¹ Apart from the works mentioned in note 3, the most important studies of Williamite propaganda have been Robert, Beddard, A kingdom without a king: the journal of the provisional government in the revolution of 1688 (Oxford, 1988), especially pp. 20–3Google Scholar; Edie, Carolyn A., ‘The public face of royal ritual: sermons, medals and civic ceremony in later Stuart coronations’, Huntington Library Quarterly, LIII (1990), 311–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mark, Goldie, ‘The revolution of 1689 and the structure of political argument’, Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, LXXXIII (1980), 473–564Google Scholar; Jonathan, Israel, ‘William III and toleration’, in Grell, Ole Peter, Israel, Jonathan I. and Nicholas, Tyacke (eds.), From persecution to toleration: the Glorious Revolution in England (Oxford, 1991), pp. 129–70, especially pp. 138–52Google Scholar; Maccubin, Robert P. and Martha, Hamilton-Phillips (eds.), The age of William III and Mary II: power, politics and patronage, 1688–1702 (Williamsburg, 1989)Google Scholar; Schwoerer, Lois G., ‘Images of Queen Mary II, 1689–95’, Renaissance Quarterly, XLII (1989), 717–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘The Glorious Revolution as spectacle: a new perspective’, in Baxter, Stephen B. (ed.), England's rise to greatness, 1660–1763 (Los Angeles, 1983), pp. 109–49Google Scholar; and the articles by Rachel, Weil, Lois, Schwoerer, William, Speck, Stephen, Baxter and Lois, Potter in Schwoerer, Lois G. (ed.), The revolution of 1688–9: changing perspectives (Cambridge, 1991).Google Scholar

² The full title of the document was The declaration of his highness William Henry, prince of Orange, of the reasons inducing him to appear in armes in the kingdom of England (Hague, 1688)Google Scholar. It can be most easily consulted in William, Cobbett (ed.), The parliamentary history of England (36 vols., London, 1806–1820), V, 1–11.Google Scholar

³ Lois, Schwoerer, The declaration of rights, 1689 (Baltimore, 1981), especially ch. VGoogle Scholar, and ‘Propaganda in the revolution of 1688–9’, American Historical Review, LXXXII (1977), 843–74Google Scholar; Jonathan, Israel (ed.), The Anglo-Dutch moment (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar, introduction, and ‘The Dutch role in the Glorious Revolution’, pp. 105–62.Google Scholar

⁴ Israel, , Anglo-Dutch moment, p. 124.Google Scholar

⁵ The most detailed recent narratives are contained in Robert, Beddard, ‘The unexpected whig revolution of 1688’, in Robert, Beddard (ed.), The revolutions of 1688 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 11–101Google Scholar; Jones, D. L., A parliamentary history of the Glorious Revolution (London, 1988)Google Scholar; Beddard, , Kingdom without a kingGoogle Scholar; Israel, ‘Dutch role’; Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights.Google Scholar

⁶ Cobbett, , Parliamentary history, v, 1–11.Google Scholar

⁷ Schwoerer, , ‘Propaganda’, pp. 851–2Google Scholar; Israel, , Anglo-Dutch moment, p. 13.Google Scholar

⁸ Schwoerer stressed that William rejected whig appeals to include condemnations of the tory reaction (1682–5) in the Declaration, and pointed out that tories were pressing for a parliament in the autumn of 1688, quite independently of the prince's initiative; Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights, pp. 120–2.Google Scholar

⁹ Schwoerer, , ‘Propaganda’, pp. 484–5Google Scholar. Lucille, Pinkham, William III and the respectable revolution (London, 1954), pp. 177–8Google Scholar, describes the arrest of Colonel Langham, one of the agents carrying the Declaration.

