The initial settlement of 1689 Flashcards
how can one argue that the declaration of rights was an important step in limiting the power of the monarch
- there was great pomp and ceremony around the reading of the declaration
- lords and commons were both present
- may be interpreted as an implicit/unspoken warning from parliament to king to not abuse his powers as Charles and James had
how may it be argued that the declaration of rights did little to limit the powers of the monarch
- no explicit link between the offer of the crown to William and him accepting the terms of the declaration
- William didn’t formally state that he would abide by what Lord Halifax read out
why is parliamentary consent needed in maintaining the army during peace time
to prevent the monarch ruling in an absolutist manner
what was needed due to the danger posed by James and his allies
- army discipline was essential
- there needed to be a quicker way than the normal court system of dealing with mutineers and trouble-makers in the army
what was passed as the mutiny act
a bill which legalised the use of military courts in peacetime
what did the mutiny act, technically, achieve
allowed the court-martial to take life or limb in cases of proven mutiny, sedition and desertion
what did the mutiny act see a shift from
saw the start of the shift from royal prerogative to parliamentary control
how was the relationship between the monarch and army a complex one
- sovereign retained responsibility for army discipline
- while parliament approved military law
on what basis was the 1689 military act re-enacted on + what did this limit
- annual basis
- limited the maintenance of a standing army during peacetime to one year
what was the effect of the military act
- established the standing army as a national institution
- army couldn’t be maintained unless parliament approved it, voted money to cover its cost, etc
- so the king had no choice but to turn to parliament regularly for approval
what was the bill of rights 1689
established the principles of frequent parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech within the parliament
how did the bill of rights 1689 not limit the power of the monarchy
- it didn’t call into question the prerogative rights themselves
- it was a statute law that could be revoked by any future parliament
- the monarch was still free to decide on issues surrounding war, peace and foreign policy
- William was still able to choose his own advisors
- it was vague
how did the bill of rights 1689 limit the monarchy
- suspending power was declared illegal while dispensing power was severely restricted
- clauses declared that parliament should meet frequently
- elections and debates should be free
- it made certain the legal position of the army, which had been in some doubt
- number of mutiny acts passed from 1689
- William and Mary acknowledged their powers came from the legislature rather than from the ‘divine right of kings’
how did the constitutional settlement of 1689 may have limited the power of the monarchy
- suspending power was made illegal
- dispensing power was severely restricted
- mutiny act, had to be re-enacted annually, helped ensure regular parliamentary sessions
- parliament asserted its control over the army’s existence and discipline within it
- offer of the crown wasn’t dependent upon Williams formal acceptance of the declaration but there was no explicit demand that he abide by it
- but there was an implicit expectation that William would abide due to the ceremony
- experiments in royal absolutism seemed impossible
why might the constitutional settlement of 1689 be viewed as having relatively little effecting restricting the power of the monarchy
- William remained free to choose his ministers and advisors
- William refrained the sole right to decide on issues of war, peace and foreign policy
- William still had vast power of the army, like appointing officers
- bill of right included no mechanism for enforcing ‘free elections’
- some of the terms of the bill or fights were vague, eg ‘free elections’
- most of the terms of the declaration of rights referred to the abuses of riyal prerogatives but didn’t question the prerogatives themselves
