William III. and Mary II., 1689.
The Revolution, as it was called, was more than a mere change of
sovereigns. It finally transferred the ultimate decision in the state
from the king to parliament. What parliament had been in the 15th
century with the House of Lords predominating, that parliament was to be
again in the end of the 17th century with the House of Commons
predominating. That House of Commons was far from resting on a wide
basis of popular suffrage. The county voters were the freeholders; but
in the towns, with some important exceptions, the electors were the
richer inhabitants who formed the corporations of the boroughs, or a
body of select householders more or less under the control of some
neighbouring landowner. A House so chosen was an aristocratic body, but
it was aristocratic in a far wider sense than the House of Lords was
aristocratic. The trading and legal classes found their representation
there by the side of the great owners of land. The House drew its
strength from its position as a true representative of the effective
strength of the nation in its social and economical organization.
Such was the body which firmly grasped the control over every branch of
the administration. Limiting in the Bill of Rights the powers assumed by
the crown, the Commons declared that the king could not keep a standing
army in time of peace without consent of parliament; and they made that
consent effectual, as far as legislation could go, by passing a Mutiny
Act year by year for twelve months only, so as to prevent the crown from
exercising military discipline without their authority. Behind these
legal contrivances stood the fact that the army was organized in the
same way as the nation was organized, being officered by gentlemen who
had no desire to overthrow a constitution through which the class from
which they sprung controlled the government. Strengthened by the
cessation of any fear of military violence, the Commons placed the crown
in financial dependence on themselves by granting a large part of the
revenue only for a limited term of years, and by putting strictly in
force their right of appropriating that revenue to special branches of
expenditure.
Causes in favour of liberty.
The Toleration Act.
Such a revolution might have ended in the substitution of the despotism
of a class for the despotism of a man. Many causes combined to prevent
this result. The landowners, who formed the majority of the House, were
not elected directly, as was the case with the nobility of the French
states-general, by their own class, but by electors who, though
generally loyal to them, would have broken off from them if they had
attempted to make themselves masters of their fellow citizens. No less
important was the almost absolute independence of the judges, begun at
the beginning of the reign, by the grant of office to them during good
behaviour instead of during the king's pleasure, and finally secured by
the clause in the Act of Settlement in 1701, which protected them
against dismissal except on the joint address of both Houses of
Parliament. Such an improvement, however, finds its full counterpart in
another great step already taken. The more representative a government
becomes, the more necessary it is for the well-being of the nation that
the expression of individual thought should be free in every direction.
If it is not so, the government is inclined to proscribe unpopular
opinion, and to forget that new opinions by which the greatest benefits
are likely to be conferred are certain at first to be entertained by a
very few, and are quite certain to be unpopular as soon as they come
into collision with the opinions of the majority. In the middle ages the
benefits of the liberation of thought from state control had been
secured by the antagonism between church and state. The Tudor sovereigns
had rightfully asserted the principle that in a well-ordered nation only
one supreme power can be allowed to exist; but in so doing they had
enslaved religion. It was fortunate that, just at the moment when
parliamentary control was established over the state, circumstances
should have arisen which made the majority ready to restore to the
individual conscience that supremacy over religion which the medieval
ecclesiastics had claimed for the corporation of the universal church.
Dissenters had, in the main, stood shoulder to shoulder with churchmen
in rejecting the suspicious benefits of James, and both gratitude and
policy forbade the thought of replacing them under the heavy yoke which
had been imposed on them at the Restoration. The exact mode in which
relief should be afforded was still an open question. The idea prevalent
with the more liberal minds amongst the clergy was that of
comprehension--that is to say, of so modifying the prayers and
ceremonies of the church as to enable the dissenters cheerfully to enter
in. The scheme was one which had approved itself to minds of the highest
order--to Sir Thomas More, to Bacon, to Hales and to Jeremy Taylor. It
is one which, as long as beliefs are not very divergent, keeps up a
sense of brotherhood overruling the diversity of opinion. It broke down,
as it always will break down in practice, whenever the difference of
belief is so strongly felt as to seek earnestly to embody itself in
diversity of outward practice. The greater part of the clergy of the
church felt that to surrender their accustomed formularies was to
surrender somewhat of the belief which those formularies signified,
while the dissenting clergy were equally reluctant to adopt the common
prayer book even in a modified form. Hence the Toleration Act, which
guaranteed the right of separate assemblies for worship outside the pale
of the church, though it embodied the principles of Cromwell and Milton,
and not those of Chillingworth and Hales, was carried without
difficulty, whilst the proposed scheme of comprehension never had a
chance of success (1689). The choice was one which posterity can
heartily approve. However wide the limits of toleration be drawn, there
will always be those who will be left outside. By religious liberty
those inside gain as much as those who are without. From the moment of
the passing of the Toleration Act, no Protestant in England performed
any act of worship except by his own free and deliberate choice. The
literary spokesman of the new system was Locke. His _Letters concerning
Toleration_ laid down the principle which had been maintained by
Cromwell, with a wider application than was possible in days when the
state was in the hands of a mere minority only able to maintain itself
in power by constant and suspicious vigilance.
