How significant were Revolutionary ideals in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy? Flashcards
What was the political situation in 1688?
1) James II had lost confidence of much of political nation
2) Fears that had caused the Civil War had come to fruition - Catholic on throne - aspiring to absolute monarchy
3) James had defeated Charles II’s illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, in 1685 - consolidated his power by modelling rule on despotism seen under Louis XIV
4) Hopes of protestants that Mary would succeed James changed when the queen gave birth to a son
With reference to which key themes do historical interpretations of James II’s overthrow tend to explain the events?
1) Most traditional interpretation - GR result of foreign invasion - not instigated by native pop. of England
2) Another interpretation - GR was a bloodless one - contrasted by Whig historian, Macaulay, with France in 1789 - revisionist interpretations - Vallance - there was violence - Ireland and Scotland
3) Macaulay - overthrow of king due to consensus between Whigs and Tories
What was a key motive for those who prompted the overthrow of James II?
Religious conviction:
1) Many Whig MPs shared view of Locke - enforcing religious uniformity would lead to social disorder - imposing single ‘true religion’ - impossible as humans are not capable of judging which religious standpoints are most legitimate
2) Anglican Tories - who opposed James - had to find way to oppose initiatives without contradicting established principles of non-resistance and passive obedience
Define passive obedience.
Unquestioning obedience to the authority of a monarch - even when they abuse their powers.
What did James reissue in 1688?
Declaration of Indulgence:
- Toleration to all religious groups - both Protestant and Catholic
How did James II create religious friction?
Through attempting to allow Catholics - and potentially those of non-Christian faiths - freedom of religion.
Opponents of the Declaration objected to the fact that James was attempting to overrule parliament by going against their wishes.
What was the criticism of the Declaration of Indulgence?
- Marquis of Halifax - argued that, although he understood why dissenters were attracted to idea of toleration - should resist his overtures towards them - wait for parliament to pass its own law
- One law would offer true religious freedom that didn’t favour Catholics - and didn’t set precedent for absolute rule
Who was Gilbert Burnet?
- Gilbert Burnet - clergyman - invited by William to live in Netherlands - took up offer in 1686 - ‘Ill Effects of Animosities among Protestants in England Detected’ - Williamite propaganda
Explained that - since Restoration - Charles and James wanted to create divisions among Protestants - to pursue agenda of prompting Catholicism and arbitrary govt
- Believed that dissenting nonconformists and conformists should work together to defend Established Church
- 1687 - claimed that James had transgressed constitution and laws of England - thus deposing himself from govt
In the end, what did political change result from?
James resigning his throne voluntarily - likely would’ve kept crown if he hadn’t:
- Necessary for Revolution to take place - likely that the Commons would manage to secure a majority against James’ continued reign - but Lords would probably reject
- Clergy wouldn’t have approved of a change of personnel
- Many in establishment in favour of divine right and hereditary monarchy - to prevent unstable govt from during Interregnum
What was the Whig argument at the time for the deposal of James II?
- He had broken a solemn contract with his people
- Some moderates in Commons would argue that govt existed due to social contract (Locke) - his work is seen as a justification for the kind of govt the Whigs wanted to create - citizens had right to remove leader if they behave as an absolute monarch
- In Parliament - Sir Robert Howard - Whig MP - voiced similar concerns to Locke - argued govt grounded on pact between king and people - MPs within rights to appoint another ruler if the contract is broken
What two events do historians generally agree are as equally important as each other in 1688?
1) James II openly defying parliament and the religious establishment - prompting revolutionary actions
2) William’s invasion - equally as important in leading to a change in govt - whether William intended to take throne or not
What happened when William arrived in London and James slipped away to France?
When in 1688 was this?
What main questions arose from this?
December 1688:
- Terms of political settlement not immediately clear
Questions:
1) Had James abdicated?
2) Was William intent on working with parliament or against them?
3) Could a parliament be summoned without a king to summon it?
