Over the course of the 18th and early 19th century, executive power shifted from the monarch to the Prime Minister

Subject:HistoryPrice: Bought3

Share With

Over the course of the 18th and early 19th century, executive power shifted from the monarch to the Prime Minister.  In 1832 (and later) Britain also expanded the franchise (right to vote) to make its government representative of more people. Using the documents discuss how this process took place and how the system evolved.

 

documents 

8
Samuel Sandys and Sir Robert Walpole, Debate in the House of Commons (1741). The Office of Prime Minister 
Source: William Cobbett, Parliamentary History of England, 36 vols., London, 1806-1820, XI, 1223-1224, 1229-1230, 1232, 1241-1242, 1284, 1287, 1295--1296.

Despite Parliament's preeminence after 1688, the king remained the chief executive and possessed vast areas of independence in the day-to-day running of the government. His most important prerogative was the power to appoint his own advisers. Parliament could remove these ministers through impeachment or by refusing to vote the funds necessary for the implementation of their poli­ cies. It lacked, however, the practical ability to influence their routine activities on behalf of the king's government. The ultimate solution to the problem of controlling the executive was the development of the office of prime minister, the head of a cabinet, all of whose members were jointly responsible to the House of Commons and capable of removal by a simple majority vote. This system of responsible government, worked out during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, seems today so natural and obvious that it is difficult not to see some constitutional architect plot­ ting its development from the beginning. 
Although kings throughout England's history had chief, or prime ministers, the evolution of the present office began in the early eighteenth century. This was due first to the weakness of Queen Anne (1702-1714) and then to the disinclination of George I (1714-1727) and George II (1727-1760) to attend the meetings of their ministers. The first modern prime minister—who presided over and dominated the cabinet, who through his personality or other influence managed the House of Commons, and who was the king's "prime minister"—was Sir Robert Walpole, who held this position from 1721 to 1742. The debate in Commons below reveals the frustration and outrage felt by opposition members at the extended dominance of Walpole. The charges of Sandys and the reply of Walpole show that their understanding of the office of prime minister was at best embryonic.
William  Cobbett  (1762-1835),  who  began  publishing  the Parliamentary Debates in 1803, complemented his project by reconstructing the debates for the period prior to 1803. The 36 large volumes he produced between 1806 and 1820 provide the historian with a ready source of evidence on the workings of Parliament, evidence that previously had to be gleaned from many different sources.