One measure remained to place the dissenters in the position of full
membership of the state. The Test Act excluded them from office. But
the memory of the high-handed proceedings of Puritan rulers was still
too recent to allow Englishmen to run the risk of a reimposition of
their yoke, and this feeling, fanciful as it was, was sufficient to keep
the Test Act in force for years to come.
Liberty of the press.
The complement of the Toleration Act was the abolition of the censorship
of the press (1695). The ideas of the author of the _Areopagitica_ had
at last prevailed. The attempt to fix certain opinions on the nation
which were pleasing to those in power was abandoned by king and
parliament alike. The nation, or at least so much of it as cared to read
books or pamphlets on political subjects, was acknowledged to be the
supreme judge, which must therefore be allowed to listen to what
counsellors it pleased.
This new position of the nation made itself felt in various ways. It was
William's merit that, fond as he was of power, he recognized the fact
that he could not rule except so far as he carried the goodwill of the
nation with him. No doubt he was helped to an intelligent perception of
the new situation by the fact that, as a foreigner, he cared far more
for carrying on war successfully against France than for influencing the
domestic legislation of a country which was not his own, and by the
knowledge that the conduct of the struggle which lasted till he was able
to treat with France on equal terms at Ryswick (1697) was fairly trusted
to his hands. Nevertheless these years of war called for the united
action of a national government, and in seeking to gain this support for
himself, he hit upon an expedient which opened a new era in
constitutional politics.
Beginning of cabinet government.
The supremacy of the House of Commons would have been an evil of no
common magnitude, if it had made government impossible. Yet this was
precisely what it threatened to do. Sometimes the dominant party in the
House pressed with unscrupulous rancour upon its opponents. Sometimes
the majority shifted from side to side as the House was influenced by
passing gusts of passion or sympathy, so that, as it was said at the
time, no man could foretell one day what the House would be pleased to
do on the next. Against the first of these dangers William was to a
great extent able to guard by the exercise of his right of dissolution,
so as to appeal to the constituencies, which did not always share in the
the passions of their representatives. But the second danger could not
be met in this way. The only cure for waywardness is responsibility, and
not only was this precisely what the Commons had not learned to feel,
but it was that which it was impossible to make them feel directly. A
body composed of several hundred members cannot carry on government with
the requisite steadiness of action and clearness of insight. Such work
can only fitly be entrusted to a few, and whenever difficult
circumstances arise it is necessary that the action of those few be kept
in harmony by the predominance of one. The scheme on which William hit,
by the advice of the earl of Sunderland, was that which has since been
known as cabinet government. He selected as his ministers the leading
members of the two Houses who had the confidence of the majority of the
House of Commons. In this way, the majority felt an interest in
supporting the men who embodied their own opinions, and fell in turn
under the influence of those who held them with greater prudence or
ability than fell to the lot of the average members of the House. All
that William doubtless intended was to acquire a ready instrument to
enable him to carry on the war with success. In reality he had
refounded, on a new basis, the government of England. His own personal
qualities were such that he was able to dominate over any set of
ministers; but the time would come when there would be a sovereign of
inferior powers. Then the body of ministers would step into his place.
The old rude arrangements of the middle ages had provided by frequent
depositions that an inefficient sovereign should cease to rule, and
those arrangements had been imitated in the cases of Charles I. and
James II. Still the claim to rule had, at least from the time of Henry
III., been derived from hereditary descent, and the interruption,
however frequently it might occur, had been regarded as something
abnormal, only to be applied where there was an absolute necessity to
prevent the wielder of executive authority from setting at defiance the
determined purpose of the nation. After the Revolution not only had the
king's title been so changed as to make him more directly than ever
dependent on the nation, but he now called into existence a body which
derived its own strength from its conformity with the wishes of the
representatives of the nation.
