The Glorious Revolution and 18th Century Governance

Why James II lost support

James II became king in 1685. The monarchy had been restored in 1660, but the relationship between royal authority and Parliament remained a source of tension. James initially occupied a strong position: he succeeded peacefully, possessed substantial revenue and had standing armies in his kingdoms. His actions nevertheless turned supporters against him.

James had converted to Catholicism in 1669. In a predominantly Protestant political system, many feared that a Catholic king would favour Catholics and undermine the established religion. Events abroad strengthened that fear: in 1685 Louis XIV withdrew the protection previously given to French Protestants by the Edict of Nantes.

Religion and political power became closely connected. After defeating the Duke of Monmouth’s rebellion at Sedgemoor in 1685, James planned to enlarge the standing army and appoint Catholic officers. The harsh punishments imposed by Judge Jeffreys at the ‘Bloody Assizes’ demonstrated the force available to the Crown. Opponents feared that an army loyal to James could help him govern without accepting parliamentary restrictions.

Parliament protested against Catholic officers. James responded by proroguing it in 1685—ending its session—and then ruling without it. He also dismissed judges and Lord Lieutenants who opposed his religious policies, and appointed Catholics to important military, political and academic positions. These actions made the dispute about more than personal belief: they raised the question of whether the king could override laws and remove officials who resisted him.

Religious toleration became a political confrontation

James’s Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 aimed to allow greater religious toleration for Catholics and Protestant dissenters, meaning Protestants outside the established Church. However, opponents saw his methods and appointments as favouritism towards Catholics and an abuse of royal authority.

The prosecution of seven bishops who challenged his policy widened the conflict. They were charged with seditious libel, but their acquittal was celebrated by Anglicans. James had alienated people within the established Church as well as parliamentary opponents.

The immediate turning point came on 10 June 1688, when James’s Catholic wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son. Previously, opponents could expect James’s Protestant daughter Mary to succeed him. A male heir now raised the prospect of a continuing Catholic dynasty. Waiting for the next reign no longer seemed a solution.

How power changed hands in 1688–1689

William of Orange was Protestant and married to James’s daughter Mary. Invited by a group of English statesmen, he invaded on 5 November 1688. Important military support deserted James and went over to William; James fled to France.

In 1689 Parliament declared that James had abdicated by deserting his kingdom. It offered the throne jointly to William III and Mary II, who accepted a Declaration of Rights, subsequently enacted as the Bill of Rights. Parliament was not merely accepting the next hereditary ruler: it was helping determine who could rule and the conditions under which they held power.

The change was not uncontested everywhere. James attempted to recover his throne through Ireland, with French military support, but was defeated at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. The label ‘Glorious Revolution’ should therefore not suggest that the entire struggle was peaceful or universally accepted.

The Bill of Rights changed the rules of government

The Bill of Rights addressed practices associated with Stuart royal government. The monarch could not suspend laws or dispense with their application, and could not impose taxation without parliamentary consent. A standing army in peacetime also required Parliament’s consent. Together, these restrictions limited the Crown’s ability to govern independently through its own money, laws and military force.

Parliament itself received protection. Elections were to be free from royal interference, and speech and proceedings in Parliament could not be challenged in courts or other outside bodies. This parliamentary privilege allowed members to discuss government without the same threat of outside punishment. Parliament was also to meet frequently.

The settlement protected some individual rights, including safeguards against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. It also excluded Catholics from the throne and required the sovereign to maintain the Protestant religion. The settlement therefore limited royal power, but did not establish equal religious rights. The Toleration Act of 1689 permitted worship by Protestant nonconformists, while excluding Catholics from that protection.

Parliament gained leverage, but monarchy survived

The revolution produced a lasting shift in power, not the abolition of monarchy. The sovereign still possessed important powers: summoning and dissolving Parliament, appointing and dismissing ministers, vetoing legislation and declaring war.

Money made the new balance practical. Parliament tightened control over royal expenditure, deliberately making William and Mary dependent on parliamentary funding. William’s costly struggle against Louis XIV increased the importance of that relationship. Even the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 to raise war finance through borrowing did not free him from Parliament, because the national debt depended on parliamentary guarantees.

The Triennial Act of 1694 reinforced regular parliamentary meetings and frequent general elections. Parliament became a continuing part of government rather than an institution a ruler could simply avoid whenever it became inconvenient.

Parties and ministries developed under William

Longer parliamentary sessions and more frequent elections encouraged political groupings to organise and cooperate. Whigs, traditionally critics of royal power, strengthened their position by supporting William. Tories also supported the revolution, so the change cannot be explained as one party alone overthrowing the king.

