The British government in the 18th century had been marked by a massive curtailment of the Crown’s powers. The Crown lost the majority of its prerogatives and could no longer govern against the will of Parliament or without it. Although the monarch, as head of state, continued to hold is prerogative in foreign policy and the appointment of ministers, in practice he was increasingly dependent on parliamentary majorities.
To secure these majorities, the Crown and systematically manipulated the composition of both Houses of Parliament: in the House of Lords through the allocation of bishoprics, and in the House of Commons by exploiting local privileges and influencing voters in the constituencies. It was during this period that the modern British executive also took shape: the actual work of government shifted from the King’s Privy Council to the Cabinet. This development, combined with the need to administer the Exchequer effectively, led to the emergence of the office of Prime Minister in the first half of the century, with Robert Walpole regarded as its first holder.
Background Since the Glorious Revolution, the monarchy had been losing power to Parliament. The Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement imposed firm legal constraints on the Crown. The king lost the right to determine the line of succession on his own. For the King, this meant that his rights to the throne were now explicitly subject to the law of Parliament. The principle of the inviolable divine right of kings was thus legally blocked. This blocking also prevented the king from revoking laws unilaterally without the consent of Parliament and challenging the proceedings and procedures of Parliament. To prevent the King from manipulating Parliament through the allocation of posts and funds, recipients of royal salaries or pensions were now barred from sitting in the House of Commons. With the Triennial Act of 1694 and the Septennial Act of 1716 the King was legally obliged to summon Parliament at regular intervals. At the same time, Parliament imposed permanent financial control on the Crown.
The king also lost direct control over the judiciary and the executive. Judges could no longer be dismissed at the king’s whim if their rulings displeased the court; they now remained in office as long as they behaved correctly, and were thus independent. The king’s right to exempt individuals from compliance with certain laws was declared unlawful. The king was henceforth obliged to act on foreign policy matters only on the advice of his accredited ministers. At the same time, ministers could no longer shift the responsibility for their actions onto the king. The king lost the right to grant public offices, seats in Parliament or crown lands to foreign nationals. Furthermore, the king was not permitted to wage war in defence of foreign territories or to leave the country without the consent of Parliament. In treason trials, defendants were granted the right to a defence lawyer and to inspect the indictment in advance, which made it more difficult for the Crown to obtain convictions against the disaffected. At last the King no longer had the right to grant a royal pardon in order to block impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Commons against his ministers.
Branches
Legislative Since both the House of Commons and the House of Lords could no longer be ignored, the Crown sought to gain control through the composition of both chambers. In the House of Lords, the Crown wielded considerable influence, even though it was largely a hereditary chamber. For most of the century, a large number of ministers were members of the House of Lords. This gave them the opportunity to elaborate on royal policy in great detail, for although they were highly dependent on court offices and royal favors, its members were far from acting merely as rubber stamps. The Crown exercised more effective control over those members who did not hold hereditary titles. This was ensured by the bishops and the representative Scottish peers. During Queen Anne’s reign, the former were appointed with some care regarding their suitability and their ecclesiastical disposition, although the ministers did their best to ensure that political reliability was not overlooked in the search for more spiritual qualities.
After her death, bishops were increasingly selected from the ranks of the Broad Churchmen, who were supporters of the Whigs and secured a solid bloc of reliable voters for the government. A clergyman who was critical of the crown therefore had little chance of being consecrated as a bishop. It was customary to assign a man becoming a bishop for the first time to a see where the income barely covered the expenses associated with the office. If he then proved himself reliable, he was transferred to a more prosperous diocese when the opportunity arose. Since it was clear that the consequences of disobedience would likely be fatal to future promotion, it is not surprising that the Crown could rely on the bishops’ votes.