For the moment it seemed to be but a temporary expedient. When the war
came to an end, the Whig party which had sustained William in his
struggle with France split up. The dominant feeling of the House of
Commons was no longer the desire to support the crown against a foreign
enemy, but to make government as cheap as possible, leaving future
dangers to the chances of the future. William had not so understood the
new invention of a united ministry as binding him to take into his
service a united ministry of men whom he regarded as fools and knaves.
He allowed the Commons to reduce the army to a skeleton, to question his
actions, and to treat him as if he were a cipher. But it was only by
slow degrees that he was brought to acknowledge the necessity of
choosing his ministers from amongst the men who had done these things.
The Spanish succession.
The time came when he needed again the support of the nation. The death
of Charles II., the heirless king of the huge Spanish monarchy, had long
been expected. Since the peace of Ryswick, William and Louis XIV. had
come to terms by two successive partition treaties for a division of
those vast territories in such a way that the whole of them should not
fall into the hands of a near relation either of the king of France or
of the emperor, the head of the house of Austria. When the king of Spain
actually died in 1700, William seemed to have no authority in England
whatever; and Louis was therefore encouraged to break his engagements,
and to accept the whole of the Spanish inheritance for his grandson, who
became Philip V. of Spain. William saw clearly that such predominance of
France in Europe would lead to the development of pretensions unbearable
to other states. But the House of Commons did not see it, even when the
Dutch garrisons were driven by French troops out of the posts in the
Spanish Netherlands which they had occupied for many years (1701).
The Act of Settlement.
William had prudently done all that he could to conciliate the Tory
majority. In the preceding year (1700) he had given office to a Tory
ministry, and he now (1701) gave his assent to the Act of Settlement,
which secured the succession of the crown to the electress Sophia of
Hanover, daughter of James I.'s daughter Elizabeth, to the exclusion of
all Roman Catholic claimants, though it imposed several fresh
restrictions on the prerogative. William was indeed wise in keeping his
feelings under control. The country sympathized with him more than the
Commons did, and when the House imprisoned the gentlemen deputed by the
freeholders of Kent to present a petition asking that its loyal
addresses might be turned into bills of supply, it simply advertised its
weakness to the whole country.
The Grand Alliance.
The reception of this Kentish petition was but a foretaste of the
discrepancy between the Commons and the nation, which was to prove the
marked feature of the middle of the century now opening. For the present
the House was ready to give way. It requested the king to enter into
alliance with the Dutch. William went yet further in the direction in
which he was urged. He formed an alliance with the emperor, as well as
with the Netherlands, to prevent the union of the crowns of France and
Spain, and to compel France to evacuate the Netherlands. An unexpected
event came to give him all the strength he needed. James II. died, and
Louis acknowledged his son as the rightful king of England. Englishmen
of both parties were stung to indignation by the insult. William
dissolved parliament, and the new House of Commons, Tory as it was by a
small majority, was eager to support the king. It voted men and money
according to his wishes. England was to be the soul of the Grand
Alliance against France. But before a blow was struck William was thrown
from his horse. He died on the 8th of March 1702. "The man," as Burke
said of him, "was dead, but the Grand Alliance survived in which King
William lived and reigned."
Queen Anne, 1702-1714.
Upon the accession of Anne, war was at once begun. The Grand Alliance
became, as William would have wished, a league to wrest the whole of the
Spanish dominions from Philip, in favour of the Austrian archduke
Charles. It found a chief of supreme military and diplomatic genius in
the duke of Marlborough. His victory at Blenheim (1704) drove the French
out of Germany. His victory of Ramillies (1706) drove them out of the
Netherlands. In Spain, Gibraltar was captured by Rooke (1704) and
Barcelona by Peterborough (1705). Prince Eugene relieved Turin from a
French siege, and followed up the blow by driving the besiegers out of
Italy.
Union with Scotland.
