Declaration of Right, 1689

The Declaration of Right, or Declaration of Rights, is a document produced by the English Parliament, following the 1688 Glorious Revolution. It set outs the wrongs committed by the exiled James II, the rights of English citizens, and the obligation of their monarch.

Part of a series on the
History of England
 England portal

On 13 February 1689, it was read out to James' daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, when they were jointly offered the throne, although not made a condition of acceptance.[1]

The Declaration itself was a tactical compromise between Whig and Tories; it established grievances, without agreeing their cause, or solution.[2]

Background
James

The first Stuart monarch, James VI and I, sought to combine the three separate kingdoms of Scotland, Ireland, and England into a centralised British state, under a monarch whose authority came from God, and the duty of Parliament and his subjects was to obey.[3] Their attempts to enforce this led to the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms and execution of Charles I in 1649; the political conflict continued after the 1660 Restoration.[4]

17th century society valued conformity, stability, and predictability. James became king in 1685 with widespread backing from both Tories and Whigs, since the principle of hereditary succession was more important than his personal Catholicism.[5] His religious reforms threatened to re-open the bitter conflicts of the past, and were viewed by Tories in particular as breaking his coronation oath, in which he swore to uphold the primacy of the Church of England. An existential threat in a society based on such oaths, it brought back memories of his predecessors, who continually made commitments they later broke.[lower-alpha 1] [5]

Since religion and politics were interdependent, 'good government' required 'true religion'; alterations in one implied alterations in the other, once again undermining a stable society. Catholicism was also associated with the absolutism of Louis XIV, whose policies threatened Protestant powers, including England, the Dutch Republic, and Denmark-Norway. In October 1685, he revoked tolerance for French Protestants sending an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 into exile, 40,000 of whom settled in London. [6] Combined with the killing of 2,000 Vaudois Protestants in 1686, this led to fears Protestant Europe was threatened by a Catholic counter-reformation.[7]

Historians generally accept James wished to promote Catholicism, not establish an absolutist state, but his inflexible reaction to opposition had the same result. When Parliament refused to repeal the 1678 and 1681 Test Acts, it was dismissed; attempts to rule by decree, and form a 'King's party' of Catholics and English Dissenters, undermined his own supporters. The result was the 1688 Glorious Revolution.[8]

Political context

The Stuart doctrine of divine right argued they were not subject to 'interference', whether by Parliament, the courts, or the church.[9] However, while the king might be above the law, his servants were not, and could be prosecuted. In addition, the Anglican doctrine of passive obedience did not mean submission to 'unjust' laws, but accepting punishment for breaking them, as with the Seven Bishops. James' government collapsed when the gentry vital for governing the country withdrew their support, implying the king could rule only with the consent of his subjects.

The differences between Tories and Whigs are often overstated; Tory elements within the Royal Army, like Charles Trelawny, brother of one of the Seven Bishops, were instrumental in helping the invasion succeed. The 1701 Act of Settlement that excluded the Catholic Stuart exiles from the throne was passed by a Tory government. In 1689, both generally agreed the king was bound to observe the law; the real battle in 1688 to 1689 was removing James from the throne, possibly the most radical result of the Revolution.[10]

The Declaration of Right was essentially a conservative document, which contained two main parts: a list of the wrongs, or grievances, committed by James, and 13 clauses establishing limits on Royal power and authority.

Grievances

Note: In the following, the italic text is the quote from the actual document and the regular text is the paraphrase.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of [many] evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom...[11]

  1. By dispensing and suspending laws without the consent of Parliament. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament.
  2. By prosecuting people for protesting the King's reign. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power.
  3. By creating and using an organization affiliated with the Catholic Church. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes.
  4. By the use of funds by Crown for other purposes than the funds were originally granted for by Parliament. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by the pretense of prerogative for other time and in another manner than the same was granted by Parliament.
  5. By keeping a standing army in peacetime without the consent of Parliament. By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.
  6. By stripping Protestants of arms and, at the same time, arming Catholics. By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.
  7. By not allowing for the free elections of Parliament. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament.
  8. By doing parliament's business and illegally prosecuting those against him. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses.
  9. By placing corrupt jurors in court to pass judgment and placing jurors without land holdings in courts of high treason. And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders.
  10. By requiring excessive bail charges. And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.
  11. By imposing excessive fines. And excessive fines have been imposed.
  12. By inflicting cruel and illegal punishments. And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted.
  13. By imposing fines and seizing the property of people before their conviction. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied.

All of which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm.