The two groupings had different priorities. Whigs favoured limited monarchy, and their support included Protestant dissenters. Tories favoured strong monarchy and the established Church of England. Religion therefore continued to shape arguments about political authority. These were developing parliamentary groupings, not parties organised exactly like those of today.

A ruler needed ministers who could obtain support in the House of Commons, particularly for money and legislation. In 1696 William appointed a Whig ministry, recognising the advantage of drawing ministers from the party with a Commons majority. Its leading group, the Junto, met separately and helped coordinate government. It was a forerunner of the modern Cabinet, although not yet identical to it.

The Act of Settlement in 1701 further demonstrated Parliament’s influence. With no surviving child of Mary and the death of Anne’s surviving son in 1700, the future Protestant succession was uncertain. The Act directed the succession after William and Anne to Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant heirs. It also strengthened judicial independence by making judges’ tenure depend on good conduct rather than the monarch’s pleasure. Parliament was shaping both the succession and the conditions under which royal authority operated.

Anne governed through competing political interests

Anne succeeded William in 1702 and ruled until 1714. Party competition became increasingly important during her reign, particularly over the War of the Spanish Succession. Whigs supported Britain’s involvement in the war; the rise of the Tories, who gained control in 1710, helped bring it to an end in 1713.

Anne remained an active monarch. She attended the House of Lords, met her ministers regularly and tried to steer a course between rival political interests. Her dismissal of Godolphin in 1710 and the establishment of a Tory ministry show that royal choices still mattered. Parliamentary monarchy did not mean that the queen had stopped governing.

However, choosing ministers did not guarantee that their policies would pass through Parliament. In 1711, the Tory ministry’s proposed peace settlement faced opposition from the Whig majority in the House of Lords. Anne was persuaded to create new peers to help the ministry overcome that opposition. A royal power was being used to secure a ministry’s parliamentary support: governing increasingly required cooperation between Crown, ministers and Parliament.

The Union created a Parliament of Great Britain

Anne’s reign also changed the institution of Parliament itself. England and Scotland had separate Parliaments, and they disagreed over foreign and economic policy. The succession became a particular difficulty: England’s Parliament had settled it on Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant heirs, while the Scots asserted their freedom to choose a different successor.

The Acts of Union in 1707 united England and Scotland as Great Britain. Their separate Parliaments were replaced by a single Parliament of Great Britain at Westminster. Scotland retained its own established Church, legal system and educational system.

The Union therefore brought political authority into one Parliament and secured a shared succession. It was a major institutional change, not simply a change of monarch.

George I and Walpole strengthened ministerial government

When Anne died in 1714, Sophia had already died, so Sophia’s son George I inherited the throne under the Act of Settlement. Protestant eligibility took precedence over the claims of closer Catholic relatives.

Under George I, the practical conduct of government increasingly rested with ministers. He lacked fluent English, was unfamiliar with British customs and regularly visited Hanover. These circumstances encouraged reliance on his ministers, while Whigs dominated Parliament during his reign.

After 1717, George rarely attended Cabinet meetings. Ministers could act collectively and formulate policies; when those policies had a Commons majority, they became difficult for the king to resist. Parliamentary support was increasingly essential to effective government.

Following the South Sea Bubble financial crisis of 1720, Robert Walpole became the leading minister. His administration lasted from 1721 to 1742, and he is commonly known as the first prime minister. His position illustrates the growing importance of a leading minister coordinating government alongside the monarch and Parliament.

George III shows the limits and further growth of parliamentary monarchy

The shift towards ministers and Parliament was not a steady disappearance of royal influence. George III, who became king in 1760, wanted to play a leading political role and choose ministers he trusted. During the 1760s, several short-lived ministries struggled to secure both his support and Parliament’s backing. Neither royal favour nor parliamentary support alone was enough for stable government.

Lord North, leading minister from 1770 to 1782, initially satisfied both needs: George trusted him, and he could manage Parliament. Yet military failure in the American War of Independence undermined his government. After the British defeat at Yorktown in 1781, confidence collapsed and North lost power in 1782. Royal support could not indefinitely protect a failing ministry.

George appointed William Pitt the Younger in 1783. Pitt shared many of the king’s views, but still had to build parliamentary coalitions to pass legislation. His long first ministry, 1783–1801, strengthened Cabinet government. During the 1790s, Cabinet discussions became more formal, collective responsibility grew, and ministers’ loyalty to the prime minister increased his influence with the monarch.

By around 1800, the central pattern was clear: the monarchy survived and remained politically influential, but effective government increasingly depended on parliamentary finance, parliamentary support and coordinated ministers. The Glorious Revolution established lasting restrictions; parliamentary monarchy developed through the practice of government over the following century.