The influence of Marlborough at home was the result partly of the
prestige of his victories, partly of the dominating influence of his
strong-minded duchess ("Mrs Freeman") over the queen (see ANNE, queen of
England). The duke cared little for home politics in themselves; but he
had his own ends, both public and private, to serve, and at first gave
his support to the Tories, whose church policy was regarded with favour
by the queen. Their efforts were directed towards the restriction of the
Toleration Act within narrow limits. Many dissenters had evaded the Test
Act by partaking of the communion in a church, though they subsequently
attended their own chapels. An Occasional Conformity Bill, imposing
penalties on those who adopted this practice, twice passed the Commons
(1702, 1703), but was rejected by the House of Lords, in which the Whig
element predominated. The church was served in a nobler manner in 1704
by the abandonment of first-fruits and tenths by the queen for the
purpose of raising the pittances of the poorer clergy (see QUEEN ANNE'S
BOUNTY). In 1707 a piece of legislation of the highest value was carried
to a successful end. The Act of Union, passed in the parliaments of
England and Scotland, joined the legislatures of the two kingdoms and
the nations themselves in an indissoluble bond.
United Whig ministry.
The ministry in office at the time of the passing of the Act of Union
had suffered important changes since the commencement of the reign. The
Tories had never been as earnest in the prosecution of the war as the
Whigs; and Marlborough, who cared above all things for the furtherance
of the war, gradually replaced Tories by Whigs in the ministry. His
intention was doubtless to conciliate both parties by admitting them
both to a share of power; but the Whigs were determined to have all or
none, and in 1708 a purely Whig ministry was formed to support the war
as the first purely Whig ministry had supported it in the reign of
William. The years of its power were the years of the victories of
Oudenarde (1708) and of Malplaquet (1709), bringing with them the entire
ruin of the military power of Louis XIV.
Such successes, if they were not embraced in the spirit of moderation,
boded no good to the Whigs. It was known that even before the last
battle Louis had been ready to abandon the cause of his grandson, and
that his offers had been rejected because he would not consent to join
the allies in turning him out of Spain. A belief spread in England that
Marlborough wished the endless prolongation of the war for his own
selfish ends. Spain was far away, and, if the Netherlands were safe,
enough had been done for the interests of England. The Whigs were
charged with refusing to make peace when an honourable and satisfactory
peace was not beyond their reach.
Tory Ministry.
As soon as the demand for a vigorous prosecution of the war relaxed, the
Whigs could but rely on their domestic policy, in which they were
strongest in the eyes of posterity but weakest in the eyes of
contemporaries. It was known that they looked for the principle on which
the queen's throne rested to the national act of the Revolution, rather
than to the birth of the sovereign as the daughter of James II., whilst
popular feeling preferred, however inconsistently, to attach itself to
some fragment of hereditary right. What was of greater consequence was,
that it was known that they were the friends of the dissenters, and
that their leaders, if they could have had their way, would not only
have maintained the Toleration Act, but would also have repealed the
Test Act. In 1709 a sermon preached by Dr Sacheverell (q.v.) denounced
toleration and the right of resistance in tones worthy of the first days
of the Restoration. Foolish as the sermon was, it was but the reflection
of folly which was widely spread amongst the rude and less educated
classes. The Whig leaders unwisely took up the challenge and impeached
Sacheverell. The Lords condemned the man, but they condemned him to an
easy sentence. His trial was the signal for riot. Dissenting chapels
were sacked to the cry of High Church and Sacheverell. The queen, who
had personal reasons for disliking the Whigs, dismissed them from office
(1710), and a Tory House of Commons was elected amidst the excitement to
support the Tory ministry of Harley and St John.
Peace of Utrecht.
Occasional Conformity Act and the Schism Act.
After some hesitation the new ministry made peace with France, and the
treaty of Utrecht (1713), stipulating for the permanent separation of
the crowns of France and Spain, and assigning Milan, Naples and the
Spanish Netherlands to the Austrian claimant, accomplished all that
could reasonably be desired, though the abandonment to the vengeance of
the Spanish government of her Catalan allies, and the base desertion of
her continental confederates on the very field of action, brought
dishonour on the good name of England. The Commons gladly welcomed the
cessation of the war. The approval of the Lords had been secured by the
creation of twelve Tory peers. In home politics the new ministry was in
danger of being carried away by its more violent supporters. St John,
now Viscount Bolingbroke, with unscrupulous audacity placed himself at
their head. The Occasional Conformity Bill was at last carried (1711).
To it was added the Schism Act (1714), forbidding dissenters to keep
schools or engage in tuition. Bolingbroke went still farther. He engaged
in an intrigue for bringing over the Pretender to succeed the queen upon
her death. This wild conduct alienated the moderate Tories, who, much as
they wished to see the throne occupied by the heir of the ancient line,
could not bring themselves to consent to its occupation by a Roman
Catholic prince. Such men, therefore, when Anne died (1714) joined the
Whigs in proclaiming the elector of Hanover king as George I.