What Did James Ii Do To Gain Absolute Rule

James II and the Pursuit of Absolute Rule in England

James II's reign from 1685 to 1688 represents a critical, failed experiment in establishing absolute monarchy on the English throne. Worth adding: ascending after the relatively stable reign of his brother, Charles II, James II moved with deliberate speed to consolidate personal power, directly challenging the delicate balance between crown and Parliament that had evolved since the English Civil War. Now, his actions were not those of a mere autocrat but of a devout Catholic monarch convinced of his divine right to rule unimpeded, using every legal and extralegal tool at his disposal to dismantle constitutional restraints. Understanding the specific steps James II took reveals the mechanics of his absolutist project and the profound resistance it ignited, culminating in the Glorious Revolution.

The Foundation: Royal Prerogative and the Dispensing Power

James II’s first and most audacious tool was his interpretation of the royal dispensing power. That said, this was the monarch’s traditional right to exempt individuals from certain statutes. So james transformed it from a limited, occasional privilege into a systematic engine for bypassing Parliament. His primary target was the Test Acts of 1673 and 1678, which required all officeholders to take Anglican communion and denounce Catholic transubstantiation—effectively barring Catholics from public office.

It looks simple on paper, but it's easy to get wrong.

In 1687, James issued the Declaration of Indulgence (or for Liberty of Conscience). Using his dispensing power, he unilaterally suspended the penal laws against Catholics and Protestant dissenters (like Presbyterians and Baptists). This leads to this was revolutionary. He was not asking Parliament to repeal laws; he was declaring them void by his own authority. Practically speaking, he then aggressively used this power to appoint Catholics to key positions in the army, navy, universities, and local government. Think about it: figures like the Catholic Earl of Tyrconnell were made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Catholics began filling commissions in the army, directly contravening the Test Acts. This was a direct assault on the principle that the monarch was bound by the law, asserting instead that the king’s will could suspend the law for his purposes.

Building a Loyal Military Machine

A cornerstone of any absolute monarchy is a standing army loyal solely to the sovereign, not to Parliament or local elites. But james II systematically pursued this goal. He dramatically expanded the size of the professional army, increasing it from about 8,000 to over 16,000 men. Crucially, he filled the officer corps with Catholics and known absolutists, bypassing the traditional Anglican gentry who formed the backbone of the county militias (the trained bands).

He also used the army as a political police force. Troops were stationed in strategic locations and used to intimidate local governments and electoral bodies. Even so, the most notorious example was the deployment of a large camp of soldiers on Hounslow Heath, just outside London, in 1686. So this visible show of force was intended to cow the capital and the political nation into submission. On top of that, he sought to create a separate, loyal army in Ireland under Tyrconnell, which was heavily Catholicized, providing a potential power base outside England’s traditional political centers. This military expansion was funded not through parliamentary grants (which he avoided) but through dubious means, including the seizure of lands from "recusants" (Catholics who refused to attend Anglican services) and the use of prerogative taxes like ship money, a medieval levy resurrected without parliamentary consent.

For more on this topic, read our article on write an expression for the area of each rectangle below or check out why didn't krok like to go sailing.

Subverting the Judiciary and Local Governance

To enforce his will, James needed compliant courts and local administrators. Plus, when several judges balked, he dismissed them and appointed others he knew would uphold his prerogative. And he launched a concerted campaign to pack the judiciary. In 1686, he pressured the existing judges to rule in his favor on the key issue of the dispensing power in the Case of the Six Bishops (later the Seven Bishops). The most famous replacement was Sir Edward Herbert, who became Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and was expected to be pliable.

Simultaneously, James targeted local government. In practice, he used his power to appoint Lord Lieutenants (the monarch’s chief representatives in the counties) and Deputy Lieutenants to purge Anglican justices of the peace and replace them with Catholics or absolutist allies. This was a slow but profound revolution in local administration. Justices of the peace were the backbone of English governance, responsible for tax collection, law enforcement, and mobilizing the militia. By controlling these offices, James aimed to create a nationwide network of royal agents answerable only to him, eroding the traditional independence of the landed gentry.

The Religious Gambit: Catholicism as a Tool of Control

James II’s personal Catholicism was the driving force and the ultimate vulnerability of his absolutist project. This leads to he genuinely believed in religious toleration, but his primary goal was to establish a Catholic ascendancy that would be loyal to him. His policy of Indulgence was as much about empowering Catholics as it was about creating a bloc of grateful dissenters (Presbyterians) who might support royal authority against the Anglican establishment.

He placed Catholics in the most sensitive positions: heads of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, naval dockyards, and the Treasury. Which means the birth of a Catholic heir, James Francis Edward Stuart, in June 1688, transformed the political landscape. It signaled a potential permanent Catholic dynasty, turning James’s reign from a temporary interregnum into a long-term threat to the Protestant constitution. This act of dynastic security was the final catalyst for opposition, convincing many previously loyal Anglicans that only the removal of the king could safeguard their religion and liberties.