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS ON MR. SANDYS'S MOTION FOR THE REMOVAL OF SIR ROBERT WALPOLE

Mr. Sandys: Sir ... I believe, there is not a gentleman of this House. who is not sensible, that both the foreign and domestic measures of our government, for several years past, have been dissatisfactory to a great majority of the nation, I may say to almost every man in the nation, who has not been concerned in ad­ vising or carrying them on. I believe, there is not a gentleman in this House, if he will freely declare his sentiments, who is not sensible, that one single person in the administration has not only been thought to be, but has actually been the chief, if not the sole adviser and promoter of all those measures As I am only to propose an Address to remove him from his majesty's counsels, I have no occasion to accuse him of any crime; the people's being generally dissatisfied with him and suspicious of his conduct, is a sufficient foundation for such an Address, and a sufficient cause for his majesty's removing him from his counsels; because, no sovereign of these kingdoms ought to employ a minister, who is become disagreeable to the generality of the people; and when any minister happens to become so, it is our duty to inform his majesty of it. that he may give satisfaction to his people, by the removal of such a minister....
According to our constitution, we can have no sole and prime minister: we ought always to have several prime ministers or officers of state: every such officer has his own proper department; and no officer ought to meddle in the affairs belonging to the department of another. But it is publicly known, that this minis­ ter, having obtained a sole influence over all our public counsels, has not only assumed the sole direction of all public affairs, but has got every officer of state removed that would not follow his direction, even in the affairs belonging to his own proper department. By this means he hath monopolized all. the favours of the crown, and engrossed the sole disposal of all places, pensions, titles, and rib­ bons, as well as of all preferments, civil, military, or ecclesiastical.
This, Sir, is of itself a most heinous offence against our constitution: but he has greatly aggravated the heinousness of his crime; for, having thus monopolized all the favours of the crown, he has made a blind submission to his direction at elections and in parliament, the only ground to hope for any honours or preferments, and the only tenure by which any gentleman could preserve what he had. This is so notoriously known, that it can stand in need of no proof....
But farther, Sir, suppose this minister had never been guilty of any crime error, or oversight in his public conduct; suppose the people had all along been perfectly pleased with his administration, yet the very length of it is. in a free country, sufficient cause for removing him. It is a most dangerous thing in a free government, to allow any man to continue too long in the possession of great power: most commonwealths have been overturned by this very oversight; and in this counlry, we know how difficult it has often proved, for our parliament Lo draw an old favourite from behind the throne, even when he has been guilty of the most heinous crimes. I wish this may not be our case at present; for though I shall not say, nor have I at present any occasion for shewing, that the favourite I am now complaining of has been guilty of heinous crimes, yet I will say, that there is a very general suspicion against him, that this suspicion is justified by the present situation of our affairs both at home and abroad, and that it is ridiculous to expect, that any proper discovery should be made, as long as he is in pos­ session of all the proofs, and has the distribution of all the penalties the crown can inflict, as well as of all the favours the crown can bestow. Remove him from the king's counsels and presence; remove him from those high offices and power he is now possessed of; if he has been guilty of any crimes, the proof may then be come at, and the witnesses against him will not be afraid to appear: till you do this, it is impossible to determine, whether he is guilty or innocent; and, considering the universal clamour against him, it is high time to reduce him to such a condition, as that he may be brought to a fair, an impartial, and a strict account. If he were conscious of his being entirely innocent, and had a due regard to the security and glory of his master and sovereign, he would have chose to have put himself into this condition long before this time: since he has not thought fit to do so, it is our duty to endeavour to do it for him; and therefore I shall conclude with moving,
"That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to remove the right hon. sir Robert Walpole, knight of the most noble order of the garter, first commissioner for executing the office of treasurer of the exchequer. chancellor and under-treasurer of the exchequer, and one of his majesty's most honourable privy council, from his majesty's presence and counsels for ever."

Sir Robert Walpole: Sir, it has been observed by several gentlemen in vindi­ cation of this motion, that if it should be carried, neither my life, liberty, or es­ tate will be affected. But do the honourable gentlemen consider my character and reputation as of no moment? ... As I am conscious of no crime, my own experience convinces me, that none can be justly imputed. 1 must therefore ask the gentlemen, from whence does this attack proceed? From the passions and prejudices of the parties combined against me....
1 am called repeatedly and insidiously prime and sole minister. ...
Have gentlemen produced one instance of this exorbitant power, of the influence which J extend to all parts of the nation, of the tyranny with which I oppress those who oppose, and rhe liberality with which I reward those who support me? But having first invested me with a kind of mock dignity, and styled me a prime minister, they impute to me an unpardonable abuse of that chimerical authority which they only have created and conferred. If they are really persuaded that the army is annually established by me, that I have the sole disposal of posts and honours, that I employ this power in the destruction of liberty, and the diminution of commerce, let me awaken them from their delusion. Let me expose to their view the real condition of the public weal; let me shew them that the crown has made no encroachments, that all supplies have been granted by parliament, that all questions have been debated with the same freedom as be­ fore the fatal period, in which my counsels are said to have gained the ascendancy....
But while I unequivocally deny that I am sole and prime minister, and that to my influence and direction all the measures of government must be attributed, yet I will not shrink from the responsibility which attaches to the post I have the honour to hold; and should, during the long period in which I have sat upon this bench, any one step taken by government be proved to be either disgraceful or disadvantageous to the nation, I am ready to hold myself accountable.
To conclude, Sir, though I shall always be proud of the honour of any trust or confidence from his majesty, yet I shall always be ready to remove from his counsels and presence. when he thinks fit; and therefore I should think myself very little concerned in the event of the present question, if it were not for the encroachment that will thereby be made upon the prerogatives of the crown. But I must think, that an address to his majesty to remove one of his servants, with­ out so much as alleging any particular crime against him, is one of the greatest encroachments that was ever made upon the prerogatives of the crown; and therefore, for the sake of my master, without any regard for my own, I hope all those that have a due regard for our constitution, and for the rights and prerogatives of the crown, without which our constitution cannot be preserved, will be against this motion.

