Did the Bill benefit King or P?
- P: prospect of absolutism diminished, legal positon of army uncertain, no doubt king needed P, citizens given rights and protections in law.
- K: Accepted throne with no conditions, Hill states Bill was vague, no provisions for ensuring free elections, Morill states no contract between King and people, monarch free to decicde on war and peace and fp and advisers.
As well as restricting the King's powers through the Bill, a number of Mutiny Acts were passed ensuring the monarchy could not court martial soliders at will without the consent of P. As each Mutiny Act was only valid for a year, the King had no choice but to turn to P regularly for approval.
Comments
No comments have yet been made