You will not be surprised when I say that this was not at all true. The Revolution did not solve the problems of government by King and Parliament any more than the Civil War or the Restoration had. The techniques of government that would allow cooperation between a reasonably free legislature and the king and his ministers, rather than sterile confrontation, had yet to be devised. This was the accomplishment of the 18th century.

Differences between Canadian Parliamentary constitution and that of 1689.

Canada today:

• A cabinet of ministers, all or nearly all MP s
• Led by a Prime Minister, they hold the executive power of the Crown.
• The Crown acts only on the advice of its ministers.
• Ministers hold that executive power only while they enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons.
• Confidence secured by getting MP's from one's party elected.
• Head of majority party becomes PM and appoints other ministers (Cabinet).
• If no majority, deals must be made among parties.

England, 1689:

• Ministers did not derive their power from the MPs or the electorate.
• Rather, appointed by the King or Queen, served at his or her pleasure.
• Monarchs chose ministers for ability to implement the King's policies -- usually foreign policy.
• No formal Prime Minister.
• No formal Cabinet (it was an informal body of ministers and advisors)
• Ministers were not directly responsible to the Commons, or necessarily members of it (often Peers).
• If a group of ministers could not control the Commons, they were likely to be dismissed by the King, but he was under no obligation to do this.

Structure of Parliament, 1689:

• Peers in House of Lords represented no one but themselves.
• Commons also not representative in any democratic sense.
  • Every county sent two knights of the shire, elected by men holding freehold land worth 40 shillings a year. (A 15th c. figure, inflation since then meant a wide franchise. This provided only 82 of about 565 MPs.
  • Rest sent by chartered boroughs, towns that had been granted the right to send members by the king sometime in the past.

When voting took place, it was not usually on the basis of formal parties. In fact, parties were considered illegitimate.

Thus a very complicated connection between a "Parliament of special interests" and the court.

Special strains of period 1689-1715.

1. First, disputed succession. Until 1745, doubt about whether Catholic Stuarts would make a comeback. Wars fought to maintain Protestant Succession.

2. Second, despite the general condemnation of party spirit, parties did exist, and fought each other fiercely. Whigs vs. Tories.
   • The Whigs thought of themselves as champions of the country interest, (as opposed to the narrow interests of king and court) and the defenders of English liberty. Had been the opponents of Charles and James II. Tolerant of Dissenters.
   • The Tories, who had defended Charles and James as long as they could, thought of themselves as loyal servants of the King. They stood for the ancient political and religious tradition, defense of the episcopal Anglican church. They saw the Whigs as dangerous crypto-Republicans.

Expense of wars against Louis XIV, in William and Mary's time, and time of Mary's sister Queen Anne, adds to volatility. There was resentment of the cost, Controlling and defusing this resentment were challenges to would-be ministers.

King William tried for non-party government, first, but was forced to choose between the parties. Chose first Tories (too divided to run a government), then the Whigs.

In 1694, William called on the "Junto," a small, tight group of Whigs, to form a new ministry.

First actions of Whigs reflected their anti-monarchical past:

• Triennial Bill, which required the King to call an election every three years
• Place Bill, which forbade office-holders, who were beholden to the king for their jobs, to be MPs.

This is how it worked.

• Electors wanted direct benefits their votes. In a much smaller electorate they expected to be entertained, transported in style to the polling place, even, perhaps, paid outright. Key electors might want even more.

• MPs took a similar attitude towards their votes in the House. An MP wanted a place -- a job in the gift of the King or one of his ministers -- either for himself or for his family and friends at home. Apart for the financial benefit, it proved his influence to the voters at home.

The Whigs, formerly the enemies of "place", were the first to realize that the systematic exploitation of all this patronage would not only line their own pockets, but enable them to dominate Parliament as never before and make themselves indispensable to the king.

The Whigs quickly became not only the war party, but a group of technocrats indifferent to general reform.

The lasting contribution of this group of Whigs was the creation of the Bank of England to finance the war.

To become technocrats, they had to sacrifice their role as champions of the country party. Tories became the conservative "country party." At the same time the strain of war intensified that country sentiment. It went looking for a new home and found it in a new alliance with the Tories.

When conservative Queen Anne took over in 1702, the Tories became her favorite party. Her opinions ("royal prerogative") still counted for something in politics. But the dynamics of politics counted for more:

• Development of cabinet solidarity. The need to argue with the stubborn queen to approve even vital measures forced all the ministers to act together, to meet in advance and formulate a unanimous recommendation.
• And even Anne had to balance parties. During the War of the Spanish Succession, in fact, the Whigs showed their indispensability. Godolphin and Marlborough, the main war Tories, eventually had to ally themselves with the Whigs to ensure that the war effort continued.

Whigs able to take advantage of a fatal Tory weakness in 1714 and 15. These were the years when the Hanoverians succeeded to the British throne. The Electors of Hanover were distant cousins of the Stuarts who ruled a small state in northern Germany and the relatives of Mary and Anne. George of Hanover promised throne to forestall " Old Pretender."

Whether this arrangement would work, however, no one knew, and various astute politicians put out feelers to the pretender's court. After George came to England, Viscount Bolingbroke, a prominent Tory, was caught in such communication, and rather than face charges he fled to James. Whigs were able to tar the Tories with the taint of treason, of being Jacobites.

Whigs were able to win the battle of patronage and Parliamentary control.

This led to a slackening of electoral competition.

Cost of elections contributed to this:

• In 1689 instance, Samuel Pepys had spent L8 5s 6d to take the seat at Harwich.
• In 1727, Viscount Perceval would spend L900, the yearly income of a rich man, even though there was no opposing candidate. This amount, to ensure the support of 32 electors.

Result: oligarchy. If the right people allied, they could ensure victory at a reasonable price, and ensure that an investment in a seat would pay off in guaranteed patronage. This was the Whigs' prize. From 1715, the Tories increasingly became the party of the country squires who distrusted the court, foreign involvement, high finance, and all non-conformity. Anyone with any ambition deserted to the Whigs, the party of men of affairs.

After 1720, Sir Robert Walpole took charge and established himself so firmly that he ruled Britain for twenty years.

Walpole is often called the first modern Prime Minister. Some similarities to a modern PM; but depended on continued favor of the King (George II).

The most important thing about Walpole that he ruled over a one party state. In his time, electoral battles came to an end. Patronage ruled most boroughs and the most important patrons were Whig peers and gentlemen. In the middle of the century, 51 peers and 45 commoners controlled nearly 200 MPs. Seventy-five families controlled the whole assembly.

The power of the leading Whigs eroded the effective power of kings to choose ministers.

England found its way to a working balance between the court and an oligarchy, not entirely noble, that identified quite strongly with the country it ruled. This was of course not democracy. Indeed, there was less democracy in the eighteenth century than there was in the seventeenth.

What there was, however, was a stable government, one that was able to achieve, as the century went on, repeated military victories over foreign rivals and also naval superiority. Britain, dominated by England and its interests and institutions, put in a position to support both the Industrial Revolution and conquer a wide colonial empire.

You are visitor # since February 25, 1998.

Copyright (C) 1998, Steven Muhlberger. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.