¹⁰ Schwoerer, , ‘Propaganda’, p. 855Google Scholar, and Declaration of rights, pp. 115–16Google Scholar. The letters to the forces were William III, A letter, & c. [to the English Army] [1688]; William III, The prince of Orange's letter to the English fleet, and the form of prayer used in the Dutch fleet (Amsterdam, 1688).Google Scholar

¹¹ Schwoerer, , ‘Propaganda’, p. 854Google Scholar, and Declaration of rights, p. 105.Google Scholar

¹² Israel, , Anglo-Dutch moment, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar

¹³ Israel, , Anglo-Dutch moment, p. 15Google Scholar. For a full account of the incident, see Theophilus, seventh earl of Huntingdon to James II, 29 Nov. 1688, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the manuscripts of the late Reginald Rawden Hastings (4 vols., London, 1930), 11, 198–9.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Israel, , Anglo-Dutch moment, p. 15.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights, pp. 123–5Google Scholar; Israel, , Anglo-Dutch moment, pp. 14–15Google Scholar, and ‘Dutch role’, p. 124.

¹⁶ The increase in the frequency of publication was announced in The London Gazette, MMCD (15 Nov. to 17 Nov. 1688), and lasted until the beginning of December.

¹⁷ The Gazette reported that few Devonshire men were rallying to the prince, and printed addresses favourable to James – London Gazette, MMCCCXCIX (12 Nov. to 15 Nov. 1688), and MMDDI (17 Nov. to 19 Nov. 1688), but it went silent on home news as William advanced through the west country. The only domestic information carried in the six issues between 24 Nov. and 13 Dec. concerned James's routine appointments in Whitehall. James's counter-declaration was printed in London Gazette, MMCCCXCVI (5 Nov. to 8 Nov.). Other proclamations carried included those to sabotage the Orange propaganda effort: IIJames, , By the king, a proclamation to restrain the spreading of false news,…given 26 October 1688 (London, 1688)Google Scholar, and By the king, a proclamation…given 2 November 1688 (London, 1688)Google Scholar, which forbade publication of the prince of Orange's Declaration.

¹⁸ Van Citters to the states general, 3 Dec. 1688 (new style), B. L. Add. MSS, 34, 510, fo. 184.

¹⁹ James, II, By the king, a declaration…given 6 November 1688 (London, 1688)Google Scholar. For the proclamations, see above note 17.

²⁰ Robert, Steele (ed.), Tudor and Stuart proclamations 1485–1714 (2 vols., Oxford, 1910), 1, xvi–xvii.Google Scholar

²¹ Prayers to be used in all cathedral, collegiate and parochial churches, and chapels,…during this time of publick apprehension from the danger of invasion [1688]. See also [Edmund, Bohun], The history of the desertion (London, 1689), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

²² See such pamphlets as [Henry, Care], Liberty of conscience asserted ([London], 1687)Google Scholar; [William, Penn], A letter from a gentleman in the country, to his friends in London, upon the subject of the penal laws and tests ([London], 1687)Google Scholar; Samuel, Parker, Reasons for abrogating the test imposed on all members of parliament (London, 1688)Google Scholar. Many of the pamphlets had been printed by the royal printers, and were prominently licensed by James's minister Sunderland from Whitehall.

²³ The Dutch design anatomized, or a discovery of the wickedness and unjustice of the intended invasion (London, 1688).Google Scholar

²⁴ The Declaration was printed with Some reflections upon his highness the prince of Orange's declaration (Edinburgh, 1688)Google Scholar; Animadversions upon the declaration of his highness the prince of Orange (London, 1688)Google Scholar; Animadversions on an additional declaration of his highness the prince of Orange (London, 1688)Google Scholar; The prince of Orange his declaration, shewing the reasons why he invades England, with a short preface, and some modest remarks on it (London, 1688).Google Scholar

²⁵ Weston, Corinne Comstock and Greenburg, Janelle Renfrew, Subjects and sovereigns: the grand controversy over legal sovereignty in Stuart England (Cambridge, 1981), chs. VIII–IXCrossRefGoogle Scholar, demonstrated the role which belief in parliament as an essential element of the English constitution played in building opposition to James.

