administrative apparatuses—such as the Privy Council of England, the Secretary of State, and local justices of the peace—were tasked with granting dispensations and overseeing compliance. Enforcement met resistance from municipal authorities like the City of London Corporation and ecclesiastical hierarchies centered at Canterbury Cathedral and St Paul’s Cathedral, which often litigated before common law courts and petitioned the House of Commons.

Reactions and Consequences

The proclamations provoked litigants such as clergy brought before the Court of Ecclesiastical Commission and secular officeholders challenging royal directives in the Court of Common Pleas. The 1687 declaration in particular catalyzed organized opposition culminating in the bishops’ trial and acquittal at the King’s Bench and contributed to political mobilization that allied figures like William of Orange with English opponents of James II. Internationally, reactions involved diplomatic correspondence between the Dutch Republic, the Habsburg Monarchy, and the Kingdom of France, as ambassadors reported to capitals about constitutional unrest. Consequences included the acceleration of coalition-building that led to the Glorious Revolution and subsequent legislative responses in the Convention Parliament.

Legacy and Historical Assessment

Historians assess the two proclamations as pivotal in evolving doctrines of constitutional monarchy, religious toleration, and the separation of powers debated by thinkers including Baron de Montesquieu and later invoked by Thomas Jefferson. The legal fallout informed statutes such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Toleration Act 1689, reshaping rights of dissenters and influencing reforms in Ireland and Scotland through subsequent acts like the Act of Settlement 1701. Scholarly interpretation ranges from viewing the proclamations as earnest attempts at religious toleration to seeing them as instruments of absolutism akin to policies pursued by Louis XIV of France. The episodes remain central to studies of the English Revolution sequence, the development of common law constraints on executive power, and the trajectory of British constitutionalism into the eighteenth century.

Category:17th century in England Category:British constitutional law