OCR Specification focus:
‘Crown and Parliament’s attitudes, and the impact of the Restoration, Glorious Revolution and tensions over James II, 1660–1713.’
The period 1660–1713 marked decisive transformations in metropolitan politics and attitudes, where upheavals in monarchy and Parliament shaped colonial governance, ambitions, and empire-building strategies.
The Restoration and its Implications (1660)
The Restoration of Charles II in 1660 ended the republican Commonwealth and re-established monarchy. This had significant consequences for colonial oversight and imperial thinking.
Monarchical revival reinforced the idea of the Crown as a guardian of overseas ventures, seeking revenues from colonies to fund royal authority.
The Caribbean and American colonies became sites of increased investment and attention, as they offered commodities such as sugar and tobacco which boosted royal finances.
Royal charters were granted to trading companies, including the Royal African Company, which linked metropolitan politics with colonial profits.
Restoration (1660): The return of Charles II to the throne of England, ending the republican Interregnum and reinstating monarchy.
The reassertion of monarchy also meant colonies were viewed as extensions of royal power. However, tensions emerged between monarchs’ ambitions and Parliament’s growing influence.
Charles II’s Colonial Policy and Parliamentary Oversight
Charles II attempted to consolidate imperial policy through centralised mechanisms, but his dependence on Parliamentary finance forced negotiation.
The Navigation Acts (reasserted in the 1660s) illustrated collaboration and conflict: they secured mercantilist benefits for England but increased colonial resentment.
Court favourites and royal patrons gained control over colonial positions, reflecting how metropolitan politics filtered into empire.
Parliament began to assert a role in supervising colonial trade and revenue, establishing the foundations of later metropolitan-colonial conflicts.
The Reign of James II (1685–1688)
James II’s reign was marked by authoritarianism and religious tension, both of which affected imperial governance.
His promotion of Catholic officers and governors in both England and colonies aroused distrust among Protestant elites.
The Dominion of New England (1686–1689), a centralised body imposed by James, reflected his attempt to tighten Crown control.
Map showing the Dominion of New England as constituted in 1688, with constituent and neighbouring colonies labelled. This visual clarifies the geographic scope of James II’s consolidation attempt. Some borders are noted as disputed at the time, an extra detail beyond the syllabus but useful for context. Source
Metropolitan suspicion of his Catholic sympathies translated into colonial resistance, particularly in Puritan New England.
Dominion of New England: A short-lived administrative merger of several colonies in North America imposed by James II to strengthen royal control.
James II’s policies represented a metropolitan attitude of direct royal dominance, but his overthrow in 1688 showed the fragility of such ambitions.
The Glorious Revolution (1688–1689)
The Glorious Revolution brought William III and Mary II to power, profoundly reshaping metropolitan attitudes toward empire.
Jan Wyck’s “William III Landing at Brixham, Torbay, 5 November 1688” depicts the moment William’s invasion force arrived, precipitating James II’s fall. The background fleet and troop landings emphasise the scale and organisation of the operation. As a painted interpretation, it adds artistic symbolism beyond the syllabus but accurately represents the event’s setting and date. Source
Parliament gained ascendancy, with the Bill of Rights (1689) limiting monarchical powers.
Extract from the Declaration of Rights (February 1689), articulating limits on royal authority and the rights of subjects. It underpins the subsequent Bill of Rights (December 1689), a cornerstone of the post-revolution settlement. The image includes archival headings and enrolment layout; these are additional archival features not required by the syllabus but help students recognise primary sources. Source
Colonial governance increasingly became tied to Parliamentary authority, not just royal prerogative.
The revolution legitimised Protestant identity as central to English imperialism, shaping attitudes towards Catholic powers such as France and Spain.
Metropolitan shifts filtered directly into colonial politics: revolts in Massachusetts and New York mirrored the overthrow of James II in England.
Parliamentary Supremacy and Imperial Policy (1689–1713)
The post-revolutionary settlement created a new framework for metropolitan engagement with empire.
Parliamentary legislation became central to regulating colonial trade and taxation.
