In 1688, for the second time in the 17th century, Parliament removed the English king. The first time in 1649 had been an overall messy affair: “Pride’s Purge” had removed over 200 MPs in December 1648, preventing any chance of a negotiated settlement with King Charles I and leading to his trial and execution in 1649. The next 11 years of republican rule saw 8 different parliaments ruling, including the religious “Barebones Parliament” in 1653 and the military “Rule of Major Generals” from 1655-57, with each alternating between extremism and conservatism creating massive instability. This lack of stable governance was exacerbated by the death of Cromwell in 1658, with his son Richard being unable to rule effectively, and led to the eventual return of the monarch under the direction of general Monck in the restoration of Charles II 1660. However, the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 played out differently, with historians at the time dubbing it a “sensible revolution”, replacing the catholic James II with William III and Mary II in what was seen at the time as a peaceful revolution that led to little change in how the country was run. But, revisionist historians have since debated the extent of these changes, instead saying that the financial, religious and political changes signify that the revolution went much further than originally described by the tory historians. Therefore, the question is how revolutionary was the glorious revolution? How far did the changes go, and how impactful were they on the future of England, and even the world?
Before this question can be answered, first the events of the revolution must be set out. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne after the death of his brother Charles II. The years building up to this were marked with some of the tumultuous relations between the crown and parliament, with James’ Catholicism creating the 1679-81 “exclusion crisis”, in which the Earl of Shaftesbury and his Whig party attempted to block the crown passing to James II. But, they were unsuccessful due to the political maneuvers of Charles II, who was able to dissolve parliament in 1681 and keep James in the line of succession, meaning that James came to the throne as the first openly catholic monarch since Mary I. This terrified Parliament (especially the Whigs), who believed that James was attempting to model his reign on the Catholic despot Louis XIV of France, who had recently removed the “Edict of Nantes” that had provided protestants in France toleration in 1685. Therefore, when James issued the “Declaration of Indulgence” in 1687 that provided toleration to Catholics in England, and attempted to imprison the 7 bishops who refused to accept it, Parliament began to see James II as a new Charles I, a despot who wished to rule separate to the wishes of the people. The final straw for Parliament was the birth of James’ son in 1688, now seeing that a Catholic lineage was going to preserved for at the least another generation. Therefore, Parliament reached a cross party consensus that James II had to go. For the Whigs this was simple: they believed that the king was placed on the throne through Locke’s “social contract”, in which people had created the idea of a king to provide stability, meaning when the king was unpopular he could simply be removed by the people who had put him in power. But for the Conservative Tories, the king was placed in power by God, meaning it was wrong for the people to remove him. However, the Tories reached the conclusion that the king had broken the underlying constitution of England, it was possible for the people to simply not resist the removal of the king, calling this “passive disobedience”. Therefore, a group known as the “Immortal Seven” wrote to William of Orange (husband of James’ daughter Mary), requesting he remove James from the throne, with William arriving and taking throne along with Mary in 1688 for them to become William III and Mary II.
However, this is where the debate arises. The historians at the time claim that the fact the immortal seven wrote to William means it was not an invasion, but more of an invitation, supported by the claim that there were no battles in the build up to the coronation of the new king and queen, and that James had fled. But, modern revisionist historians argue that these ideas were merely perpetuated to maintain English pride at the time – William had arrived with over 300 ships of soldiers, displaying he was expecting resistance from the English king, and qualifying the revolution as more of an invasion. Furthermore, there were a multitude of battles on the British Isles, including the battle of Reading in 1688, the battle of the Boyne in 1690, and the battle of Killiecrankie, displaying that the revolution consisted a multitude of bloodshed.
Going further, revisionists argue that the revolution constituted a major change in the idea of “the divine right of kings”. Before the 17th century, the dominant idea in Europe was that the king was chosen by God to rule and therefore it was a sin to challenge their rule, seen in books such as Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan”. However, this idea was challenged by liberals such as John Locke, who wrote (as mentioned earlier) that the king was chosen by the people in a “social contract”, and could be removed when this contract was broken. Therefore, liberals believe that the divine right of kings was ended by the glorious revolution, with Parliament effectively choosing who they wished to be king by inviting over William III. Going even further, Parliament was able to limit the power of the monarchy in the 1689 “Bill of Rights”, which said that there must be regular elections that are free and fair, and that there could be no army in peace time. This created an agreement that limited the power of the king, placing Parliament further in power whilst restricting the kings royal powers, taking a huge step towards a constitutional monarchy and ending the idea that the role of the king was sacred. However, Tory historians believe that this bill was not new, merely a continuation of the older foundational laws of England’s constitution that had remained unwritten. This idea is partially true – in Anglo-Saxon times, the “Witan” (a prototype of Parliament that contained the most powerful men in England) officially elected the king, meaning that the king could not claim his power was from God, instead from the people he served. However, this institution had not existed for over 600 years since the Norman invasion of 1066, meaning that it is very hard to make the connection that this law had existed in continuation since then in some unwritten convention. A stronger criticism of the Bill of Rights is that it was not explicit or permanent in its nature: not only was there no means to ensure these elections were “free and fair”, but the bill itself could be removed at any point, with William even later denying that he had accepted the throne on any terms, saying that he was close enough in the line of succession for the revolution to not be considered an end to the divine right of kings.
