|
|
                 |
What, if anything, was revolutionary about the Glorious
Revolution?
Geoffrey Holmes judged the
Glorious Revolution ‘surely the most conservative revolution that Europe has
witnessed in the last four centuries…revolutionary only in the sense that they
toppled a King from his throne[1]’.
Was this a revolution by the propertied classes in their own interests that
‘replaced the divine right of kings with the divine right of property[2]’?
Paradoxically, were the ‘revolutionaries’ actually reactionary? Were
James II and his supporters the real revolutionaries? There is continuing
controversy surrounding its revolutionary extent. Some scholars even refuse to
call it the Glorious Revolution. Whilst
the Whig Historians who named it insist it was both glorious and revolutionary,
many historians believe that it was at best a restoration and it has even been
called a non-event. Those who see the changes of 1688-1689 as a genuine
revolution need to prove that it brought about revolutionary social, economic
and political change. It is significant that in 1688 the word ‘revolution’
did not have the significance it has acquired since the French Revolution. It
meant the revolution of a wheel turning round to a former state. At the time it
meant the ‘revolutionaries’ accomplished a return to past conditions rather
than the creation of new ones. Whigs argue that there was an ancient
constitution of limited monarchy, in which Parliament curbed the Crown’s
attempts to exceed its powers. William’s agreement to maintain the rule of law
in conjunction with parliament was, in effect, a restoration, rather than a
reformation of the unwritten constitution. Edmund Burke, emphatically believed
that the ‘revolution’ was a complete restoration. He saw no change in either
the royal prerogative or the rights of the people. He called it a ‘revolution
not made but prevented[3]’. The leading Whig
historian, Lord Macaulay, also claimed that: ‘not a single
flower of the crown was touched. Not a single new right was given to the people.
The whole English law was almost exactly the same after the revolution as before
it[4]’ Action to restore and reassert is likely to be ‘less revolutionary’, under the modern definition, than action resulting from radical, improvised and untested ideas. This is why there is such a debate surrounding the revolutionary extent of the events of 1689. The spark for the Revolution was the birth of a male heir to James II. The prospect of a Catholic dynasty was the main, some say the only, factor that led the ‘Catholophobic’ English to side with William. In February 1689 the crown was offered jointly to William and Mary, provided they accepted the accompanying Declaration of Rights, which became the Bill of Rights. There were many implications in the Bill, notably the constitutional form of government that replaced the autocratic rule of the Stuarts. There are many arguments that the Glorious Revolution was falsely named. One of the most convincing is that the revolution settlement assimilated few new ideas. It remained the case that 90% of men and all women could not vote even though the Levellers had demanded universal suffrage in the mid 17th Century. Whilst historians’ like Plumb and Holmes herald this as exceptionally advanced in comparison to the rest of Europe, I think it was conservative and insufficient. The revolution would unquestionably have been revolutionary, in the modern sense, if it had widened the voting franchise, rather than basically restating the Magna Carta. Similarly, the opportunity to tackle parliamentary corruption was not taken in the Bill Of Rights. Religion was at the heart of the revolution. Stephen Baxter showed its fundamental importance when he said that to the revolutionaries it was ‘a war of religion[5]’. They interpreted winning the war as defeating the Papists and maintaining the Anglican establishment. They did not intend a single change in religion let alone a widening of the electoral franchise. Many Historians believe the Act Of Toleration did not weaken the relationship between Church and State. Those outside the church did not have full political membership of society. It was hardly revolutionary that Anglicans retained their monopoly of the Universities and important positions. John Locke judged the half hearted and grudging toleration insufficient. He wanted total distinction between religion and civil government. The repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts that affected Protestants would have been more revolutionary. The fact that the Church of England, which remained the established national church, was unchallenged by the Glorious Revolution is strong evidence it was not revolutionary. The spirit of compromise that achieved these conditions primarily aimed to avoid another civil war, rather than achieve true freedom. G.V. Bennet judged the degree of toleration strangely unsatisfactory[6]. That the fabric of society was largely unaltered by the revolution is strong evidence that it was narrow and conservative. Whilst there is considerable debate over the level of mass participation, the same elite of society kept power and determined the constitutional outcome, for example Danby and Devonshire. Hoak wrote ‘the ruling