Oath of Abjuration and the Test Oath
The need for this oath owes its origins to a beheading. King Charles I was beheaded on 30th January 1649. This oath also owes its origins to the divide between Catholics and Protestants. After the beheading, a civil war followed ending in Cromwell becoming the leader. His title was not King. His title was Lord Protector. This approach eventually failed. So the Monarchy was restored. This was called the Restoration. King Charles II became King. He dies in 1685 and James II becomes King. He favors the Catholics. This causes another revolt. This becomes the Glorious Revolution of 1688, William and Mary were asked to become King and Queen because they were Protestant. But after their reign, Queen Anne ruled 1702 to 1714. She was related to the Stuarts (King Charles 1, Charles II, James II) but because she showed religious tolerance, her reign did not cause another revolt. But still, this tolerance was dependent upon the Monarch. Parliament wanted instead Protestant rule to be codified. That would stop the vacillating of tolerance mixed with favoritism of one religious side over the other. So Parliament codied the requirement of all future monarchs to be Protestant and was against any Stuart family relations ever resuming the throne. All those who favored the Stuarts were called Jacobites. Jacob was another name for James. And James II was the last of the solidly Catholic Stuart family. Eventually the Jacobite name was broadened to include anyone in rebellion to the Protestant King, and broadened further to anyone opposing the establishment.
So fast forward to April 1759.
This is only 13 years after the Battle of Cullloden 16 April 1746, when the last "pretender," a Stuart, and his jacobite supporters made an attempt to take the throne.
All the House of Burgesses members had to take an oath. But this oath looks different. While covering 1759 in this year of 2023 we run into this oath requirement on 4 April 1759 in the 3rd Session of page 55, February 22, 1759, to April 14, 1759.
Source
But find no written explanation unless we we go back to the 3rd session of 1704 of the House of Burgesses, under the reign of Queen Anne.
Why this Oath of Abjuration and what is this "Test" ?
Preface to the 3rd Session of 1704
The third session began April 21 and ended May 12, 1704.
Members having taken the Oaths appointed to be taken by Act of Parliament, instead of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and taken and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, and also subscribed the Test, took their Places in the House.
Source is Page xx, (page 25), 2nd paragraph:
First, The Oath of Abjuration
To abjure, means to not do something.
In this case, all subjects of the realm will not pledge allegiance to the royal family of the Stuarts.
In England (and after 1707 Great Britain) the Oath of Abjuration denied the royal title of James II's heirs (i.e. the direct Catholic descendant of the House of Stuart exiled after the Glorious Revolution in 1688).
In England, an Oath of Abjuration was taken by Members of Parliament, clergy, and laymen, pledging to support the current British monarch and repudiated the right of the Stuarts and other claimants to the throne.
This oath was imposed under William III, George I and George III. It was superseded by the oath of allegiance.
[Note: Notice Queen Anne is not included in between William III and George I ? it looks like at least the House of Burgesses in Virginia were taking the oath of Abjuratation under the reign of Queen Anne. ]
Source;
2ndly, The Test
But the Revolution of 1688 quickly brought the Test back into greater vogue than ever. T
he first Parliament summoned after the triumph of William of Orange added a clause to the Bill of Rights, which was then passed, by which the Sovereign was himself to take the Declaration (1 W. & M., sess. 1, c. 8).
By this unworthy device no Catholic could ever be admitted to accept the new regime, without renouncing his faith. This law marks the consummation of English anti-Catholic legislation.
So, we find ever since the years of Queen Anne, all loyal subjects must take the Oath of Abjuration and The Test and continued to do so under the reigns of King George I and King George II.
The threat of the royal family of the Stuarts who favored Catholicism was considered possible for over 50 years.
That's it.
That's our lead story.
More detail to follow.
There's always more.
Table of Contents
.
Compiled and research in April and May of 2023, still working on the story as of 5/21/2023, 5/23/2023, 5/28/2023
House of Burgesses Journal explains this:
.
THE Journals embraced in this volume are those for the period limited by the dates March 19, 1702 /3, and January 31, 1711 /12.
King William III, of England, died on March 8, 1701 / 2. His wife, Queen Mary, the daughter of James II, had died in 1694, leaving no children.
Hence, in accordance with the provifions of the Declaration of Rights of the Convention which in 1688/9 had put William and Mary on the throne of England in the place of James and eftablifhed the Proteftant succession, this Declaration of Rights having become the Bill of Rights passed by the first Parliament of William and Mary,
Anne, the sister of Mary, became queen.
Her reign lasted till August 1, 17 14. Accordingly, the period covered by the Journals in this volume is almost coterminous with it.
The great overshadowing fact of the reign of Queen Anne was the war carried on between the Grand Alliance (compofed of England, Auftria, Holland, Portugal, Savoy, and moft of the German ftates) on the one hand, and France, Spain, and Bava- ria on the other. T
The participation of England in this war was the result of two causes :
first,
the succession to the throne of Spain on the death of Charles II, on November i, 1700, of Philip of Anjou, the grandfon of Louis XIV;
and second,
the recognition by Louis XIV, at the death of James II, on the 6th of September, 1701, of James's young fon as King of England, defpite the fact that the Englifh Parliament had given the throne to Anne and had defignated Sophia, electrefs of Hanover, or, in cafe of her death, her heir, to fucceed Anne.