²⁶ For some discussion of contemporary confusion about the content of the English constitution see Schwwoerer, , Declaration of rights, 1Google Scholar; Speck, W. A., Reluctant revolutionaries (Oxford, 1988), VII.Google Scholar

²⁷ For discussion of Monmouth see Some reflections, p. 11; Dutch design anatomized, p. 35.Google Scholar

²⁸ Animadversions upon the declaration, p. 20.Google Scholar

²⁹ Dutch design anatomized, p. 9.Google Scholar

³⁰ William's Declaration had opened with concern for the ‘public peace and happiness’ of the kingdom, Cobbett, , Parliamentary history, V, 1.Google Scholar

³¹ Animadversions upon the declaration, p. 19.Google Scholar

³² [Edmund, Bohun], History…desertion, p. 18Google Scholar; James, II, By the king, a proclamation…given 20 October 1688 (London, 1688)Google Scholar. See also Dutch design anatomized, pp. 10–17.Google Scholar

³³ The dominant horror of revolt occasioned by the Civil War is the starting point for Dickinson, H. T., Liberty and property: political ideology in eighteenth-century Britain (London, 1977)Google Scholar, see especially pp. 13–14.

³⁴ James, II, By the king, a proclamation…given 28 September 1688 (London, 1688).Google Scholar

³⁵ Some reflections, p. 13.

³⁶ Animadversions upon the declaration, p. 20.Google Scholar

³⁷ Dutch design anatomized, p. 10.Google Scholar

³⁸ For discussion of William's Dutch record see Some reflections, p. 13.

³⁹ The prince of Orange his declaration, p. 17.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ For an account of these concessions, see John, Miller, James II: a study in kingship (London, 1989), pp. 196–9.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For instance, James reminded the country that he had restored borough charters in James, II, By the king, a proclamation for the speedy calling of a parliament…given 30 November 1688 (London, 1688).Google Scholar

⁴² Dutch design anatomized, p. 18.Google Scholar

⁴³ London Gazette, MMCCCXCVII; Animadversions upon the declaration, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Animadversions upon the declaration, p. 31.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For demonstrations see London Gazette, MMCLI (popular demonstration in Salisbury), MMCLII (loyal addresses from boroughs). The king seems to have been greeted with joy by some sections of the London population when he returned from his first, abortive, flight in December 1688; see James, Macpherson (ed.), Original papers relating to the secret history of Great Britain…to which is prefixed extracts from the life of James II (2 vols., London, 1735), 1, 168.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Mark, Goldie, ‘The political thought of the anglican revolution’Google Scholar, in Beddard, , Revolutions of 1688, pp. 102–36Google Scholar. The term ‘anglican’ is anachronistic, but is useful in accounts of the period after 1662 to distinguish the established church from its dissenting rivals.

⁴⁷ See the evidence for the earl of Clarendon's hopes in this period, Singer, S. W. (ed.), The correspondence of Henry Hyde, early of Clarendon (2 vols., London, 1828).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Andrew, Browning (ed.), The memoirs of Sir John Reresby (2nd edn, London, 1991), pp. 528, 533.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The Additional declaration, given at the Hague on 24 Oct. 1688 (new style), was appended to several of the editions of the original Declaration circulating in England in 1688–9.

⁵⁰ The Ellis correspondence (2 vols., London, 1829), II, 311.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Schwoerer, , ‘Propaganda’, pp. 871–2.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid. pp. 872–3.

⁵³ The basic narrative of James's collapse can be traced in Speck, , Reluctant revolutionaries, p. 87Google Scholar; Western, J. R., Monarchy and revolution: the English state in the 1680s (London, 1972), pp. 274–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The importance of the defection of Anne (James's daughter) on James's morale is stressed in Maurice, Ashley, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 (London, 1966), p. 167Google Scholar. The northern rising is described in Hosford, David H., Nottingham, nobles and the north: aspects of the revolution of 1688 (Hamden, Conn., 1976).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cobbett, , Parliamentary history, V, 10Google Scholar; Jones, J. R., The revolution of 1688 in England (London, 1972), p. 304.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Pinkham, , William III, p. 199Google Scholar; Ashley, , Glorious Revolution, p. 174Google Scholar. William arrested the envoy James sent to him after his capture and return to London, Western, Monarchy and revolution, p. 296Google Scholar. John, Miller, The Glorious Revolution (Harlow, 1983), p. 17Google Scholar, states William was acting as king by the end of December despite his lack of formal title.

