No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
William of Orange tried to be as absolute as possible. Inroads upon the power of the executive were fiercely resisted: indeed, William succeeded in keeping even the judiciary in a precarious state of independence. To maintain the prerogative and gain the needed supplies from parliament, he relied upon a mixed whig-tory ministry to direct court efforts. Following the Glorious Revolution, the whigs had divided into two principle groups. One faction led by Robert Harley and Paul Foley became the standard-bearers of the broadly based Country party, maintained the “old whig” traditions, did not seek office during William's reign, tried to hold the line on supply, and led the drive to limit the prerogative. The “junto,” “court,” or “new” whigs, on the other hand, were led by ministers who, while in opposition during the Exclusion crisis, held court office, aggressively sought greater offices, and wished to replace monarchy with oligarchy. They soon joined tory courtiers in opposing many of the Country party attempts to place additional restrictions upon the executive. To defend the prerogative and gain passage for bills of supply, William also developed techniques employed by Charles II. By expanding the concept and power of the Court party, he sought to bring together the executive and legislative branches of government through a large cadre of crown office-holders (placemen) who sat, voted, and directed the votes of others on behalf of the government when matters of importance arose in the Commons. So too, William claimed the right to dissolve parliament and call new elections not on a fixed date, as was to become the American practice, but at the time deemed most propitious over first a three-year and then (after 1716) a seven year period.
1 Rubini, D.A., “The Precarious Independence of the Judiciary, 1688-1701,” Law Quarterly Review, LXXXIII (1967):343–45Google Scholar.
2 Walcott, Robert, “The Idea of Party in the Writing of Later Stuart History,” Journal of British Studies, I (1962): 54et. seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, provides a lucid history of the contributions regarding party during this period made by various historians.
3 See ibid, and English Politics in the Early Eighteenth Century (1956).
4 Horwitz, H. G., “Parties, Connections, and Parliamentary Politics, 1689-1714: Review and Revision,” Journal of British Studies, VI (1966): 45–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Structure of Parliamentary Politics,” in Holmes, Geoffrey, ed., Britain After the Glorious Révolution (1969), pp. 96–115Google Scholar; “The General Election of 1690,” Journal of British Studies, X (1971): 77–89Google Scholar; “Parliament and the Glorious Revolution,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historial Research, XLVII (1974): 36–53Google Scholar; I.F. Burton, P.W.J. Riley and E. Rowlands, “Political Parties in the Reign of William III and Anne: The Evidence of Division Lists,” ibid., special supplement No. 7 (1968); Henry Snyder, “Party Configurations in the Early Eighteenth Century House of Commons,” ibid., XIV (1972): 38-73.
5 See Plumb's, J. H. review of English Politics, in English Historical Review, LXXIV (1957): 126–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 6 and 7 William and Mary, c. 2. (Italics added.)
7 Entry of 9 February 1692/93, Narcissus Lutrell, “An Abstract of the Debates, Orders and Resolutions of the House of Commons, which are not printed in their votes …,” Codrington Library, All Souls, Oxford MSS. 158, II, ff. 342-43. (Italics added.)
8 I Geo. I.c. 28.
9 R. Jennens to T. Coke, 11 November 1701, H.M.C. Cowper, II: 439Google Scholar. The parliament elected in 1698 might have been continued for an additional session. This minor violation of the letter of the statute could have helped the Court justify the subsequent premature dissolution.
10 Cumberland R.O., Lowther Correspondence.
11 Lutrell, Narcissus, A Brief Relation of State Affairs (Oxford, 1857), V: 125Google Scholar.
12 3 February 1701/02, Cumberland R.O., Lowther Correspondence.
13 See Kemp, Betty, King and Commons (1957), p. 149Google Scholar.
14 Horwitz, Henry, “The Structure of Parliamentary Politics,” p. 103Google Scholar.
15 See my discussion of Horwitz's views in a review of Holmes, ibid., in History, LVI (1971): 273-274, and Court and Country (1968), Appendix A.
16 “Parties, Connections and Parliamentary Politics,” p. 59. Burton argues that the list was another disbandment Hst, but the issues were so connected at this stage as to make rather little difference. “Political Parties,” p. 33n.
17 “The Structure of Parliamentary Politics,” p. 104.
18 James Vernon to Shrewsbury, 7 December 1697, Boughton House, Shrewsbury Papers, I, f. 161; and Commons Journals, XII: 3Google Scholar; Sloane, James to Williamson, Ambassador, 14 December 1697, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, pp. 511–12Google Scholar; Commons Journals, XIII: 5Google Scholar.
19 “Account of Robert Harley's Conduct,” British Library, Portland Loan, 29/165/3, fol. 4; Sloane, James to Williamson, Ambassador, 14 December 1697, Cal S. P. Dom., pp. 511–12Google Scholar.
20 Ibid.
21 Robert Price to the duke of Beaufort, 11 December, Bodleian, Carte MSS, 130, fol. 385.
22 Ibid.
23 Sloane, James to Williamson, Ambassador, 10 December, Cal. S.P. Dom. p. 507Google Scholar.
24 Robert Price to the duke of Beaufort, 11 December, Bodleian, Carte MSS, 130, fol. 385.
25 Yard, R. to Williamson, , 21 December, Cal. S.P. Dom., 521–23Google Scholar.
26 “Parties, Connections, and Parliamentary Politics,” p. 59.
27 See my discussion of this conflict in Court and Country, pp. 86-90.
28 Commons Journal, XI: 577 and 598Google Scholar.
29 Horwitz, notes that “The list of those who refused at first to subscribe to the Association is printed in Andrew Browning, Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds (1951), III: 194–213Google Scholar. “So, too, is the list of those who subscribed to the Association (“Parties, Connections, and Parliamentary Politics,” p. 58).
30 See the letter of Anthony, Lord Shaftesbury to Furley, 29 September 1701. Foster, T., Original Letters of John Locke; Algernon Sydney and Anthony, Lord Shaftesbury (1830), p. 156Google Scholar.
31 The collation is made between Horwitz, “Parties, Connections and Parliamentary Politics,” pp. 62-65, and Rubini, , Court and Country, pp. 262–67Google Scholar.
32 See ibid, and Burton el al., “Political Parties,” pp. 40-52.
33 See Rubini, Court and Country, Appendix A, list II, pp. 268-78.
34 “Parties, Connections, and Parliamentary Politics,” pp. 45-67. (1697): 45-67.
35 Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLV (1972): 43Google Scholar.
36 Collation between ibid., pp. 55-58, and Rubini, , Court and Country, pp. 268–78Google Scholar.
37 Rubini, , Court and Country, Appendix B and pp. 84–85Google Scholar; “Politics and the Battle for the Banks, 1688-1697,” English Historical Review, LXXXV (1970): 693-714, especially pp. 702–03Google Scholar; and Burton, et al., “Political Parties,” p. 33Google Scholar.
38 See Gwyn's letter to William, 2nd Marquis of Halifax, 3 Aug. Althorpe, Halifax MSS, box 4.
39 Rubini, , “Battle for the Banks,” pp. 710–14Google Scholar.
40 Dickens, P.G.M., The Financial Revolution, 1688-1756 (1967), passimGoogle Scholar.