Significance and Consequences of the Revolution: Parliament, the Church, Foreign Policy

Thus was this "great and glorious" revolution accomplished. Won without bloodshed, it marked a new era in England's history; for it overthrew the doctrine of the divine right of kings and the passive obedience of the people, which had prevailed under the Stuarts, and substituted therefor the authority of parliament, and the right of the nation to resist the pretensions of its sovereigns. Though in choosing William and Mary as sovereigns and in arranging the succession, parliament had accepted, more definitely than ever it had done before, the principle of heredity, nevertheless, it had clearly stated certain things that the king could not do, and had taken to itself certain of the royal prerogatives, which had been in dispute for nearly a century. Thus the revolution of 1688 marked not only the close of that begun in 1640, but also the beginning of another revolution, which, little by little, in the course of the following century, won for parliament the control of government and the position hitherto occupied by the crown. Up to this time parliament had had no part in the actual government of the kingdom. But, thenceforth, acts of parliament took the place of the king's orders in council, and a remarkable transformation was effected in the constitutional history of England.

Three times before 1688; in the cases of Edward II, Richard II, and Charles I; had parliament set aside a king; but in none of these instances was parliament acting in any sense for the nation at large. The parliaments of 1307 and 1399 had been wholly under the control of the nobility, and the knights and burgesses had been of little importance ; while the parliament of 1649 had been no parliament at all, containing, as it did, only the representatives of a religious faction. But in 1688 parliament expressed the will of the nation as nearly, as the conditions of the time permitted. The House of Lords was still the more important and influential body, but the House of Commons was rapidly advancing toward the position that it was soon to occupy, that of leadership in the government.

But the right to vote was limited; for in the counties only freeholders possessing land of an annual rental value of forty shillings ($150–$200) could vote, whereas poorer freeholders and all copyholders had no share in the elections. Probably, even within these limits, the counties were honestly represented, for the freeholders were not easily bribed; but the boroughs were always subject to influence of one kind or another. Many growing towns were not represented at all ; others were at the disposal of town officials, great party leaders, or the king, the last warned of whom either changed the town charters to suit his purposes or compelled the towns to elect the men he wanted. At this time and for a century and a half (till 1832), borough representation was a farce. Thus, in consequence of the revolution of 1688, power passed into the hands of parliament, but it can hardly be said to have passed into the hands of the representatives of the English people. Under the rule that followed, power was exercised for the most part by those great Whig and Tory families that were able to control the elections.

Besides effecting this important change in the position of parliament, the revolution made possible an equally important change in the position of the established church. The revolution had been in large part the work of the Anglican church, which thenceforward had no cause to fear either the Roman Catholics on one side or the Dissenters on the other. The former, wholly discredited by the revolution, were, by special laws of the ensuing few years, disqualified from holding office, bearing arms, or retaining benefices, and for a century and more were to be without place or part in English political or ecclesiastical history. The passing of the Bill of Rights, which substituted for the oaths of supremacy and allegiance an oath of simple allegiance, led to a revolt of the stricter members of the Anglican church, who believed in the doctrine of the divine right of kings and supported the Stuarts. This body, or sect, was known as the Non-jurors, because its members refused to take the oath prescribed . The Dissenters (Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Quakers ), who had hitherto hoped for some kind of a compromise (comprehension) with the established church, now gave up that hope and began to erect churches of their own. The Toleration Act of 1689 gave them the right to worship independently; but from the advantages of this act all Roman Catholics and such as denied the Trinity were expressly debarred. Thenceforth the church of England held a position of independence and security that it had not enjoyed before. It was relieved of all fear of the Roman Catholics, and was left in full control of its own organization and great endowments of land and revenue. The Anglican church became, for the first time in any exact and well-defined sense of the term, the established church of England.

The revolution of 1688 entirely altered the foreign policy of England, for it committed her to prolonged and almost unbroken war with France. Since the marriage of Henrietta, daughter of Henry IV, to Charles I, the Stuart kings had been naturally inclined to enter into alliances with the French kings. With the rise of Louis XIV, France had become the preponderating power in Europe and the disturber of the European peace. At the same time, however, William III, as stadtholder of Holland, had become the head of a coalition of the European powers against Louis XIV; and now that he had become also king of England, he was under obligations to bring England into the alliance with the powers opposed to France. This he was able to do, because, in the first place, England, as a leading Protestant kingdom, could not well refuse to stand by the other Protestant kingdoms in opposing the aggressions of the Roman Catholic king who was persecuting the Protestants of France and had let loose his dragonnades upon the Protestants of the Palatinate. In the second place, England was compelled to fight Louis XIV, because the latter, by sending troops to Ireland, was about to aid James II to recover his throne.

But there was a third and more important reason why England should be drawn into war with France. As a colonial and commercial power France had taken the place of Spain and, in part, of Holland. She had established colonies in America and Africa, and was seeking to establish a colonial and commercial empire. England was doing the same: she had colonies on the American seaboard, in the West Indies, in Africa, and in India; she was developing her navy and her commerce, and was gradually acquiring a tremendous interest in the world outside the island kingdom. Having helped to overthrow the political power of Spain and the commercial power of Holland, England was bound to continue the struggle with France. This new rivalry between France and England led to a struggle, not for the control of feudal fiefs as in former years, but for the supremacy of the seas and the possession of the lands beyond the seas. When, therefore, in May, 1689, William III, as stadtholder of the United Provinces, joined the League of Augsburg, and five days later, as king of England, declared war upon France, a new era in the foreign policy of England was begun. On December 30, England joined the League of Augsburg, and that coalition, now composed of the principal countries of Europe, was transformed into the Grand Alliance. A mighty struggle, in which England was to take a leading part, was about to begin.

Thus the revolution of 1688 not only overthrew a doctrine and a dynasty, and ushered in the rule of parliament and new methods of government, but it also inaugurated England's career as a leading participant in Continental affairs and the greatest naval power in the world.