James II. was proclaimed in absolute peace, and the subse quent rebellions of Argyle and Monmouth seemed but to strengthen the loyalty of the majority. Yet the king strangely misjudged the strength of the Protestant opposition to anything Catholic, and acted as though he could safely disregard it. An envoy was despatched to ask for the cardinal's hat for Reginald d'Este, and that Leyburn might be made vicar-apostolic. The latter petition alone was granted, and Leyburn was consecrated at Whitehall by d'Adda, the papal envoy; he was also given a pension of £1,000 a year. The king pushed on with his policy, but the penal laws were still in force, and repeal in parliament was hopeless. So James acted by himself, and issued two successive Declarations of Indulgence, in which he granted toleration to Catholics and all dissenters on the strength of the royal dispensing power. The legality of this was tried in a test case against Sir Edward Hales, a Catholic who held a commission in the army. A majority of the judges affirmed the legality of the dispensation, but resistance was not overcome. The Anglican clergy were ordered to read the Declaration of Indulgence in Church, but many declined to do so. Thereupon seven bishops who had petitioned against it were sent to the Tower. After three weeks they were tried in Westminster hall before their peers, and acquitted amid scenes of the greatest enthusiasm.
The king's action now drove the Protestant party to take ex treme steps. An invitation was sent through seven Whig states men to the prince of Orange to come and deliver the land from danger to the Protestant Succession. On Nov. 5, 1688, William landed in Torbay. Opposition was useless, as the main body of the army and the bulk of the people could not be relied upon, and seven weeks later James fled to France.
The Revolution meant a victory for nearly all the religious elements which were in opposition to Catholicism. Latitudi narians, Puritans, and others shared in this, and the Act of Tolera tion favoured them all. But it expressly excluded Catholics from any advantage from its provisions. There were Anglicans who looked with disfavour on the new regime, and the non-jurors conscientiously refused to swear allegiance, and forfeited their benefices. It was not that William of Orange had any sympathy with persecution, but his throne was none too secure, and his hand was forced by his Whig supporters. There was no more shedding of blood for religion, but new penal laws in 1700 applied in a more comprehensive way than the savage statutes of the past the dull pressure, financial, social and religious, which threatened to crush all life out of the Catholics.
John Leyburn, the vicar-apostolic appointed in 1685, had his vicariate divided in 1688 into four, and retaining the London district saw Bishops Giffard, Smith and Ellis appointed for the Midlands, North and West respectively. This four-fold arrange ment lasted till 1840, though each district usually had a coad jutor bishop as well. Controversy with non-Catholics was carried on at first almost single-handed by John Gother (1633-1704) ; though an indirect influence was wielded by John Dryden, the poet (1631-170o). But other champions appeared later, fore most among whom was Bishop Challoner (1691-1781) as well as the mathematician, Bishop Walmesley (1722-1792), Alban But ler, author of the Lives of the Saints, and his nephew, Charles Butler, the well known lawyer. But the main body settled down
to a life of isolation from their fellow countrymen, striving to lead a life of solid piety, and to escape notice and the danger of per secution. Not a few conformed to the Established Church, worn out with the struggle, and shrinkage prevailed in all directions. A Government return made at the beginning of William's reign, gives only about 30,00o Catholics for the whole country, but few would be inclined to accept the enumeration as complete. A return made to the House of Lords in 1780 gives 70,00o, and this appears the lowest reliable figure ever reached. The first step to civil liberty was the Relief Act of 1778, which removed the dis abilities inflicted in William's reign, leaving unrepealed the Eliza bethan laws whose sanguinary penalties it was not intended to enforce. But even this limited measure stirred up much opposi tion, and the Gordon riots of 1780 were a direct consequence of it.
In order to further the attainment of a still greater amount of freedom, a number of leading laymen formed in 1782 the "Catholic committee." Unfortunately they did not take the bishops into their confidence, and domestic differences arose within the fold. A new bill was drafted for presentation to parlia ment, but the new oath of allegiance which went with it proved unacceptable. All the same, most of the leading statesmen of England were now anxious to grant more ample concessions, so that at last, after the oath had been amended, and the offensive term "Protesting Catholic Dissenters" deleted, the bill became law on June 10, 1791.
Two new influences now came into play in favour of progress. The one was the residence in England of several thousand French priests with their bishops, who had fled from the Revolution. They were most generously treated both by the Government and by private individuals, while they, by their blameless lives and self-denying services, created the best of impressions. Many a still-existing Catholic flock in various parts of England owes its origin to them. The other influence was the growing strength of the Irish demand for religious liberty. Yet the demands made in the early years of the 19th century to obtain full emancipation all ended in failure. The "Catholic committee" was succeeded by a "Catholic board" of similar character, and a Government veto on episcopal appointments proposed. This was hotly opposed by Bishop Milner and the Irish bishops, and the internal dissensions thereupon broke out anew. The final impetus which led to suc cess came mainly from Ireland. Daniel O'Connell founded the "Catholic Association" "to gain civil liberty for Catholics," and, as soon as this Society seemed strong enough to win, he himself stood for parliament in the vacant constituency of Clare. He was, of course, triumphantly returned, but could not legally take his seat. The prime minister, Wellington and his colleagues, even if averse to emancipation, would not face the prospect of civil war in Ireland, combined with the force of liberal opinion in England, and threatened to resign. At last the king reluctantly yielded. The Emancipation Act passed through both Houses, and received the royal assent in 1829. After vexatious delays O'Con nell was able to take his seat in the Commons. Meanwhile the duke of Norfolk and other peers took the oath and their seats in the Lords. Some few restrictions on complete religious equality were suffered to remain.