Imperial ventures were now justified through a blend of Protestant ideology, commercial gain, and military rivalry with Catholic France.
The War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1713) revealed the strategic importance of colonies in European conflicts.
Bill of Rights (1689): An act of Parliament establishing limits on royal power and affirming Parliamentary supremacy in governance.
Parliament’s role in imperial matters was now entrenched, setting precedents for ongoing debates about colonial representation and control.
Shifts in Attitudes Across 1660–1713
Metropolitan attitudes to expansion evolved through these upheavals, shaped by both monarchs and Parliament:
1660s (Restoration): Optimism about colonies as sources of revenue and prestige.
1680s (James II): Distrust due to authoritarian and Catholic tendencies, alongside resistance to direct centralisation.
Post-1689: Parliamentary dominance, with emphasis on mercantilism, Protestantism, and war-driven imperial strategy.
Key Drivers of Change
Political upheavals (Restoration, Glorious Revolution).
Religious tensions, particularly the fear of Catholic dominance under James II.
Economic priorities, reinforced by mercantilist policy and company profits.
Military conflicts, where colonial possessions became bargaining chips in European wars.
The Tensions between Crown and Parliament
The relationship between Crown and Parliament defined metropolitan attitudes:
The Crown sought personal revenue and authority through colonies.
Parliament increasingly tied colonial policy to national interests, asserting oversight over trade and finance.
These competing priorities fostered a dual system of governance, combining royal charters with Parliamentary statutes.
This duality was never stable and would ultimately resurface in the later eighteenth century during disputes with the American colonies.
FAQ
The Restoration restored royal authority and encouraged greater involvement in overseas ventures. Charles II granted charters to companies like the Royal African Company, increasing Crown influence over trade.
However, practical administration remained fragmented. Colonial governors often acted semi-independently, reflecting the limited resources of the Crown to enforce uniform control.
Religion framed both trust and suspicion in imperial policy.
Protestantism was tied to English identity, particularly after 1689, influencing policy against Catholic rivals such as France and Spain.
James II’s Catholic sympathies fuelled distrust of his policies, both at home and in colonies.
Protestant Nonconformists in England often linked their support for empire with missionary zeal, reinforcing religiously charged attitudes.
Parliament required reliable revenue sources to fund wars with France. Colonies were increasingly seen as valuable assets for taxation and regulated trade.
By controlling customs duties and Navigation Acts enforcement, Parliament linked colonial wealth to national security. This fiscal motivation reinforced Parliamentary supremacy over both the monarchy and overseas possessions.
Colonial revolts often mirrored events in England.
In Massachusetts, colonists overthrew the Dominion of New England after James II’s fall.
In New York, Leisler’s Rebellion reflected support for William and Mary’s Protestant rule.
These uprisings illustrate how colonists directly responded to metropolitan upheavals, seeing their own autonomy tied to political legitimacy in England.
The war demonstrated that colonies were not only economic assets but also strategic tools in European conflicts.
English policymakers recognised that overseas possessions could strengthen alliances and undermine rivals. Victories such as the capture of Gibraltar and Newfoundland highlighted the role of colonies in global warfare.
This contributed to the belief that empire was essential for England’s status as a European great power.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Which monarch established the Dominion of New England in 1686, and why did it cause resentment among colonists?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for correctly identifying James II as the monarch.
1 mark for explaining resentment, e.g. because it imposed centralised royal control, removed colonial autonomy, or undermined local assemblies.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689) altered the balance of power between the Crown and Parliament, and why this mattered for colonial policy.
Mark Scheme:
Up to 2 marks for describing the Glorious Revolution, e.g. the overthrow of James II and accession of William III and Mary II.
Up to 2 marks for explaining changes in the balance of power, e.g. Parliamentary supremacy, limits on monarchy through the Bill of Rights (1689), or requirement for Crown to seek Parliamentary approval for finance.
Up to 2 marks for linking this to colonial policy, e.g. colonies now subject more directly to Parliamentary oversight, justification of empire through Protestant identity, or shifts in trade and taxation regulation.