 

30
Lord John Russell, Speech in Commons (1831). The Great Reform Bill
Source: Hansard's Parliamentary Debates: Third Series, II, (1831), 1061, 1063-1064, 1066, 1068-1073, 1085, 1088-1089.

In 1831, when Lord John RusselI (1792-1878) delivered this speech, the House of Commons was a venerable institution, having served Britain well for centuries. Some of its features, however, had little relevance to current conditions, especially the dramatic changes produced by the Industrial Revolution. The county franchise had not been altered since it became the 40-shilling free­ holder in ·1430, and in the boroughs there was a hodgepodge of different qualifications. No new boroughs had been created since 1677 and only one had been suppressed. Thus there were dilapi dated boroughs like Old Sarum, which had no residents at all. William Pitt the Elder (1708-1778), who once represented Old Sarum, in his speech on the Stamp Act referred to such phenomena as "the rotten part of the Constitution."
Although popular agitation for reform had existed as early as John Wilkes's Middlesex elections in 1768 and 1769, no ministry seriously proposed parliamentary reform until 1831, when Lord Grey (1765-1845) and the Whigs produced the bill proposed by Russell. When the bill, which was surprisingly radical, was defeat­ ed, Grey obtained a dissolution of Parliament. The Whig cry, "the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill," won the ensuing election, but a second bill was defeated by the Lords. The following year, a third bill was accepted, but only after William IV (1830-1837) had pledged to create, if necessary, enough new peers to force its passage.
The final bill, much like the one Russell had introduced in 1831, did not make Britain a parliamentary democracy, nor did it intend to do so. It abolished only the worst of the rotten boroughs, distributing most of the seats among the counties and the new industrial towns. It extended the franchise and made it uniform in the counties and in the boroughs, doubling the number of eligible voters to nearly a million out of a total population of more than 16 million. Thus, the middle classes of the towns joined the landlords as the practical rulers of Britain. Although the Reform Act did not enfranchise the working class and, in fact, disfranchised some, it did momentarily quiet the popular unrest that many feared would lead to revolution on the European model of 1830. Though this bill was intended to be the final reform of Parliament, it was in reality only the first of a series (1867, 1884, 1918, 1928) which during the next century extended the suffrage to virtually all adult subjects.
Although the legal ban on publishing parliamentary debates ended in 1771, systematic recording and publishing did not begin until 1803 under the direction of William Cobbett (1762-1835). His printer, T. C. Hansard, assumed the primary responsibility for the project. The debates, still being printed today, are referred to simply as Hansard.