dynasty, even the landed elites who supported the Stuarts, remained in power[7]’. Whilst there were huge changes at the very top of society, even those who believe it was revolutionary, like Gilmore, concede that the revolution did 'little that was tangible[8]' for ordinary people. Historians like Braverman insist that the revolution, in effect, changed very little. He says the constitutional impact was ‘merely a palace coup or simple changing of the guard[9]’. Holmes conceded the short-term effects made ‘no appreciable difference to the lot of the common man in Britain[10]’. Post 1688, social policy was still not regarded as a function for governments. It was not a social revolution. The settlement was not revolutionary because it placed ‘no direct restriction on the King’s position as head of the executive[11]’. It even confirmed that the Kings freedom to select advisers. This reasserted, as in 1641, the concept that in his own sphere the King could be independent of parliament, hardly revolutionary. Furthermore, the King was never deprived by statute of his right of refusing assent to bills passed by both Houses, although such refusals were infrequent. The only aim of the revolutionaries was to decisively establish the rule of law, which James II had broken. That aim is not radical or new: hence not revolutionary. Hoak said ‘no fundamental economic or social causes moved Whigs or Tories to action in 1688-9[12]’. In 1688 only the Tories had a consistent ideology, which was of course completely counterrevolutionary. Their doctrine exalted the holiness of Royal power and the law. The Tory party was based around obedience of the subject to the monarch. The belief that it was providence, God’s will, which brought William to the throne was deeply conservative. When social, religious and economic revolution eventually came it was as a result of the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and Evangelicalism. Kemp saw the Glorious Revolution as the prevention of rather than the execution of a revolution, meaning James II was the real revolutionary. She saw it as merely ‘completing and repairing the inadequacies of the 1641 settlement by reassuring parliament’s legislative supremacy[13]’. Even Whig Historians, such as Trevelyan, who champion the revolution, concede that the revolution offered nothing fundamentally new, admitting it included no new law. He famously wrote ‘it would have been better described as the sensible revolution[14]’ because it ended the political fanaticism of the 17th century. Treveylan called it ‘the most conservative of all revolutions in history[15]’. How revolutionary, in our terms, could a sensible and conservative revolution’ have been? Whilst the expulsion of James was a revolutionary act, he says ‘the spirit of this strange revolution was the opposite of revolutionary[16]’. The men of 1688 were disillusioned, firstly by Cromwell’s Barebones Parliament and secondly by the lords appointed under James II. These events taught them to avoid another civil war at all costs. I think that this made them less radical, hence the Glorious Revolution was less revolutionary because ‘the burnt child fears the fire[17]’. It confirmed the law after James had broken it, rather than rewriting the law, which would have been truly revolutionary. Marxist historians find nothing revolutionary in the Revolution. They view it as ‘a violent seizure of power by the bourgeoisie[18]’. Christopher Hill called the Revolution a mere coup d’etat. He thinks that the events of the 1640s were far more revolutionary. To Marxist historians the Great Revolution was merely a palace revolution, of little social significance. The revolution was certainly not a mass movement. Only the landed classes removed the monarch who had undermined them. Modern ‘neo-Whig’ historians like Henry Horwitz see the Great Revolution as a genuine revolution. He thinks it was radical, and hence revolutionary, to exclude Catholics from the throne[19]. Richard Price thought the Revolution accompanied substantial change, and laid the foundations for reform to come. What were these substantial changes? Were they really revolutionary or just confirming the previous status quo? Many argue the achievement of compromise without bloodshed was itself revolutionary. This is why the Revolution was named Glorious. Trevelyan called it our true glory that we avoided ‘the shedding of any blood either on the field or on the scaffold, unlike in France[20]’. While the lack of bloodshed (in England) makes the revolution glorious, it does not make it revolutionary. The level of bloodshed in a revolution is unrelated to its ‘revolutionary’ extent. It is significant that we have not had a revolution in the last 312 years. The Revolution Settlement was almost unaltered until the Reform Bill of 1832. Subsequent changes have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Whig Historians argue that to achieve this level of stability was revolutionary, when set against the upheaval and bloodshed of the 17th Century. Trevelyan particularly sees this. The Glorious Revolution is rightly seen as the turning point in the development of British democracy. Despite the absence of a fierce, short, radical, intense period typical of a revolution, the glory