1D - Government under William and Mary: the importance of political parties and ministers
William and Mary inherited a throne whose authority depended on the Revolution settlement, but the new rulers still exercised substantial power. Learn why ministers, parties, war finance and regular parliamentary activity changed government, and how these changes produced limited monarchy without immediately creating modern parliamentary democracy.
A monarchy under legal restraint
The Revolution settlement placed the Crown within explicit legal limits. The Bill of Rights of 1689 condemned suspension of laws without Parliament, taxation without parliamentary grant and a standing army in peacetime without parliamentary consent. It protected parliamentary speech and declared that elections should be free. These provisions answered identifiable abuses associated with James II, rather than creating a complete written constitution for every aspect of government.
Limited monarchy means that royal authority operates subject to enforceable laws and institutional constraints. William and Mary accepted a settlement in which Parliament had determined the Crown's holder. Their ministers needed to secure grants and manage legislation. The King could not govern as though Parliament existed only to endorse his decisions.
Yet executive government remained royal. William chose and dismissed ministers, directed foreign policy, commanded military operations and retained the power to refuse assent to legislation. Patronage and personal access to the sovereign continued to matter. The change concerned the terms and practical operation of power, not its instant transfer from the monarch to a prime minister and cabinet.
The settlement also contained tensions. Parliament could protect lawful government while using restrictive religious tests and an unequal franchise. Constitutional limits did not give every person an equal say. Judging government requires separating restraints on the monarch from the extent of public inclusion.
Royal leadership and mixed ministries
William's chief priority was containing Louis XIV. The struggle to secure his crowns and the European war made military and diplomatic leadership central to kingship. Mary was more than a dynastic name: her hereditary position helped legitimate the settlement, and she governed in William's absence, notably while he campaigned in Ireland in 1690. Her death in December 1694 removed a source of legitimacy and partnership, leaving William as sole monarch.
Early government included people from different political alignments. Danby, now Earl of Carmarthen, helped manage parliamentary support; the Tory Nottingham held important office; Whigs such as Shrewsbury also served. William sought useful servants and broad support rather than immediately committing himself to one party. This reflected both his dislike of party conflict and the need to build a regime from the coalition which had opposed James.
Mixed ministries could be flexible but difficult to coordinate. A minister able to implement royal policy might fail to command support in the Commons; competing colleagues could undermine each other. William's Dutch confidant Portland also remained influential, reminding us that access to the King was not confined to parliamentary party leaders. Hostility to foreign favourites showed that the old concern about personal influence survived the constitutional settlement.
Thus the new reign did not simply replace favourites with a fully parliamentary executive. It made parliamentary management increasingly valuable within a government still shaped by royal preferences and personal relationships.
The Junto and parliamentary management
During the mid-1690s William relied more heavily on leading Whigs associated with the Junto, a small group whose members combined office, parliamentary influence and shared support for the war. Figures including Somers, Montagu, Russell, Wharton and Shrewsbury had different strengths. Their importance lay in connecting government policy with the votes, finance and networks needed to carry it through.
Somers, Lord Keeper from 1693 and later Lord Chancellor, brought legal and political authority. Montagu, Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1694, helped develop financial arrangements including the Bank of England. The ability to secure both a parliamentary grant and immediate loans mattered in wartime: a tax collected later would not pay troops who needed money now. Ministers' influence therefore rested on practical performance, not party identity alone.
Sunderland helped encourage William to use Whig parliamentary strength. This was political brokerage: explaining which appointments and concessions might produce a workable majority. It reflected the growing cost of ignoring organised alignments. A King who needed supply could gain more from cooperating with a group than from managing every member individually.
However, the Junto did not establish permanent single-party cabinet government. Rivalries, Country criticism and changing election results restricted it. After peace in 1697, resistance to expenditure and a large army weakened the government's position. William changed ministers as circumstances changed. The episode illustrates increasing dependence on parliamentary support while preserving royal choice over the administration.
War finance and the credit state
European war required revenue far beyond the ordinary resources which earlier Stuart monarchs had struggled to obtain. Parliamentary taxation, including the land tax, paid part of the cost; loans advanced money before revenues arrived. Funded debt tied repayment to specified revenue, making the promise more secure than dependence on a monarch's willingness to pay.
The Bank of England was founded in 1694 around a £1.2 million loan to government. Its significance was not that one institution solved every financial problem. It connected lenders with parliamentary taxation and demonstrated a growing capacity to mobilise resources. Investors had an interest in the survival of a government able to service its debt, while the government needed their confidence.
Parliament also strengthened scrutiny. The Commission of Public Accounts, established in 1690, investigated expenditure; appropriation directed grants towards particular purposes. The Civil List settlement of 1698 distinguished revenue for the civil government and royal establishment from military expenditure. The £700,000 annual Civil List was not simply the monarch's private pocket money: it included substantial government costs.
This relationship produced two changes at once. Parliament gained leverage because money had to be granted, monitored and credibly committed. The state gained resources for war because parliamentary backing could attract loans. A stronger state did not necessarily mean a more independent monarch. William could command larger resources while depending more heavily on institutions outside his personal control.
Regular Parliaments and military consent
The financial demands of war made frequent meetings practical necessities. Renewed supply and scrutiny gave MPs repeated opportunities to question ministers and influence policy. The recurring Mutiny Acts supplied the legal authority for military discipline, creating another reason to seek parliamentary cooperation. This was stronger pressure for continuing meetings than a general statement that Parliaments ought to be frequent.
The Triennial Act of 1694 required a Parliament at least once in three years and limited its duration to three years. Its importance was the constraint on prolonged avoidance of elections or an indefinitely continuing assembly. Do not confuse it with annual elections. Annual parliamentary activity emerged especially from finance and military needs; the statutory maximum interval was three years.
After the Treaty of Ryswick ended the war in 1697, MPs feared that a large peacetime army could threaten liberty and impose unnecessary taxation. Parliament forced reductions against William's preference and required the departure of his Dutch guards in 1699. This is concrete evidence that institutional dependence could alter royal policy, even for a King who had been invited to rescue Protestant government.
The dispute did not mean Parliament agreed on every issue or that William abandoned European concerns. It shows how the same military leadership which gave him importance created demands for resources which others could regulate. Power was shared through repeated bargaining, rather than settled by one document alone.
Why limited monarchy developed
The original practice argument “the Bill of Rights alone made monarchy limited” correctly identifies an important legal foundation but gives an incomplete explanation. A law states rules; government becomes practically constrained when other institutions can insist on those rules. Parliamentary supply, military renewal, public credit and party organisation created repeated opportunities to influence the Crown.
William's own objectives helped make this system durable. Fighting France demanded resources which independent ordinary royal income could not provide. Ministers able to secure those resources became indispensable intermediaries. The Revolution also supplied a legitimacy problem: a ruler placed on the throne through resistance to arbitrary government could not easily defend James's methods without undermining his own position.
Continuity remained substantial. The King directed policy, distributed patronage and chose ministers. Parliament protected many elite interests rather than equal citizenship. The outcome by 1702 was a more constrained and cooperative monarchy, not a government in which voters chose a prime minister who alone exercised executive authority.
For a supported judgement, weigh legal and practical change together. The statutory settlement explains what could be challenged; war and finance explain why parliamentary leverage was repeatedly available; parties and ministers explain how support was assembled. None alone accounts for the whole development. Their interaction produced limited monarchy under particular historical conditions, not an inevitable march towards democracy.
Royal leadership survived, but statutory limits, war finance and organised parliamentary support made independent royal government much harder. Limited monarchy developed through institutions and repeated negotiation.