⁵⁶ Robert, Beddard, Kingdom without a king, pp. 34–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Jones, , Revolution of 1688, p. 304Google Scholar, states William's attitude at Hungerford shows ‘that he had not committed himself to depriving James of sovereign powers’. On the other hand William's modern biographer dates the regal ambition to the summer of 1688, Baxter, Stephen B., William III (London, 1966), pp. 229–33Google Scholar, as does Speck, , Reluctant revolutionaries, p. 75.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Jonathan, Israel, ‘William III and toleration’Google Scholar, in Grell, , Israel, and Tyacke, (eds.), From persecution to toleration, pp. 129–70Google Scholar; p. 144 sets the Declaration within William's broad strategy of reassuring his foreign allies about his intentions in England.

⁵⁹ See, for example, A free conference concerning the present revolution of affairs in England (London, 1689)Google Scholar; A word to the wise for settling the government (London, 1689)Google Scholar; [Gilbert, Burnet], An enquiry into the present state of affairs, and in particular, whether we owe allegiance to the king in these circumstances (London, 1688).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Beddard, , Kingdom without a king, p. 63.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cobbett, , Parliamentary history, V, 21.Google Scholar

⁶² Journals of the House of Commons, x, 5.Google Scholar

⁶³ The bodies asked William to organize elections to the convention, and handed him executive power until that body met on 22 Jan., Cobbett, , Parliamentary history, v, 23–6Google Scholar. Schwoerer recognized that William's Declaration forced the prince to submit constitutional questions to a convention, Schwoerer, , ‘Propaganda’, p. 872.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Western, Monarchy and revolution, pp. 300–1Google Scholar; Jones, , Revolution of 1688, pp. 313–16Google Scholar; Speck, , Reluctant revolutionaries, v.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The position and dilemmas of the tories in 1688 are nicely summarized in John, Miller, ‘Proto-Jacobitism? The tories and the revolution of 1688–9’, in Eveline, Cruickshanks and Jeremy, Black (eds.), The Jacobite challenge (Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 7–23.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ William gave no indication of his position in his letter to both houses of the convention, 22 Jan. 1668/9, Journals of the House of Lords, XIV, 101–2Google Scholar. Whilst the convention met, William was telling members of his entourage ‘he had now brought together a free and true representative of the kingdom: he left it therefore to them to do what they thought best for the good of the kingdom’, Gilbert, Burnet, The history of his own times (6 vols., Oxford, 1833, 2nd edn), III, 394.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Burnet, , History…own times, III, 395–6Google Scholar. To stay consistent with the Declaration in public, William had to make his position known via rumour and closet briefings. His threat was probably issued on 3 Feb. when William had called Halifax, Shrewsbury and Danby into a private meeting. Earlier, Fagel had refused to make the prince's views clear to Halifax and Danby when they met with him, Jones, , Parliamentary history, pp. 36, 39.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ It is also worth remembering how much the prince of Orange used his military domination of the capital, and downright intimidation of opponents, in the winter of 1688/9, Beddard, , ‘Unexpected whig revolution’, pp. 11–101.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ London Gazette, MMCCCXCVII.

⁷⁰ The term ‘loyalist’ here refers to those who opposed the removal of James from the throne in the winter of 1688. ‘Jacobite’ has been used to denote the narrower group of people who opposed William's expedition. Men such as Sir Edward Seymour, and the earl of Danby, belonged to the first group, but not the second.

⁷¹ See, for example, Reflections upon our late and present proceedings in England [1689]; A speech to his highness, the prince of Orange, by a true protestant of the church of England, as established by law (London, 1689).Google Scholar

⁷² Robert, Beddard, ‘The Guildhall declaration of 11 December, 1688, and the counter-revolution of the loyalists’, Historical Journal, XI (1968), 403–20Google Scholar; also Beddard, , Kingdom without a king, p. 36.Google Scholar