of the Glorious Revolution is still tangible 300 years later. In the long run it appears politically revolutionary, especially if it truly was the moment when the modern era began and the divisive politics of the 17th Century were left behind. The Bill Of Rights undoubtedly secured many freedoms. Trevelyan described the reconciliation of Whig and Tory, Church and Dissent, who all found the new regime to be tolerable as miraculous and revolutionary[21]. The Revolution Settlement decisively established the principle of parliamentary supremacy. It was decisive because it has continued ever since. McCauley said it ‘held the germ… of every good law[22]’ that followed. It guaranteed that if the king, lords or commons tried to increase its power, the other two would ‘reduce the offending power within its proper bounds[23]’. It stated Parliament should have free elections, be summoned frequently and had complete freedom of speech. The King’s ministers were in the final instance answerable to Parliament. The Act of Parliament was given supreme status. The King depended on Parliament for his income. Taxes had to be collected through parliament, a significant, revolutionary step. Jennifer Carter thought it was important that central authority withdrew from local affairs. Elections became independent from control by either the crown or parliament. It reduced the power of the crown to the degree that William became merely ‘a King in a play’. Whigs argue it was revolutionary that power was now dispersed and ultimately in the hands of the people through elections. Both the dispensing power and
the suspending power were declared unlawful for future use. Parliament
exclusively made laws. It was revolutionary that no monarch could use their prerogative to set up new law courts[24].
The independence of judges was secured. The
‘neo-Whigs’ historians Corinne Weston, Lois Schwoerer and Janelle Greenberg
contend that stripping the King of the right to suspend and dispense with the
law was a radical, revolutionary step because it changed fundamentally the most
important prerogative power of the King, forcing them
to rule through parliament, which was arguably revolutionary. The
British constitution was converted from absolute monarchy to a constitutional
monarchy, from autocracy to parliamentary democracy. Bowyer wrote that
‘Kingship was appreciably changed when the King became the state’s best paid
servant[25]’. It was declared illegal to keep
an army in peacetime without the backing of parliament, as James had after the
suppression of Monmouth’s rebellion. The King was dependent on parliament for
his army. This is a key part of the ‘revolutionary’ shift in the power
balance from Monarch to Parliament. Under the terms of the settlement all Englishmen had the
right to petition the king, to be free from excessive bail, and to be tried by a
jury if accused of treason. Trevelyan wrote that the settlement
‘involved real liberty for the subject[26]’.
These liberties are not
especially radical. Whigs claim that the abolition of censorship led to
freedom of the press, with developments such as the Spectator selling 11,500
copies a week in 1711. I would argue that Catholics, for example, lacked freedom
because they were banned from making pamphlets. Unquestionably, the most radical element of the Revolutionary Settlement concerned succession. The strict hereditary succession of kings was ended. The position was prohibited to any Roman Catholic or anyone married to one. It still applies today. This radical step was the most powerful proof of the supremacy of Parliament over the monarch. Horwitz called it a radical decision, establishing the ‘notion of the monarchy as a public trust[27]’. Furthermore, Greenberg believes that other fundamental questions about the nature of the kingship were asked. She has claimed that ideas such as elective kingship were discussed in the radical press[28]. Such evidence of a politically revolutionary culture is important. The 1689 Toleration Act granted freedom of religious worship, though not complete political equality, to protestant dissenters who believed in the Trinity. It has been argued that the Toleration Act ended the Anglican Church's religious monopoly. Whig Historians even argue that, despite the laws, the latitudinarian and tolerant spirit ushered in by the revolution was so strong that these privileges were extended in practice to Catholics. This seems hard to believe, given the revolution had been specially directed against Catholicism. Trevelyan said ‘religious freedom was secured by the abandonment of the cherished idea that all subjects if the state must also be members of the state church[29]’. Whilst the Act of Toleration may have undermined the Church Of England by destroying its standing as the only legal church, the true religious freedom which would have been revolutionary was not achieved. Did the Catholics and Jews, denied freedom of worship, see it as revolutionary? The fact that the Toleration Act forever ended the long cycle of religious persecution and war is commendable, especially compared to abroad, although it is not revolutionary. The international dimension is vital to the Glorious Revolution, because it had several international effects. Whigs claimed it