Declaration of Rights / Bill of Rights

Question 1

Declaration of Rights / Bill of Rights:

Date

Answer 1

1689

Question 2

Declaration of Rights / Bill of Rights:

Strengths + Weaknesses

Answer 2

Strengths:

• Elections to be both regular and free.
• Made certain the legal position of the army.
  
  • Had been in some doubt before
• A force could not be raised or kept in times of peace w/o consent of parliament.
  
  • Direct reaction to the forces created by Charles II > could have been used to enforce absolutism
  • Parl. asserted its control of the military
• Taxation illegal w/o parliamentary consent.

Limitations:

• Many other clauses simply restated what was already known to be part of the constitution.
• Merely cleared up many grey areas of the royal prerogative.
• Did not create a new procedure by which arbitrary monarchs could be removed.
  
  • If needed, had to be done through rebellion/ parliamentary pressure- same as before 1688
• Monarch still free to decide on issues surrounding war, peace and foreign policy
• William still able to choose his own advisers- did this during the Nine Years War

Question 3

Declaration of Rights / Bill of Rights:

Significance

Answer 3

Clear that both William and Mary had been placed on the throne based on terms put forward by the MPs (even if William claimed that he did not accept the throne with conditions).

• No longer possible for monarchs to claim their power came from God (divine right), as their authority was approved by the people through their representatives in Parliament.

Often cited as a sig. constitutional document, as important as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Petition of Right of 1628.

• Set into law concepts of freedom of speech, free elections and parliamentary taxation.

Most of the clauses included in the Bill referred to specific abuses of the royal prerogative under Charles II and James II such as the clause for elections to be both regular and free and the army.

• Bill of Rights gave guarantees that the abuses of power experienced under James II would not be repeated.

Parliament was able to encroach on areas that were once firmly part of the royal prerogative, such as the king’s appointment of ministers and control of the army.

• Charles, I had refused demands for parliament to be given more power on the grounds that its only purpose was to raise money for the Crown. This was no longer the case and the monarchy were faced with no option but to work with parliament.
  
  • BUT much of the royal prerogative was left intact, such as the sovereign’s power to declare war, to dissolve parliament and veto legislation if desired.

Question 4

Declaration of Rights / Bill of Rights:

Whig view

Answer 4

Bill of Rights preserved England’s ‘ancient constitution’ from the absolutism of James II:

• It represented the restoration of previous political stability, rather than creating an entirely new settlement.

Whig view gradually developed to present the political settlement as a starting point of a new constitution, a revolution where both Tories and Whigs compromised, and a constitutional monarchy was established.

Question 5

Declaration of Rights / Bill of Rights:

Revisionist view

Answer 5

Bill of Rights was not significant as some historians suggest- Morrill:

• Bill was a statute law that could be revoked by any future parliament.
• Believed that the Bill did not set such a defining precedent to judge other laws with and did not form part of a contract between the king and the people.

Bill of Rights + Act of Settlement as the further foundations of a constitutional monarchy, rather than the end product.

• Framework for a constitutional monarchy had initially been established with the Magna Carta in 1215, as the monarch was compelled to consult a ‘great council’ over at least some issues.
• Now, royal interreference with the law was now restricted, elections were to be regular and free from the interreference of the monarch, and taxation by royal prerogative was theoretically no longer possible

Question 6

Declaration of Rights / Bill of Rights:

Marxist view

Answer 6

Bill of Rights was vague- Christopher Hill:

• References in particular to holding frequent parliaments could still allow for absolutism to creep in. Bill made no provision for ensuring that elections were regular or free and made no definition of what ‘free’ actually meant.
  
  • BUT this vagueness would be partially, although not completely, removed by the Triennial Act of 1694.