What did William arrange on 26 December 1688? What did this lead to?
Meeting of sympathetic peers + MPs - to plan for future of monarchy and country
- Convention Parliament hastily elected - 1st meeting due 22 Jan 1689
- Radical Whigs wanted to declare William king immediately - many others favoured role for Mary - by hereditary right
- Crown offered to them both - a Declaration of Rights presented - read out at coronation ceremony
What happened to the Declaration of Rights at the end of 1689?
Modified and many terms placed on the statute book as the Bill of Rights.
What were the most important terms of the Bill of Rights?
1) Pretended power of suspending laws - or execution of laws by regal authority - without parliament = illegal
2) Levying of money for use of Crown - by pretence of prerogative - without grant from parliament = illegal
3) Right of subjects to petition king - all commitments and prosecutions for petitioning = illegal
4) Raising/keeping of standing army - within kingdom in time of peace - without parliament’s consent = illegal
5) Elections of members of parliament ought to be free
6) Freedom of speech, debates or proceedings - in parliament - ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court - or place outside parliament
7) Excessive bail ought not be required - nor excessive fines imposed - nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted
8) Redress of grievances - for amending, strengthening, and preserving of laws + frequent parliaments
Why is the Bill of Rights cited as a significant constitutional document, as important as the Magna Carta (1215) and the Petition of Right (1628)?
Most clauses included referred to specific abuses of the royal prerogative under Charles II and James II + important clause for regular and free elections - reflected resentment among MPs at Crown’s attempts to intimidate and tamper with elections.
- Also made certain the legal position of the army - had been in doubt - in reaction to forces created by Charles II
What were the Mutiny Acts passed in 1689?
Ensured that the king couldn’t court martial at will without consent of parliament - as each Act was only valid for a year - king had no choice but to turn to parliament regularly for approval
What were the subtle differences between the Declaration of Rights and the final Bill of Rights that became law?
1) Declaration was a restatement of traditional rights - continued conflicts between Whigs and Tories meant it had to be watered down - particularly, a debate about whether to include a clause suspending the maintenance of a standing army in peacetime
2) Many of the original declarations around issues such as free elections and regular parliament included in final Bill - but not part of any conditions that William was subject to in taking the crown
What other Acts complemented the Bill of Rights?
The Crown and Parliament Recognition Act (1689) confirmed all the Acts of the Convention Parliament
- Also acknowledged William and Mary as sovereigns - so parliament had been summoned in legitimate manner - and Acts passed were constitutional and legal - Bill of Rights stood in England and Wales - in Scotland - corresponding legislation passed under the Claim of Right Act (1689)
The Bill of Rights allowed parliament to assert its control of…
the military - other clauses restated what was known to be part of the constitution - cleared up grey areas of the royal prerogative.
What did Christopher Hill argue about the Bill of Rights?
That it was vague - references to holding frequent parliaments could still allow for absolutism to creep in.
How was the Bill of Rights limited?
1) Made no provision ensuring regular or free elections + no definition of ‘free’
2) John Morill - Bill not as significant as some suggest - as it was statute law that could be revoked by future parliaments - not a yardstick by which other laws could be judged - didn’t form contract between king and the people
3) Didn’t create a new procedure by which arbitrary monarchs could be removed - if this was to happen - would need to be done in same way in 1688: voluntarily - due to rebellion and parliamentary pressure
4) Monarch still free to decide on issues surrounding war, peace and foreign policy - William still able to choose his own advisers
Vagueness partially removed by the Triennial Act of 1694
What were the Mutiny Acts?
- When William invaded - number of troops remained loyal to James - refused to fight on William’s behalf - mutiny not recognised a crime under common law - Acts passed in 1689 - allowed Crown to hold courts martial in order to punish the mutineers.
Mutiny Acts only enforceable for 1 year - parliament renewed it every year until 1879 - made it possible to revoke right of Crown to punish mutineers.