was revolutionary because it radically changed England’s position internationally, transforming her role in the world, or at least provided the platform to do so. Before 1689 England was not the major European power. Between 1603 and 1688 continuous struggle between parliament and king had made England appear weak. Parliaments were weary of supplying governments they could not continuously control. This lead to disasters like the Cadiz Expedition. However, after the revolution the parliamentary government was able to progress. The constitution was transformed from being the weakness to ‘a force of national strength[30]’ - a revolutionary reverse. Trevelyan thought we obtained greater national force than France because our Constitution was greater than their unlimited monarchy. He wrote ‘the revolution gave us the strength that could only emerge from a united nation[31]’. Given the previous century to unite a country so powerfully, as the Marlborough Wars demonstrated was revolutionary. The Revolution made many European philosophers turn against despotism and intolerance, seeing them as causes of national weakness. Holmes thought the Glorious Revolution’s ‘broad European significance is unquestionable[32]’. He saw a revolution in European foreign policy after 1688. The revolution made England safe and powerful, able to succeeded in uniting the whole of Britain ‘on a revolutionary basis’. It paved the way for the revolutionary union with Scotland in 1707, although other historians attribute it to other factors, like foreign conflicts. The Glorious Revolution arguably heralded the American Revolution, the American constitution and the fundamental structure of all modern democracy[33]. Similarly, John C. Rule wrote that 1688 was momentous ‘in the international life of Europe, for it marks the birth of a theory and practise of a power balance that has lasted until today[34]’. These international aspects appear compelling reasons that the revolution was revolutionary, a political turning point not just for Britain but for the rest of the world. However, the Glorious Revolution seems less revolutionary when viewed from a Scottish or Irish viewpoint. Irish Catholics did not see much evidence of toleration. The Glorious Revolution led to English domination of the British Isles and exacerbated problems that still persist today. There were revolutionary changes to the financial system. Trevelyan thought the post-Revolution financial system was the key to English power in subsequent centuries. It made our kings in effect richer then their French rivals. Hoak saw the founding of the Bank Of England in 1694 as ‘the centrepiece of the settlement[35]’. It gave merchants (and the government) access to credit for investment, a resource unavailable elsewhere in Europe. ‘Revolution finance’ was arguably the principle reason Britain overcame wealthier France and achieved the British Empire. However, the majority of the population did not experience an economic revolution. The consensus of recent
scholarship is strongly in favour of the traditional Whig view that from the
Revolution a new, revolutionary political environment emerged. Ian Gilmour said
the Revolution ended the prospect of England ever becoming a state governed by
an absolute monarch, as in France and other European nations. Instead we had
effectively an aristocrat-governed state. Furthermore, another quality typical
of a revolution was the fact that a relatively stable period followed the events
of 1689. The settlement is
widely seen as the foundation of the basic features of the political system
existing in many countries today: a relatively free electorate as well as press
and the politics of the two-party system. The modern historian Angus McInnes, a ‘neo-Whig’, sees a
real, revolutionary shift from absolute to mixed monarchy. He says above all it
was the financial settlement that made the king dependant on parliament. It was
a political revolution, with a new king and a new constitution. The nature of the ‘revolution’ can be described by
considering James II. He was the real revolutionary, not the
insurrectionists – they merely removed James and confirmed the dominance of
the parliamentary system. It was James II who forced England to choose once and
for all between Royal Absolutism and Parliamentary Government. He put
Roman Catholics into government, into the army, and into the universities. In 1688 he granted permission for Catholics and
Dissenters to worship freely. His rule was in many ways more revolutionary than
the Glorious Revolution. It is unquestionable that the revolution had multiple
significant and long lasting effects. The Bill Of Rights secured freedoms, like the independence of judges.
A revolution (in the modern sense of the word) must do more than just
secure things if it is to be revolutionary. Compare
the Great Revolution to the upheavals of the real society-wide explosions
since. For example, those in France (1789), Russia (1917) and China (1949). In
light of this comparison what was so ‘revolutionary’ about William and
Mary’s accession, little more than a polite resolution of aristocratic
dissent. Tom Paine called the Revolution Settlement a ‘bad
constitution for at least ninety nine parts of the nation out of a hundred[36]’.