However, the 1701 “Act of Settlement” can be seen as a conclusive end to the pervasive idea. By 1701, Mary II was dead and William was nearing the end of his life, with neither producing an heir, and next in line to the throne was Anne who had also failed in this task. This meant it would be possible for a number of Catholic monarchs to mount a claim to the throne, meaning that Parliament agreed to pass the “Act of Settlement”, which said that no Catholic could take the throne, defaulting the next heir as George of Hannover (who was technically 52nd in the line of succession), displaying that Parliament was now choosing the king beyond the idea of God given right instead based on how much they fitted Parliament’s plans. Furthermore, a number of other restrictions were placed on the throne by the act, such as saying the king could not appoint foreigners to the privy council, declare war to protect their home country or even leave the country without Parliament’s consent. Therefore, the idea of the divine right of kings was completely destroyed in the glorious revolution, with Parliament now selecting the king at will and not by any measure of blood or divine will.
The glorious revolution can also be argued to allow Parliament to become more of a partner in government, displaying that its revolutionary aspects stretch beyond merely the divine right to rule, instead going well into the royal prerogative being occupied by Parliament. One of the main reasons William took the throne was in order to use England’s wealth and resources to aid in the 9 years war against the French. This war saw unprecedented amounts of expenditure, with the army reaching 76,000 soldiers by 1697, leading to yearly expenditure reaching £5.4 million. This required massive amounts of taxes, with old style taxes being raised such as the 1692 “Land Tax” which raised over £1 million, and newer forms of income such as the national lottery raising £1 million in 1694 and bank bills, which meant that money could be stored in the new “Bank of England” at almost no expense. The expenditure also led to increased Parliamentary scrutiny to make sure the large sums of money being granted were spent correctly – in 1690, Parliament passed the “Public Accounts Act”, which set up a commission with the power to read documents, create reports and even call government ministers for questioning. This led to the expulsion of the speaker of the house, Sir John Trevor, in 1695 for being caught accepting a bribe of 1,000 guineas, displaying that Parliaments power over scrutinising finances was able to grow. However, by 1697 William had blocked the commission being renewed, displaying that he retained ultimate power over this scrutiny. But by the wars end, William was in £17 million of debt as whilst expenditure was at £5.4 million income remained at £3.6 million, meaning that Parliament would need to provide even more financial support to the crown to ensure it did not default. This meant the commissions were replaced by more scrutiny in the form of the 1697 “Public Accounts Act”, in which Parliament granted the king £700,000 a year for household expenses, replacing a floating tax income with a fixed Parliamentary income giving Parliament more power and cementing a “Financial Revolution”.
The war also increased the power of Parliament directly as more ministers came from the Commons instead of the Lords, creating democratically elected power within the UK. Between 1688-94, William used tory ministers to support his campaigns as they were more loyal to the king and wanted less reduction in his power, displayed by his installation of the Conservative Danby as his chief minister. But, by 1693 the reforming Whig faction within Parliament had taken power, displayed by the passing of the 1693 “Triennial Act” that would set out clear means for recalling Parliament, which William was only able to block by denying royal assent. However, by 1694 the victory of the Whigs over William was confirmed when William was forced to appoint them into government, with Montagu becoming Chancellor and Russell becoming First Lord of the Admiralty, with the Triennial act passing in that year. This led to the “Rage of the Party”, in which consistent and regular elections forced the king to come directly to Parliament for support as he could not rely on the same MPs each time due to them being voted out. However, tory historians would argue that whilst the power of Parliament did grow, the people inside it merely used it as a stepping stone to gain power instead of increasing power to be more democratically scrutinised. For example, both Russell and Montagu were elevated to the peerage by 1700, displaying that they were merely using parliament as a means to an end in gaining power, explaining why its power increased but not agreeing that it became a partner in government. But, this can be countered by the growth of the “Country” party. By 1697, Parliament had split into two distinct parties, the “Court” party who supported the king, and the “Country” party, who wished to restrict the power of both the court and the king in order to cement Parliament’s position. This power was confirmed in the country parties limiting of the army after the war had ended, being able to cap it at 10,000 in 1697 and reducing it further to 7,000 by 1698, displaying how despite many MPs using Parliament to gain power, the country party were able to further restrict the power of the king. This was confirmed in 1699, as William had been discovered to be distributing captured Irish land to his allies in court, leading to Parliament passing the “Bill of Resumption”, which allowed Parliament to take control of land distribution despite William opposing this, displaying that whilst no official laws had been passed, Parliaments unofficial domination of government had been confirmed by their financial and political control over the king, making them a significant force in government.
Therefore, the Glorious Revolution can be seen as very revolutionary in its own right. Although it is true that Parliament did not become the dominant figure in government until much later, the glorious revolution laid the groundwork this to occur, by destroying the divine right of kings, cementing Parliaments financial control over the crown and creating a convention of Parliament being a partner in government. Therefore, the glorious revolution of 1688 was a revolution in its own right, redefining England’s political and financial structure.