⁷³ A letter from Turner dated 17 Feb. 1688[9] explaining the course of events and his motivation – Bodleian Rawlinson MSS, D 836, fos. 113–16 – is printed in Robert, Beddard, ‘The loyalist opposition in the interregnum: a letter of Dr Francis Turner, bishop of Ely on the revolution of 1688’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XD (1967), 101–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ William's camp was in particular difficulty on this point, because not only the king, but the Great Seal, the legitimating symbol of his authority, had gone missing. For speculation on what had happened to it, see Chacksfield, K. Merle, Glorious Revolution, 1688 (Wincanton, 1988), p. 190.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Beddard, , Kingdom without a king, p. 39Google Scholar. The document was published as A declaration by the lords spiritual and temporal in and about the cities of London and Westminster assembled at the Guildhall, 11 November, 1688 (London, 1688).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Schwoerer, Lois G., ‘A jornall of the convention at Westminster begun 22 January 1688/9’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, ID, (1976), 242–63, especially p. 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also, Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights, pp. 175–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Schwoerer, , ‘Jornall of the convention’, p. 237.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Anchitel, Grey, Debates of the house of commons from…1667…1694, collected by A. Grey (10 vols., London, 1769), IX, 15.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Singer, (ed.), Correspondence of Henry Hyde, II, 238.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid.

⁸¹ Browning, , Memoirs…Reresy, p. 553.Google Scholar

⁸² Jones, , Parliamentary history, pp. 33–6.Google Scholar

⁸³ In this area Schwoerer had her deepest insights into the problems the manifesto caused for the Orange camp. The analysis offered here owes much to her work. See especially, Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights, pp. 125, 236–7.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ The document promised William would ‘concur in every thing that may procure the peace and happiness of the nation, which a free and lawful Parliament shall determine’, Cobbett, , Parliamentary history, V, 10.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Grey, , Debates, IX, 29–30.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ibid, IX, 30–1.

⁸⁷ Ibid, IX, 80.

⁸⁸ Ibid.

⁸⁹ In early September, as the Declaration was being composed, William twice wrote to his adviser and friend Bentinck, worrying that the clauses about parliament put him entirely at the legislature's mercy, Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights, p. 112.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Frankle, Robert J., ‘The formulation of the declaration of rights’, Historical Journal, XVII (1974), 265–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights, pp. 220–1.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights, pp. 232–7Google Scholar. Jonathan Israel, after reading Schwoerer, has warned against an interpretation of 1688 which implies that William boxed himself in with his Declaration, Israel, , Anglo-Dutch moment, pp. 17–18Google Scholar. The prince, Israel points out, was used to dealing with recalcitrant assemblies, and always knew he would have to compromise to secure the support of the political nation. Yet this view ignores both the extent to which the Declaration was being used by loyalists in the winter of 1688–9, and the attempts by Williamites to distance themselves from their own document.

⁹² The declaration is published in Cobbett, , Parliamentary history, V, 108–11Google Scholar. Its preamble listed the crimes of James which had been set out in the prince's Declaration, and stressed that the convention which had drawn up this new document was the free legislature for which the original manifesto had called. William, however, neither signed the document, nor swore an oath to uphold its terms, Schwoerer, , Declaration of rights, p. 13Google Scholar. In his speech accepting the offer of the throne, made immediately after the declaration of rights had been read to him, he did say he would ‘preserve your religion, laws and liberties’ and ‘concur in anything that shall be for the good of the kingdom’, but he made no direct reference to the articles just put to him, Cobbett, , Parliamentary history, V, 111.Google Scholar

⁹³ Edmund, Burke, Reflections on the revolution in France (Harmondsworth, 1968, Penguin Classics edition), p. 103.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ William had referred to his Declaration in a letter to the convention on 22 Jan., later published as IIIWilliam, , His highness the prince of Orange his letter to the Lords…assembled at Westminster in this present convention, 22 January 1688/9 (London, 1689)–Google Scholar but never promoted the document again.

⁹⁵ Foxcroft, H. C., The life and letters of Sir George Savile (2 vols., London, 1898), II, 217.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ In a debate on a triennial bill on 28 Jan. 1693, Anthony Bowyer reminded the house of commons, ‘it was one of the articles of your Bill of Rights to have frequent Parliaments when this government was first settled’, Henry, Horwitz (ed.), The parliamentary diary of Narcissus Luttrell, 1691–3 (Oxford, 1972), p. 391Google Scholar. Robert Harley, promoting a bill to regulate treason trials 18 Nov. 1692 pointed out that injustice in such cases ‘is what you took notice of when you presented the crown to Their Majesties and made it one of the heads of grievances against the late king’, ibid, p. 237. Nevertheless, William blocked both measures.