The 13 clauses that limited the power of the Crown
  1. The power of suspending and executing laws rests in the hands of Parliament. That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal.
  2. The Crown does not have the legal authority to dispense or execute laws. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.
  3. The establishment of any institution of the Catholic Church is illegal. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious.
  4. The imposition of any taxes by the Crown without the permission of Parliament is illegal. That levying of money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.
  5. The citizens have the right to petition the king without fear of repercussions. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
  6. A standing army at peacetime without the consent of Parliament is illegal. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law.
  7. All Protestants have the right to bear arms for defence. These the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
  8. Parliament should be freely elected. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free.
  9. Members of Parliament have the freedom of speech and their proceedings should not be questioned in any place outside of Parliament. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
  10. Bail fees, excessive fines, and unusual punishments are illegal. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
  11. All trials now require the presence of jurors and all jurors for trials of high treason must be land owners. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.
  12. It is illegal to fine or seize the property of any person who has not been convicted and all previous fines and seizures are void. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.
  13. Parliament should be held frequently to uphold the laws. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.[11]

Results

At their coronation on 11 April 1689, William and Mary swore to govern according to "the statutes in Parliament agreed on" instead of by "the laws and customs ... granted by the Kings of England", thus ending the threat of an absolutist reign.[1] This non-violent overthrow of the monarch is known as the Glorious Revolution.

The Declaration of Right was written into the English Bill of Rights which took statutory effect in December 1689 with the royal assent of the king and queen, and subsequently became part of the English Constitution.[12] The cabinet system of the English government evolved from this point onward. The leading ministers formulated policy and ran the business of the country; they held the legislative and executive power. These ministers had seats, and the majority, in the House of Commons. The cabinet became responsible to the House of Commons under the de facto Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole. After George II (r. 1727-1760), the power of the monarchy in the decisions of the House of Commons declined drastically.

Some scholars have argued that the Glorious Revolution strengthened finances: "Douglas North and Barry Weingast's seminal account of the Glorious Revolution argued that specific constitutional reforms enhanced the credibility of the English Crown, leading to much stronger public finances."[13] Other scholars argue that the Glorious Revolution was a turning point in history, starting the age of constitutionalism.

The format of a Declaration enumerating various specific wrongs attributed to a King was followed a century later in the American Declaration of Independence - whose authors were clearly familiar with the 1689 document.

gollark: Why *have* checkpoints?
gollark: The code could probably be transplanted easily, just take out the equip/unequip bits.
gollark: We have border control and traffic enforcement conveniently joined together.
gollark: It even has laser traffic lights.
gollark: Republic best nation™

See also

Notes
  1. This resulted in the 1688/1689 Coronation Oath Act

References
  1. Anon. "The Convention and Bill of Rights". www.parliament.uk. British Parliament. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
  2. Pincus 2009, pp. 292–293].
  3. Stephen 2010, pp. 55-58.
  4. Miller 1978, p. 44.
  5. Harris 2006, p. 167.
  6. Spielvogel 1980, p. 410.
  7. Bosher 1994, pp. 6-8.
  8. Harris 2006, pp. 179-181.
  9. Stephen 2010, pp. 55–58.
  10. Harris 1993, pp. 132-133.
  11. "English Declaration of Rights". The Avalon Project. Yale University.
  12. Pincus, Steve (2009). 1688 The First Modern Revolution. Connecticut: Yale University. pp. 292–293. ISBN 978-0-300-17143-3.
  13. Cox, Gary, W. (22 August 2012). "Was the Glorious Revolution a Constitutional Watershed?". Journal of Economic History. 72 (03). Retrieved 28 May 2014.

Sources
  • Onnekink D., The Anglo-Dutch Favourite: The Career of Hans Willem Bentinck, 1st Earl of Portland (1649-1709), Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, ISBN 0-7546-5545-8
  • Cox, Gary, M. (22 August 2012). "Was the Glorious Revolution a Constitutional Watershed?". Journal of Economic History. 72 (03).
  • Harris, Tim (2006). Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9759-0.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Harris, Tim; Taylor, Stephen, eds. (2015). The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1783270446.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Harris, Tim (1999). "The People, the Law, and the Constitution in Scotland and England: A Comparative Approach to the Glorious Revolution". Journal of British Studies. 38 (1): 28–30. doi:10.1086/386180.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • McKay, John, P. (2011). A History of Western Society. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's.
  • Miller, John (1978). James II; A study in kingship. Menthuen. ISBN 978-0413652904.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Pincus, Steve (2009). 1688 The First Modern Revolution. Yale University. ISBN 978-0-300-17143-3.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Spielvogel, Jackson J (1980). Western Civilization. Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 1285436407.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Stephen, Jeffrey (January 2010). "Scottish Nationalism and Stuart Unionism: The Edinburgh Council, 1745". Journal of British Studies. 49 (1, Scotland Special Issue): 47–72. doi:10.1086/644534. JSTOR 27752690.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • "English Declaration of Rights". The Avalon Project. Yale University.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.