Convention Parliament (1689)

The English Convention (1689) was an irregular assembly of the Parliament of England which transferred the Crowns of England and Ireland from James II to William III. It differed from the English Convention (1660) in that it did not unconditionally restore the rightful and lawful monarch, but chose to justify the deposing of that monarch in favour of another, and also sought to introduce new laws and arrangements into the constitution.

Assemblies of 1688

With King James II of England in flight and William, Prince of Orange nearing London, the Earl of Rochester summoned the Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual to assemble, and they were joined by the privy councillors on 12 December 1688 to form a provisional government for England. James II returned to London on 16 December; on 17 December he was effectively the prisoner of William who arrived in London on 18 December. William however allowed James to leave London.

William refused the crown as de facto king and instead called another assembly of peers on 21 December 1688. On 23 December James fled to France. On 26 December the peers were joined by the surving^{[clarification needed]} members of the Commons from the Oxford Parliament, the last of Charles II's reign, ignoring those from James's Loyal Parliament of 1685. The Earl of Nottingham proposed a conditional restoration of King James II, an idea supported by Archbishop Sancroft, but the proposal was rejected and instead the assembly asked William to summon a convention^[1].

The Convention 1689

The Convention Parliament met on 22 January 1689 It was not a lawfully constituted assembly^[2] and its actions were in defiance of the English constitution^[3].The Convention sought to justify the overthrow of James II. The Whigs held the ascendancy in the House of Commons and the Tories in the House of Lords^[4]. The parliament spent much time arguing over whether James II was considered to have abdicated or to have abandoned the throne in some manner, and following that who then should take the crown.

The Whigs referred to theories of social contract and argued that William alone should now be King ^[5]. A few 'Radical' Whigs argued for a republic but most Whigs argued for a limited monarchy^[6].

The Tories favoured either the retention of James II, a regency, or Mary alone as Queen. Archbishop Sancroft and loyalist Bishops preferred that James II be conditionally restored^[7].

On 29 January it was resolved that England was a Protestant Kingdom and only a Protestant could be King, thus disinheriting an Catholic claimant^[8].

By the beginning of February the Commons agreed on the term abdicated and that the throne was vacant but the Lords rejected abdicated as the term was unknown in common law and indicated that if the throne was vacant it should automatically pass to the next in line, which was implied to be Mary^[9]. However, on the 6 February the Lords capitulated. As a compromise the Lords proposed that William and Mary should both take the throne which the Commons agreed with the proviso that William alone hold regal power.

The parliament drew up a Declaration of Right to address perceived abuses of government under James II and to secure the religion and liberties of protestants, which was finalised on 12 February. The justification for the transfer of the Crown was "quite literally, legal fiction"^[10].

On the 13 February William and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England, France and Ireland. The acceptance of the Crown was not conditional upon acceptance of the Declaration of Right but on the assumption that they rule according to law^[11][12].

On 23 February 1689 King William III converted the Convention into a regular parliament^[13].

Effect on Colonies in America

The Convention Parliament (1689) would be imitated in the Colonies in America and the use of such conventions as an "instrument of transition" became more acceptable and more often used by the Colonies resulting most notably in the Grand Convention which drew up the United States Constitution^[14].

References

1. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685 – 1720 Allen Lane (2006) pp 312–313
2. ^ Barnett, Hilaire Constitutional & administrative law Cavendish 5th edition (2004) p20
3. ^ Graham, John Remington A constitutional history of secession Pelican (2005) p52
4. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685 - 1720 Allen Lane (2006) p313
5. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685 - 1720 Allen Lane (2006) p314
6. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685 - 1720 Allen Lane (2006) p317
7. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685 - 1720 Allen Lane (2006) p319
8. ^ Fritze, Ronald H. & Robison, William B. Historical dictionary of Stuart England, 1603-1689 Greenwood Press (1996) p126 entry on Convention Parliament (1689)
9. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685 - 1720 Allen Lane (2006) p327
10. ^ Graham, John Remington A constitutional history of secession Pelican (2005) p52
11. ^ Harris, Tim Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685 - 1720 Allen Lane (2006) p347
12. ^ Bogdanor, Vernon The Monarchy and the Constitution Oxford University Press (1997) pp5-6
13. ^ Horwitz, Henry Parliament, policy, and politics in the reign of William III Manchester University Press (1977) p17
14. ^ Caplan, Russell L. Constitutional brinksmanship: amending the Constitution by national convention Oxford University Press (1988)pp6-40

See also

• Glorious Revolution
• Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
• Revolutionary breach of legal continuity