Histoire et civilisation britanniques: idées politiques, État et société (document en anglais)

British History and Civilization: Political Ideas, the State and Society

Read carefully the text of the 1689 English Bill of Rights; then read carefully Lois G. Schwoerer’s article « The bill of Rights: Epitome of the Revolution of 1688-89 ». Then develop the following questions:

1) Why Lois G. Schwoerer disagrees with the traditional conservative reading of the Bill of Rights? She advances two points or arguments for her own interpretation, summarize them and explain.

The English Bill of Rights was created by the English Parliament and signed into law by King William III in 1689. The reason of creation was repeated abuses of power by King James II during his reign from 1685 to 1689.

According to people, the Bill of Rights contained ancient rights and restored the monarchy with limitations which looked like traditional ones.

Lois G.Schwoerver disagrees with the traditional conservative reading of the Bill of Right and she advances two main arguments.

The first one is that according to Lois Schoerver the “Bill of right” was a radical document. She stands against the traditional reading which is justified by the two words in itself – traditional and radical which are opposite to each other.

Indeed, traditional is the continuity of something that already existed while radical is change, evolution, transformation. So it proved that these two words don’t go well together.

Then she explains the reason why she thinks it is a radical document because the Bill of Right discussed on the role of king and the parliament. It changed the role of the king and the parliament so that is why it’s a radical document and not a traditional. It brought changes and not continuity. More power for the parliament was wanted.

The Bill of Rights marked a dramatic turning point in English history.

The monarchy was new which proved the rights of English subjects were no longer to be dispensed on King’s decision. It was a new monarchy because new laws were added to the Bill and it marked a change in kingship. As an example, we can say that the King was no longer allowed to suspend laws without the consent of Parliament. The Bill limited the power of the Crown and set out the rights of Parliament. That is the main reasons why she said the Bill of Rights enabled to establish a new type of monarchy.

The second argument can be seen through the battle that happened from 1688 to 1689 because during that time the king was very criticized which result to a less powerful king in the Bill of Right. For example we can see in the article the King “was denied the power to suspend laws or their execution without the consent of Parliament” that proves the contentment of the parliament is important. Many times in the article it is mentions that the king needs the consent of the parliament which proved that the parliament shaped the royal prerogatives and the king is influenced by it. Moreover it was only in 1688-1689 that reforming the monarchy began.

This new monarchy in favor of Parliament is seen as the main reason why the Bill of rights has to be seen as a document which changed the British monarchy.

2) Even though she does not mention John Locke’s Two Treatises

...