Lord John Russell then rose and spoke to the following effect:
The measure I have now to bring forward, is a measure, not of mine, but of the Government, in whose name l appear—the deliberate measure of a whole Cabinet, unanimous upon this subject, and resolved to place their measure before this House, in redemption of their pledge to their Sovereign, the Parliament, and to their country. ...
Allow me to imagine, for a moment, a stranger from some distant country, who should arrive in England to examine our institutions. All the information he had collected would have told rum that this country was singular for the degree which it had attained in wealth, in science, and in civilization. He would have learned, that in no country have the arts of life been carried further, nowhere the inventions of mechanical skill been rendered more conducive to the comfort and prosperity of mankind. He would have made himself acquainted with its fame in history, and above all, he would have been told, that the proudest boast of this celebrated country was its political freedom. If, in addition to this he had heard that once in six years this country, so wise, so renowned, so free, chose its Representatives to sit in the great Council, where all the ministerial affairs were discussed and determined; he would not be a little curious to see the process by which so important and solemn an operation was effected. What then would be his surprise, if he were taken by his guide, whom he had asked to conduct him to one of the places of election, to a green mound and told, that this green mound sent two Members to Parliament—or, to be taken to a stone wall, with three niches in it, and told that these three niches sent two Members to Parliament.
...But his surprise would increase to astonishment if he were carried into the North of England, where he would see large flourishing towns, full of trade and activity, containing vast magazines of wealth and manufactures, and were told that these places had no Representatives in the Assembly which was said to rep­ resent the people. Suppose him, after all, for I will not disguise any part of the case, suppose him to ask for a specimen of popular election, and to be carried, for that purpose, to Liverpool; his surprise would be turned into disgust at the gross venality and corruption which he would find to pervade the electors. After seeing all this, would he not wonder that a nation which had made such progress in every kind of knowledge, and which valued itself for its freedom, should permit so absurd and defective a system of representation any longer to prevail? ... The chief grievances of which the people complain are these;—First, the nomination of Members by individuals? Second, the Elections by close Corporations; third, the Expense of Elections. ...
We propose that every borough which had less than 2,000 inhabitants, shall altogether lose the right of sending Members to Parliament. The effect will be. utterly to disfranchise sixty boroughs.... We find that there are forty­seven boroughs, of only 4,000 inhabitants, and these we shall deprive of the right of sending more than one Member to Parliament ...  making in the whole 168 vacancies As I have already said. we do not mean to allow that the remaining boroughs should be in the hands of select Corporations—that is to say, in the possession of a small number of persons, to the exclusion of the great body of the inhabitants, who have property and interest in the place represented. ... We therefore propose that the right of voting shall be given to householders paying rates for, or occupying a house of, the yearly value of  10l. and upwards. ... l shall now proceed to the manner in which we propose to extend the franchise in counties. The Bill I wish to introduce will give all copyholders to the value of 10l. a year  ... and all leaseholders for not less than twenty-one years, ...  a right to vote for the return of Knights of the Shire. ...  The right  will depend upon a lease for twenty-one years, where the annual rent is not less than fifty pounds. It will be recollected that, when speaking of the numbers disfranchised, I said, that 168 vacancies would be created.... We propose ... to fill up a certain number of the vacancies, but not the whole of them. We intend that seven large towns shall send two Members each, and that twenty other towns shall send one Member each. ... A great portion of the Metropolis and its neighbourhood, amounting in population to 800,000 or 900,000, is not represented, and we propose to give eight members to the unrepresented. ... Next we propose an addition to the Members for the larger counties ... two additional Members to each of twenty-seven counties, where the inhabitants exceed 150,000. Everybody will expect that Yorkshire, divided into three Ridings—the East, West, and North—should have two Members for each Ridjng....Besides this, it is proposed that the Isle of Wight shall return one Member....
The names of electors are to be enrolled, by which means we hope that the disputes regarding qualification will be in a great measure avoided. We propose that all electors in counties, cities, towns, or boroughs, shall be registered, and for this purpose, machinery will be put in motion....
I arrive at last at the objections which may be made to the plan we propose. I shall be told, in the first place, that we overturn the institutions of our ancestors. I maintain, that in departing from the letter, we preserve the spirit of those institutions. Our opponents say, our ancestors gave Old Sarum Representatives, therefore we should give Old Sarum Representatives.—We say, our ancestors gave Old Sarum Representatives, because it was a large town; therefore we give Representatives to Manchester, which is a large town....1... think I am justified in saying, that we are to be believed when we come forward and state, that we consider some effectual measure of Reform to be necessary. I say, that we have a right to be believed when we assert that it is not for any sinister end of our own we bring forward the present measure, but because we are interested in the future welfare of this country, which welfare we conceive to be best consult­ ed by the adoption of a timely and an effective Reform—because we think, that, by such a course alone we shall be enabled to give permanency to that Constitution which has been so long the admiration of nations, on account of its popular spirit, but which cannot exist much longer, unless strengthened by an additional infusion of popular spirit, commensurate with the progress of knowledge and the increased intelligence of the age. To establish the Constitution on a firm basis, you must show that you are determined not to be the representatives of a small class, or of a particular interest; but to form a body, who, representing the people, springing from the people, and sympathising with the people, can fairly call on the people to support the future burthens of the country, and to struggle with the future difficulties which it may have to encounter; confident that those who call upon them are ready to join them heart and hand: and are only looking, like themselves, to the glory and welfare of England. I conclude, Sir, by moving for leave to bring in a bill for amending the state of the Representation in England and Wales.
 