To control the composition of the House of Commons, the Crown systematically exploited the historical anomalies of the electoral system. Since there was no legally standardized suffrage, the right to vote in the urban electoral districts, the boroughs, depended entirely on local privileges. This made the relatively small urban electorate an easy target for political manipulation, while the rural electorate in the counties could hardly be controlled due to its sheer size and independence. In addition to wealthy men who hoped to gain social advancement through the purchase of a seat, the government actively intervened in the system through the Treasury. Particularly in the port cities, the awarding of lucrative naval contracts or nominations for well-paid positions in the customs administration were deliberately used to cultivate a compliant and loyal electorate. Through the interplay of these various control mechanisms, the sovereignty of the House of Commons lay firmly in the hands of an elite minority: by the mid-18th century, the influence of just 51 members of the House of Lords and 55 influential MPs was sufficient to directly bring about or decisively influence the election of more than 190 members of the House of Commons. The system thus ensured that the supposed check on the Crown was primarily staffed by representatives of the aristocratic elite. House of Commons
A general election was initiated solely by the monarch, who formally dissolved the existing Parliament. This was done by means of a royal proclamation under the Great Seal. According to the Forty Shilling Freeholder Act at the king’s command, the Lord Chancellor then issued official election orders, known as Writs of Election. These documents sent to local election officials throughout the country. The Elections were held at regular intervals in accordance with the Septennial Act of 1716, at least every seven years in case of death of the monarch or if he decided to do so.
Only men aged 21 and older who met the local property qualifications were eligible to vote. In the counties, these were the forty-shilling freeholders (men who owned land yielding an annual income of at least 40 shillings). In the towns, eligibility ranged from owning specific properties (burgages) to holding the status of a tax-paying citizen (Scot and Lot). A state voter registry did not exist for most of the century. It was not until 1780 that the local land tax records (Land Tax Duplicates) began to serve as the primary official verification document in the counties. In the towns, the historical corporate registers (Corporation Books) were used. In cases of doubt, the local returning officer made an immediate and final decision on eligibility. The right to stand for election was tied to a candidate's annual income. The Landed Property Qualification Act of 1711 set the minimum annual income at 600 pounds for a county seat and 300 pounds for a borough seat.
House of Lords
As part of Parliament, the House of Lords had the right to enact or repeal laws.All bills affecting the rights of the peerage had to originate in the House of Lords. The House of Commons was not permitted to make any amendments or additions to these bills. The House of Lords had the prerogative of proxy voting: With the king’s permission, a peer could appoint another lord as his proxy to vote on his behalf in his absence. Members of the House of Commons were prohibited from doing so, as they already acted as proxies for their constituents. Furthermore, every peer had the right to protest. If the House voted against a peer’s views, he could have his dissent, along with his reasons, recorded in the House’s journal.
In addition, the House of Lords served as the kingdom’s High Court. It was responsible for reviewing injustices and procedural errors committed by lower courts. In practice, this authority was severely limited by procedural rules, particularly by the writ of error. Every member of the House of Lords was entitled to this power, regardless of any legal training. With the exception of a small number of peers who were required to sit with the judicial members, most peers declined to exercise this privilege.
Executive The Crown Although the crown´s legislative powers had been reduced to an unused right of veto, the monarch was the head of the state. He retained the right to dissolve Parliament, appoint peers, and select and dismiss his ministers. The monarch was free to consult with anyone and to choose those to whom he wished to delegate executive power. In practice, this was constrained by the need to secure majorities in Parliament. Consequently, the monarch could only select his most important officials from the relatively small circle of men who held the key to parliamentary power. Although the monarch could not introduce new laws by proclamation, monarchs were not bound by parliamentary resolutions if their name was not expressly mentioned, unless such resolutions concerned the realm or served to suppress injustice or fraud.
The Crown held a particularly exclusive prerogative in foreign policy. The Crown alone could declare war or make peace. The Crown also had the prerogative to enter into alliances and treaties with foreign states. In this regard, the monarch’s proclamations had the force of law. Since the Crown had the right to declare war, she was also the head of the armed forces, which included all armaments, the conscription of soldiers, and the procurement of weapons by land and sea, as well as control over all depots, ammunition, fortresses, men of war, and public funds.
The monarch independently appointed and paid diplomats, accredited foreign envoys, and used personal audiences with these envoys to directly influence the direction of international policy and the terms of peace. Furthermore, sovereignty over the Electorate of Hanover and the administration of the British colonies provided the Crown with ongoing opportunities to shift resources, expand its own power base, and actively influence the political situation in the British homeland. Although he had to confirm his recognition of the parliament its laws and statutes by taking the oath of coronation he acted as the chief arbiter between the parliament the court and the different offices. Every appointment to a position in the administrative, court, or military spheres—down to the lowest ranks, such as a cornet—required the king’s approval and his personal signature. This formal requirement provided the king with constant opportunities to negotiate political matters and issues of patronage directly with his ministers.
Privy Council and Cabinet