Bill of Rights 1689

The Bill of Rights 1689 was the parliamentary settlement that followed the Glorious Revolution, turning the replacement of James II into a lasting transfer of authority from Crown to Parliament. Though some of its clauses were vague, it limited royal power, asserted parliamentary control over taxation and the army, and helped establish a political order in which law could constrain rulers and elites as well as their subjects.

From Revolution to Constitutional Settlement

After James II’s army disintegrated, James fled to France. Parliament and William of Orange negotiated a new constitution. The settlement had been foreshadowed by William’s declaration before his invasion and was set out in the Declaration of Rights, produced by Parliament in February 1689. Parliament read it to William in the same session in which it offered him the crown. Once signed into law, the Declaration became known as the Bill of Rights.

The settlement also altered the basis of succession. Rather than simply following the hereditary principles then generally accepted, Parliament determined who would succeed to the throne. The precedent carried an implication beyond the immediate succession: if Parliament could remove one monarch and install another, royal authority was no longer beyond parliamentary judgment.

Limits on the Crown and the Problem of Enforcement

The Bill established several central constitutional principles. It affirmed that the monarch could not suspend or dispense with laws and reiterated that taxation required parliamentary consent. It also provided that England could have no standing army without Parliament’s consent. These limits addressed powers that had been central to conflict between monarch and Parliament, placing their exercise under parliamentary authority.

Other clauses were less precise. Clause 8 said that parliamentary elections ought to be free but did not define what “free” meant. Clause 13 called for frequent Parliaments without specifying how frequently they must meet. The weakness was not simply a matter of wording: a rule could be ignored if no institution had the power to enforce it. Charles II, for example, had disregarded the Triennial Act, which required Parliament to be called at least once every three years, without consequence. After 1688, Parliament did not create a separate enforcement mechanism for the Bill’s provision on frequent sessions because it had acquired the authority to make the constitutional settlement effective.

Parliamentary Government and Its Unequal Reach

Under William, several royal practices changed. He ceased interfering in legal decisions and relinquished prior claims, including the right to receive customs revenues for life. Alongside the Bill’s formal provisions, these changes marked the triumph of Parliament over the king and the end of absolutism in England. Parliament subsequently controlled state policy in Great Britain after England and Scotland were united by the Act of Union in 1707.

The transfer of power changed policy incentives. Many parliamentarians had investments in trade and industry and therefore had a stake in protecting property rights, which Stuart monarchs had often infringed. Parliament also took control of public spending. Whereas it had resisted higher taxes and a stronger state when the king directed expenditure, it was now willing to raise taxes for purposes it valued, especially strengthening the navy to protect overseas commercial interests.

Parliamentary control brought a measure of political pluralism, but it did not make England a democracy. People gained access to political decisions through Parliament in a way they had not had when the king directed policy, and elected members could make government more responsive. Yet in the eighteenth century fewer than 2 percent of the population could vote, and only men were eligible. Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, and Sheffield—the cities where the Industrial Revolution took place—had no independent parliamentary representation, while rural areas were overrepresented. The settlement widened access to political power without extending it equally.

Rule of Law and the Settlement’s Wider Consequences

The significance of the Bill extended beyond its clauses. In the account of the Black Act, the book describes a political order in which even powerful Whig figures such as William Cadogan and Robert Walpole could not simply dictate how the law was applied. When a jury acquitted John Huntridge after an eight- or nine-hour trial, citing irregularities in the collection of evidence, the outcome illustrated a constraint on elite power. Unlike the earlier Stuart-era Court of Star Chamber, the legal system could no longer be treated as an open instrument for carrying out a ruler’s wishes.

That constraint distinguished the rule of law from rule by law. Parliament and the Whigs could pass a harsh statute against common people, but they still had to contend with legal principles and procedures that restricted arbitrary or selective enforcement. The settlement’s constitutional changes had helped undermine the idea that kings possessed divine rights or elites enjoyed an exemption from the law. Once laws were understood to apply equally, even people accused of encroaching on private property retained a right to a fair trial.

This arrangement also helped make political pluralism durable. Equal application of the law constrained figures such as Cadogan and Walpole, while protecting ordinary defendants; in turn, that constraint guarded against the concentration of power in a narrow group. The Bill’s importance therefore lay not only in limiting the monarch but in helping establish institutions that could limit those who governed through Parliament. Its effects were substantial, though incomplete: parliamentary authority and the rule of law gained strength while political participation remained sharply restricted.