It
restored some rights long embedded in the nation’s ancient constitution,
rather then achieving something revolutionary like the true religious freedom
James II desired. However, many elements of it were politically revolutionary,
such as the guaranteed Protestant Succession. The revolution achieved much and deserves the title Glorious. It cemented the system of government by discussion once and for all and averted the absolutism that James II forced England to consider. Although the authors of the Bill did not anticipate future events, it provided the platform for great prosperity for Britain and arguably the modern form of democracy worldwide. Whig historians interpret the 17th Century as a struggle between Crown and Parliament for sovereignty. The Civil Wars had seen parliament triumph but after the Restoration in 1660 the Crown reasserted its power. They saw the revolution as the conclusion of the struggle that had begun in 1603 with the accession of James I. Ideas from 100 years beforehand are not revolutionary. It was a shrewd continuation of a long process rather than a revolutionary surge. Bowyer wrote: ‘The Great Revolution completed what the Civil War
Began: the battle against prerogative was fought and won. The issue of
sovereignty seemed to be settled once and for all. With it disappeared the
quarrel that had vitalized politics since 1603[37]’.
The act of grasping sovereignty in 1688 has let us live in peace ever since. This was glorious but not truly revolutionary. It was undoubtedly, a glorious compromise that forever stopped the feud of Roundhead and Cavalier, of Anglican and Puritan, which had been evident only four years earlier at Sedgemoor. Paradoxically, despite the ‘dramatic collapse of a power structure and the overthrow of its head[38]’ the Glorious Revolution was only slightly revolutionary. It is better described as the ‘Glorious Restoration’. Locke correctly called William ‘our great restorer[39]’. Magnificent changes emanated from his bloodless accession to the throne, but these evolved over time. The Glorious Revolution was an incredibly significant political turning point but had few of the qualities of social or economic revolution and none of the ideology, turmoil and violence that has so characterised later political revolutions. James was forcibly overthrown but the immediate social order changed little. There can be little doubt that the evolutionary changes that followed from these events justify the title of Glorious because they enabled the United Kingdom to emerge as a great world power. It was an incredibly effective political revolution but had few of the qualities of a social or economic revolution. Bibliography
[1] Geoffrey Holmes ed. Britain After the Glorious Revolution 1689-1714, St Martins press, 1969, Page 7 [2] Geoffrey Holmes ed. Britain After the Glorious Revolution 1689-1714, 7 [3] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, 1992, 5 [4] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 6 [5] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 99 [6] Geoffrey Holmes ed. Britain After the Glorious Revolution 1689-1714, 161 [7] Hoak and Feingold, The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch perspectives on the Revolution of 1688-89, Stanford university press, 1996, 12 [8] http://brithistory.home.com/williamandmary.html [9] http://brithistory.home.com/williamandmary.html [10] Geoffrey Holmes ed. Britain After the Glorious Revolution 1689-1714, 12 [11] Betty Kemp, King and Commons 1660-183. 27/8 [12] Hoak and Feingold, The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch perspectives on the Revolution of 1688-89, 12 [13] Betty Kemp, King and Commons 1660-1832. 26 [14] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, Oxford University press, 1937, 3 [15] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 5 [16] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 5 [17] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 4 [18] W.A. Speck, Reluctant Revolutionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688, Oxford University press, 1988, 3 [19] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 10 [20] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 4 [21] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 128 [22] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 6 [23] Betty Kemp, King and Commons 1660-1832. 85 [24] Bill of Rights (Great Britain), Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopaedia 2001 [25] Richard E. Bowyer English Declarations Of Indulgence 1687 and 1688, 8 [26] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 129 [27] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 10 [28] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 11 [29] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 6 [30] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 9 [31] G.M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution 1688-1689, 8 [32] Geoffrey Holmes ed. Britain After the Glorious Revolution 1689-1714, 17 [33] http://www.cyberplexafrica.com/fingaz/99/stage/archive/991013/public-index.html [34]Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 51 [35] Hoak and Feingold, The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch perspectives on the Revolution of 1688-89, 12 [36] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 5 [37] Bowyer, Declarations Of Indulgence 1687 and 1688, 8 [38] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 55 [39] Lois G. Schwoerer ed, The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives, 3
|
|
|