With France all-powerful, the control of the Englifh people over their own affairs would be at an end, for Louis XIV, a firm be- liever in the doctrine of the divine right of kings, would be certain to place the son of James II on the throne of England by force of arms and keep him there.
William of Orange, who had fpent his hfe in combating the overweening ambition of Louis, and who had accepted the crown of England in order to be able to ufe the force of England in defenfe of Holland, and had done fo in the war which had been brought to a clofe by the treaty of Ryjwick (1697), was eager to go to war again on the feizure by Louis early in 1701 of the "barrier fortreffes." Thefe fortreffes were a feries of fortified towns on the fouthem frontier of the Spanifh Netherlands, which had been eftablifhed by the Spaniards in the days when Spain and France were enemies and which at this time were garrifoned in the cafe of each partly by Dutch and partly by Spanifh troops. The expulfion of the Dutch by the French was carried through with the affiftance of the Spaniards.
Hence this act fhowed clearly the determination of Louis to ufe the power of France and that of Spain as one; and as a ref ult of it the territory of Holland lay open to invafion. William was compelled, however, to wait; for the Tory party, oppofed to war, had control of the Houfe of Commons.
But when Louis, later in the year, recognized the Pretender as king of England, William dis- folved his Tory Parliament, and in the new Houfe of Commons the Whigs had a ma- jority. This Parliament increafed the army to 40,000 men and voted a large fum to the navy. William had already prepared for the war which was inevitable by or- ganizing the Grand Alliance.
But it was not deftined that he fhould have the pleas- ure again of leading great armies, for before war was actually declared he had died.
Fortunately, a greater foldier than he, however, was at hand to take his place, John Churchill, who became the duke of Marlborough. And he was perhaps a greater dip- lomat, too, than William; for his fkill in controlling the heterogeneous elements en-
End of page
#18 [ xiv]
gaged with him in the war is almoft as much to be admired as his military genius, attefted though this be by fuch victories as Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet.
In the battle of Blenheim, Marlborough commanded 52,000 men, of whom prob- ably not more than one-fifth were Englifhmen, the reft being Auftrians, under Prince Eugene of Savoy, Dutchmen, Pruffians, Hanoverians, Danes, and what not, while of the French and Bavarians there were 56,000 of the very beft troops that could be affembled.
Source:
More Explanation from Preface of 3rd Session
#24 [XX]
Third Seffion. The third feffion began April 21 and ended May 12, 1704.
This was the firft feffion held in the new capitol at William/burg.
On the opening day of the feffion only thirty-three Burgeffes of a poffible fifty were prefent. The Houfe had two more members than at the firft feffion, Prince George County being now reprefented. Since Prince George had been cut off from Charles City, a fecond election was, at the requeft of the voters of the old county, ordered for that county.
At the opening of this feffion an additional oath had to be taken by the members and officers of the Houfe of Burgeffes, namely, the oath prefcribed in the adt paffed in England in the firft year of Queen Anne's reign entitled
"An adl to declare the altera- tions in the oath appointed to be taken by the a(5l entitled an a(5l for the further fecurity of his majefty's perfon, and the fucceflion of the crown in the Proteftant line, and for extinguifhing the hopes of the pretended prince of Wales and all other pretenders and their open and fecret abettors, and for declaring the Affociation to be determined."
Since it was neceffary that this new oath be taken, it feemed well to the governor and the Council to have the feveral cuftomary oaths adminiftered again.
To this there was no objedlion made by any Burgefs except Mr. William Harrifon, the honorable member for Charles City, who refufed to take the fpecial oath of a Burgefs again, fince he had already taken it at the opening of the firft feffion of the Affembly. Why he did not refufe to take the other oaths (which prefumably he had alfo taken at that time) is not made clear.'
footnote
» The "Affociation" referred to in the && was an agreement entered into by thoufandsof Englifhmen, on the difcovery in the fpring of 1696 of a plot for the affaffination of King WiUiam, to defend the king's perfon and government, and in cafe of his death to fight, if neceffary, for the acceffion to the throne of the heirs thereto as determined by adl of Parliament.
The "Affociation" was now no longer neceffary fince King William was dead, Queen Anne had afcended the throne, and the fupport of her on the throne and the defenfe of the Proteftant fucceffion were both better otherwife provided for.
Source:
.
.
.
.
Notes
Facebook post introducing this story 546am 5/28/2023
Oath of Abjuration and The Test.
To abjure, means to not do something. So here you are in April 1759 and you got to promise NOT to do what? You got to promise not to favor any Stuart or Catholic pretender to the throne of Great Britain. This concern has been going on for 13 years, at least since the Battle of Culloden 1746. But really this issue goes back to a beheading of King Charles I in 1649, one hundred ten years ago. Oh, and don't forget The Test.
.
.
.
4th Session did the Oath of Abjuration too
Friday the 9tb of November. 33 Geo. II 1759.
A Member returned upon a new Writ, having taken the Oaths appointed to be taken by Adl of Parliament, inftead of the Oaths of Allegiance and Suprem- acy, and taken and fubfcribed the Oath of Abjuration, and alfo fubfcribed the Teft, was admitted to his Place in the Houfe. M"' Speaker informed the Houfe, That the Governor had defired him to lay before them two Letters he had juft received, one from his Excellency Governor Lyttleton, of South Carolina, and the other from his Excellency Governor Dobbs, of North Carolina ; and he delivered the faid Letters in at the Table, where they were read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
4th Session
page 133, November 1, 1759 to of November 21, 1759
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Comments