45
Queen Victoria, Letters to Gladstone (1870-1886).
The Nineteenth-Century Monarchy

Source; Philip Guedalla, The Queen and Mr. Gladstone, 2 vols., London: Hodder & Stoughton, Ltd. 1993,  vol. I, 218, 227-228, vol. II, 90, 161, 220, 273-274, 286, 405.

Two dominant figures of the late nineteenth century were Victoria (1819-1901), Queen of England from 1837 to 1901, and William Ewart Gladstone (1809-1898), four times Liberal prime minister: 1868-1874, 1880-1885, 1886, 1892-1894. Although their official positions brought them into personal contact for half a century, their association was seldom cordial. Following the death of Prince Albert in 1861, Victoria was a lonely woman needing the affection and understanding that the aloof, unbending Gladstone could not provide. Instead of flattering the queen and seeming to seek her advice as Disraeli did, Gladstone lectured her on all manner of things, including her duties as monarch. The difficulty was also in art political. As Gladstone aged he became, at least to the queen, increasingly radical, attacking the House of Lords, advocating home rule for Ireland, and proposing social and political reforms. Victoreia in 1880 was so upset with "the People's William" that she considered abdicating rather than accepting as her prime minister  "that half-mad fire-brand."
Gladstone and Victoria also differed on the function of monarchy. As Bagehot observed in 1867, the constitution was divided into two  parts—the "dignified," headed by the queen, and the "efficient," headed by her prime minister. Victoria had no intention of being a dignified rubber stamp, particularly for Gladstone. Albert had taught her the virtues of hard work; she spent long hours familiarizing herself with the details of government, expecting to be consulted  on the decisions taken by "her" ministers. Gladstone had a different view of her duties. Following one of Victoria's many complaints involving political appointments, he exploded: "I think this intolerable. It is by courtesy only that these appointments are made known to H. M." To Gladstone, monarchy was a revered and valuable part of the constitution, but its usefulness was symbolic. He frequently urged Victoria to become more visible to the public, performing such functions as opening Parliament. Victoria viewed this advice as insulting to a woman of her age and imporlance. The conflict continued past Gladstone's death in 1898; when her son, the future Edward VII (1901-1910), agreed to be a pallbearer, Victoria expressed her displeasure.
Victoria's letters to Gladstone are on permanent loan to the British Library. The originals of Gladstone's letters to the queen are in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle.

OSBORNE. Jan. 30. 1870.
The Queen has waited till within 10 days of the Opening of Parliament to give her final decision as to her doing so in person or not. She hardly thinks that Mr. Gladstone can expect any decision but what she must give:—viz: that it is totally out of the question that the Queen cLD undertake it.—
After such repeated severe suffering wh has weakened & shaken her vy much & wh obliges her to take the vYgtest care when she goes out like sitting backwards when she drives & covering her face & hands with the endless wraps—besides avoiding excitement & fatigue,—it w1d be madness to expose herself to the fatigue of a journey up in this severe weather & to the gt agitation & excitement & fatigue,—it wld be madness to expose herself to the fatigue of a journey up in this severe weather & to the gt agitation & excitement of going to open Parlt & above all to the totally unavoidable exposure to Cold Drafts & heat. 
Till these attacks showed themselves since the 2nd of Jany the Queen had seriously intended to try & make the effort of doing so;—tho' this gt tendency to neuralgia wh has hung about her for the last year & ½—but almost incessantly ever since Aug;—made her apprehensive that she might be unable to undertake it.