Mutiny Act benefitted Crown and Parliament - William able to freely punish those who had mutinied and parliament was able to place limits on the royal prerogative if it wished.
What was the Act of Settlement of 1701?
Stated that - in order to bypass potential Catholic heirs to the rhone - the succession would be vested in the house of Hanover - a German royal dynasty, after the reign of Queen Anne (Protestant daughter of James II) - became queen after William’s deaths.
Catholics - and those married to Catholics - barred from the succession and all future monarchs were required to be members of the Church of England.
Other than the determining the succession, what did the Act of Settlement do?
Enabled a number of legislative proposals 1st put forward in 1689 - to finally reach the statute book
- Judges could no longer be dismissed without consent of parliament - reaction to James’ removal of disloyal members of the judiciary
What demand, in 1689, was made about royal pardons - which relates to Act of Settlement?
Demand for them to be declared irrelevant in cases of impeachment - only included in Act as Tories hoped to impeach William’s Whig advisors
The Act of Settlement can be seen as a reaction against…
the policies of William and not simply an attempt to resurrect some of the reforming zeal of 1689.
- Clause concerning religion of monarch - reflected concerns over William’s Calvinism - as much as fear of Catholicism and another proviso preventing the monarch from leaving Britain without the permission of parliament - rooted in fear of William doing just that
No coincidence that the clause concerning the flight of the monarch was repealed in 1716 - no longer seen as necessary as William no longer king.
What is clear throughout the Act of Settlement?
Fear of absolutism:
- No future monarch allowed to enter England into a way to defend country without consent of parliament - William had entered England into expensive Nine Years’ War
- Matters regarding governing of Britain - discussed with full Privy Council - and not decided by monarch alone
- No foreign-born man allowed to join Privy Council, sit in either House of Parliament, have a military command, or be granted lands or titles
How do many historians view the Revolution settlement, in relation to divine right monarchy?
- As a watershed moment in the reduction of the Crown’s prerogative powers
- After Bill of Rights passed - no longer possible for monarch to claim divine right - authority approved by people through parliament
Concept of divine right - one of the issues over which the Civil War had been fought in 1642 - victors briefly established a republican system between 1649 and 1660 - concept against came to forefront of politics after the Restoration.
What did Whig writers argue about the Bill of Rights when Walpole came to power in 1721?
- It preserved England’s ‘ancient constitution’ - from the absolutism of James II - represented restoration of previous political stability - rather than creating entirely new settlement
- Whig view - gradually developed to present settlement as starting point of a new constitution - revolution where Tories and Whigs compromised and a constitutional monarchy was established
This interpretation presented parliament as the supreme authority in the political system
How did Marxist historians view the settlement?
Hill and A.L. Morton borrowed much from Whig theorists - went on to present settlement as one that created a constitutional monarchy in interests of the existing ruling elites.
How have revisionist historians viewed the settlement?
John Morill - attacked importance given by Whigs and Marxists to Revolution - presented events as changing virtually nothing - except line of succession
- Believe that a constitutional monarchy not fully established
- Parliament still officially an advisory body only - office of PM didn’t emerge until 1721 - First Lord of the Treasury
Monarchy still pre-eminent within political system - parliament still represented only richest 2% of pop. - electorate small
Not until 1760 that the ‘crown estate’ was created - most of the monarch’s property placed under parliamentary control.
What was created through the political settlement can it best described as?
- A monarchy of parliament’s choosing
- Decided who next monarch would be and could suspend Mutiny Act - at any time - to restrict the king’s control of the army
- Framework for constitutional monarchy arguably established with Magna Carta in 1215 - monarch compelled to consult a ‘great council’ over at least some issues
How can the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement perhaps be best described as?
- Further foundations of a constitutional monarchy - rather than end product
- Royal interference with law now restricted - elections to be held regularly - free from interference of monarch - and taxation by royal prerogative - theoretically no longer possible
