Julian Hoppit argues that, although to many it seemed that the Glorious Revolution was the
catalyst which sparked the resurgence of the ‘ancient constitution’, or Magna Carta, the
resultant Bill of Rights was in fact a completely novel statute which reshaped the British
Government. Hoppit acknowledges that the new 1688 legislation created a clear role for
parliament in the government and meant the crown was forced to cooperate with it,
subsequently causing a waning monarchical authority. In turn, the absolute power was
transferred to parliamentary legislature, in regard to the organisation of Crown and
government, giving them influence like never before. This can be evidenced by parliament’s
Civil List Act of 1698, which William was forced to accept, giving him an allowance of
£700,000 per annum and making parliament responsible for funding the army, ensuring a
financial dependency on parliament. Not only this, the Triennial Act was imposed on the
monarch in 1694, making it compulsory for parliament to hold new elections every three
years and consequentially making it extremely difficult for the king to find allies in
parliament through patronage. However, It could be said that the monarch was simply
placating parliament whilst proceeding with his personal aims. For example, he continued to
fight the Nine Years War, which stemmed from his own dislike for Louis XIV, and which
parliament was concerned about due to the high expenditure of war. As well as this,
although he agreed to having his finances scrutinised by parliament In the 1690 Public
Accounts Act, when this no longer suited him in 1697, William blocked any more
commissions from taking place. Nevertheless, Hoppit’s argument remains valid and
convincing, as although Parliament did not hold all control, the glorious revolution initiated
a more balanced government and a reduction in the crown’s authority, unlike any period
prior to 1688.
Contrastingly, John Morrill claims that the lack of clarity as to the cause and result of the
Glorious Revolution, as well as the absence of support for the removal of James or the
instating of William from the people, meant that it was left widely meaningless and
ineffective to any alteration in government. He also states that William and Mary were
offered full authority over England, taking shape as an archaic form of takeover – not an
innovative one. He argues this with the fact that there was no blood shed throughout the
revolution, meaning there was no way for the public to advocate for either side. However,
there was in fact great bloodshed in Ireland at the Battle of Aughrim and the Battle of the
Boyne, where together around 5,000 Jacobites were killed, as well as the Siege of Derry
where 4,000 Williamites died. As well as this, as is argued by Revisionist historians, it could
be said that the revolution was supported by thousands not few: the soldiers who fought
fiercely in Ireland. It is true that the Bill of Rights was vague, due to an unprepared
parliament rushing to establish a constitution, causing there to be no clear mechanisms for
regular, free elections. Although the new monarchs were not given complete power, as it
was agreed that parliament had control of the army, and Mutiny Bills meant the king had to
call back parliament yearly – making personal rule practically impossible. Therefore,
Morrill’s view is evidently unconvincing when reviewing the large amount of bloodshed
which took place on both sides of the revolution, and the clear control which parliament
gained subsequent to 1688, which proves there was, in fact, a move towards parliament’s
pre-eminence.
Therefore, Julian Hoppit’s argument of the radical increase of parliamentary power proves
to be far more convincing than Morrill’s claim that the Glorious Revolution instigated no