OSBORNE. May 6. 1870.
...The circumstances respecting the Bill to give women the same position as men with respect to Parliamentary franchise gives her an opportunity to observe that she had for some time past wished to call Mr. Gladstone's attention to the mad & utterly demoralizing movement of the present day to place women in the same position as to professions—as men;—& amongst others, in the Medical Line....
The Queeen is a woman herself—& knows what an anomaly her own position is—but that can be reconciled with reason & propriety tho' it is a terribly difficult & trying one. But to tear away all the barriers wh surround a woman, & to propose that they sh1d study with men—things wh c1d not be named before them—certainly not in a mixed audience—w1d be to introduce a total disregard of what must be considered as belonging to the rules & principles of morality.
The Queen feels so strongly upon this dangerous & unchristian & unnatural movement of "woman's rights:"—in wh she knows Mr. Gladstone agrees; (as he sent her that excellent Pamphlet by a Lady) that he is most anxious that Mr. Gladstone & others sh1d take some steps to check this alarming danger& to make whatever use they can of her name.
She sends the letters wh speak for themselves.
Let woman be what God intended; a helpmate for a man-but with totally different duties & vocations.

WINDSOR CASTLE. April 27, 1880.
The Queen acknowledges Mr. Gladstone's 2 letters just recd. She does not wish to object—if she can, to any persons who he submits to her as Members of the Government but she regrets to see the names of such very advanced Radicals as Mr. Chamberlain & Sir C. Dilke. It will alarm moderate Liberals as well as Conservatives & she cannot think will add to the harmony of the Cabinet. Before agreeing to either the Queen w1d wish to feel sure that Mr. Chamberlain has never spoken disrespectfully of the Throne or expressed openly Republican principles.—The Queen must also ask, before she consents to Sir C. DiIke's appt to the office of Under Secy for Foreign Affairs that he sh1d give a written explanation, or make one in Parlt. on the subject of his very offensive Speeches on the Civil List & Royal family....

BALMORAL CASTLE. May 25. 1881.
The Queen has to thank Mr. Gladstone for a very kind letter on the occasion of her now somewhat ancient birthday.
The affte loyalty of her subjects is vy gratifying to her.—Her constant object, which only increases with years—is the welfare, prosperity, honour & glory of her dear Country.—
But the work & anxiety weigh heavily on her unsustained by the strong arm & loving advice of Him who now 19½  years ago was taken to a higher & better World!

WINDSOR CASTLE. Dec. 12. 1882.
...She asked Ld. Hartington to speak to Mr. Gladstone on the subject of the proposed changes in the Govt & the addition of Ld Derby & Sir C. DiIke.
The Queen must again refer to the Speeches of Sir C. Dilke wh though spoken ten years ago, contain statements wh have never been withdrawn. Mr. Gladstone in then replying lamented his Republican tendencies—-& Sir C. Dilke avowed his Anti Monachical principles.—
Does he still maintain these views? If so, he cannot be a Minister in the Govt of a Monarchy.
Has he changed his principles? If so, there can be no difficulty in avowing it publicly.

BALMORAL CASTLE. June 5. L884.
... She cannot alter her decided opinion that to put any limit to our occupation of Egypt—as vy fatal mistake. But to lessen the 5 years even—when the state of Egypt is such that one cannot at all foresee any speedy improvement (in wh. case other Powers w1d inevitably step in)—wld be most shortsighted & truckling to insolent France, & have the vy worst effect & results. —One year—if a gt object is to be obtained (it might be yielded) but not more & the Queen will not give her consent to it.
How often & often on many questions within the last few years have her warnings been disregarded & alas! (when too late) justified!— 
Let this not happen again now!

WINDSOR CASTLE. July 15. 1884.
The Queen thanks Mr. Gladstone for his letter recd this morg.
She is sorry that she cannot agree with him in his opinion of the House of Lords wh has rendered such important services to the Nation & wh at this moment is believed to represent the true feeling of the Country. The House of Lords is in no way opposed to the people.
The existence of an independent body of men acting solely for the good of the Country & free from the terror wh forces so many Commoners to vote against their consciences, is an element of strength in the state & a guarantee for its welfare & freedom.—
To protect the Moderate Men from being swamped by extreme partizans as the Peers now desire to do, is an object in which in itself, Mr. Gladstone himself concurs, & the Queen cannot therefore, understand why this legitimate act of theirs is to expose them to the storm which noisy agitators for their own ends are preparing to raise against the House of Lords.
Many most useful measures for the benefit of the people at large, wh had taken a long time to pass in the House of Commons, passed the House of the Lords at once!
The Queen fears that the passions once roused by an imaginary grievance will not be easily quelled but will threaten the existence of the Monarchy & the stability of the Empire itself!
Those who do not do all in their power to prevent such wild & senseless passion from being raised incur a frightful responsibility!...