⁹⁷ For the argument that the Declaration limited monarchical power after 1688 see Schwoerer, , ‘Propaganda’, pp. 872–3.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ A passionate case for widespread Jacobitism is contained in the introductions to Eveline, Cruickshanks (ed.), Ideology and conspiracy: aspects of Jacobitism 1689–1759 (Edinburgh, 1982)Google Scholar; and Cruickshanks, and Black, (eds.), Jacobite challengeGoogle Scholar. See also Jonathan, Clark, ‘On moving the middle ground: the significance of Jacobitism in historical studies’, in Cruickshanks, and Black, (eds.), Jacobite challenge, pp. 177–88Google Scholar. However, a cogent opposing view has been put by Linda, Colley, In defiance of oligarchy: the tory party 1714–60 (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar, which argues against Cruickshanks's suggestion that many tories were Jacobites; and by Daniel, Szechi, ‘The Jacobite revolution settlement, 1689–1696’, English Historical Review, CVIII (1993)Google Scholar, which stresses the unacceptability of the exiled court's Catholicism.

Nevertheless, the importance of Jacobitism as an opposition rhetoric, and a symbolic system critical of the government, is presented in Nicholas, Rogers, ‘Riot and popular Jacobitism in early Hanoverian England’Google Scholar, in Cruickshanks, , Ideology and conspiracy, pp. 70–88, especially pp. 81–5Google Scholar, ‘Popular protest in early Hanoverian London’, Past and Present, LXXIX (1978), 70–100, especially 96–9Google Scholar; and Paul, Monod, Jacobitism and the English people, 1688–1788 (Cambridge, 1989).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ For the development and presentation of this discourse, see Claydon, Anthony M., ‘,Courtly reformation: Williamite propaganda after the Glorious Revolution in England’ (Ph. D., University of London, 1993)Google Scholar. Its most important early statements were contained in Gilbert, Burnet, A sermon preached in the chappel of St James’ before his highness the prince of Orange, 23 December 1688 (London, 1689)Google Scholar, and in ceremonies described in [John, Whittel], An exact diary of the late expedition of his illustrious highness, the prince of Orange (London, 1689).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Claydon, ‘Courtly reformation’, ch. II.

¹⁰¹ Ibid.

¹⁰² Gilbert, Burnet, A sermon preached at the coronation of William III and Mary II, king and queen…in the abby-Church of Westminster, 11 April 1689 (London, 1689)Google Scholar. This sermon analysed the constitution, but subsumed this discussion within a soaring celebration of Williamite reformation, Claydon, , ‘Courtly reformation’, pp. 71–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Claydon, , ‘Courtly reformation’, chs III–VI.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Over the past three decades there has been considerable production of articles analysing the constitutional meaning of 1688–9, whilst the leading guides to the political thought of the period have all been heavily biased in favour of constitutional or socio-constitutional theory. See, for example, Dickinson, Liberty and property; Mark, Goldie, ‘Tory political thought, 1689–1714’ (Ph. D., University of Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar; Kenyon, J. P., Revolution principles: the politics of party 1689–1720 (Cambridge, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar; Weston and Greenburg, Subjects and sovereigns.

¹⁰⁵ Honourable exceptions are Bahlmann, Dudley W. R., The moral revolution of 1688 (Yale, 1957)Google Scholar; Gerald, Straka, Anglican reaction to the revolution of 1688 (Madison, Wisconsin, 1962)Google Scholar; Jacob, Margaret C., The Newtonians and the English revolution, 1689–1720 (Hassocks, Sussex, 1976)Google Scholar; and the extensive literature on the movement for the reformation of manners, which is perhaps best approached through the footnotes to Shoemaker, Robert B., ‘Reforming the city: the reformation of manners campaign in London, 1690–1738’, in Lee, Davison, Tim, Hitchcock, Tim, Kearns and Robert, Shoemaker (eds.), Stilling the grumbling hive: the response to social and economic problems in England 1689–1750 (London, 1992), pp. 99–120.Google Scholar