INTRODUCTION

By 1679 the first phase of restoration had collapsed. This was a consequence of the suspicion, followed by the revelation, that the king had been auctioning the state's religion and government to a foreign power. Although the church and parliaments remained in existence they appeared to be in danger. Although the monarchy remained in existence it was the monarch himself who appeared to be placing it in peril. Over the next few years the consequences of this collapse included the end of peace (leading to civil war through the courts); the end of unity (leading to ideological polarisation); and the return not only of the troubles but of revolution. All of this served as a reminder of the initial superficiality of the restoration process itself.

The resulting reliving of the troubles, and revolution, had its context in the relationship between present events and public memory. The same context furnished the immediate outcome of the crisis in what Roger North called ‘a second Restauration’. The second phase of restoration was accordingly, like its predecessor, a reaction. As such it repeated, with emphasis, most of the essential features of its predecessor. It was to be correspondingly short-lived.