BUCKINGHAM PALACE. May 6. 1886.
The Queen is anxious before leaving for Windsor to repeat to Mr. Gladstone what she tried to express but wh she thinks perhaps she did not do vy clearly—viz: that her silence on the momentous Irish measures which he thinks it his duty to bring forward—does not imply her approval of or acquiescence in them.—Like so many of Mr. Gladstone's best friends—& faithful followers—& so many of the best & wisest statesmen, the Queen can only see danger to the Empire in the course he is pursuing.
The Queen writes this with pain as she always wished to be able to give her Prime Minister her full support, but it is impossible for her to do so, when the Union of the Empire is in danger of disintegration & serious disturbance....

 
1 
The Bill of Rights (1689)

Source: Statutes of the Realm, VI, 142-144 (1 William and Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2).

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 to 1689 was both the culmination of a century-long constitutional struggle between Crown and ParIiament and the consequence of specific actions of James II (1685-1688). Seldom have subjects been so quickly and thoroughly alienated from their king. At the beginning of his reign they were favorably inclined toward him, but three years later not even the Tories and Anglicans, who believed in nonresistance and indefeasible divine right, would lift a finger to save him. Increasingly the English people saw James's active Roman Catholicism and his inclination to tyranny as related dangers. These departures from English practice justified the abandonment of their sworn allegiance to their king. 
The heart of the revolutionary settlement was the Bill of Rights, Parliament's official confirmation of the original Declaration of Rights written by the Convention Parliament of February 1689 and presented to William and Mary as the terms of their invitation to become king and queen. Like Magna Carta and the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights was a settlement of specific violations of the law and the promise that in the future the law would be obeyed. This conservative pretense was, however, not always ac¬ curate. The statement on "raising or keeping a standing army" reflected more a fear than an established law or custom. Although the Revolution was accomplished by the cooperation of both polit¬ical parties, the terms of the settlement were more Whig than Tory. Specifically, the throne was recognized as vacant, and it was then granted not to Mary, the sole legal heir (ignoring James's son, later called the Old Pretender, born in June 1688), but to William and Mary jointly. Also, limitations on the succession, specifically regarding religion, were firmly established. Parliament was not actually proclaimed sovereign, but by its actions there could be no doubt that it was. The Revolution was a wedding of Whig princi¬ples with Tory pragmatism, a triumph of English practicality more than of logic. 
 

AN ACT DECLARING THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE SUBJECT AND SETLEING THE SUCCESSION OF THE CROWNE .  
Whereas the Lords Temporall and Spirituall and Comons assembled at Westminster lawfully and freely representing all the estates of the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and Commons in the Words following viz. 
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavor to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome....
All which are utterly and directly· contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme... 
And whereas the said late King James the Second havemg Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant His [Highnesse] the Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of Delivering this Kingdome from Popery and Arbitrary Power) did (by the Advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and diverse principall Persons of the Commons) cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporal. being Protestants and other Letters to the severall Countyes Cityes Universities Burroughs and Cinque Ports for the Choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parlyament to meete and sitt at Westminster upon the two and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections having beene accordingly made.
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for 
the vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare 
That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. 
That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Exeution of Laws by Regall Authorities as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
That the Commission for erecting the late Court of commissioners and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.
That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. 
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegal.
That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law. 
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. 
That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free. 
That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament. 
That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted. 
That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned and Jurors which passe upon Men in Trialls for High Treason ought to be Freeholders. 
That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void. 
And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently. 
And they doe Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example. To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of his Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onely meanes for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing therefore an intire Confidence That his said Highnesse the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will still preserve- them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights and Liberties, The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power to be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to be to the Heires of the Body of the said Princesse And for default of such Issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and Princesse  to accept the same accordingly. ... And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfare of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be It may reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be forever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any Part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same [And in all and every such Case or Cases the People of these Realmes shall be and are hereby absolved of their Allegiance] And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled holding Communion or professing or Marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead.