The eighteenth century was long deemed ‘the classical age of the constitution’ in Britain, with cabinet government based on a two-party system of Whigs and Tories in Parliament, and a monarchy whose powers had been emasculated by the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689. This study furthers the work of Sir Lewis Namier, who, in 1929, argued that no such party system existed, George III was not a cypher, and that Parliament was an administration composed of factions and opposition. George III is a high-profile and well-known character in British history, whose policies have often been blamed for the loss of Britain's American colonies, around whom rages a perennial dispute over his aims: was he seeking to restore royal power or merely exercising his constitutional rights? This is a chronological survey of the first ten years of his reign through power politics and policy making.
This book explores the life, thought and political commitments of the free-thinker John Toland (1670–1722). Studying both his private archive and published works, it illustrates how he moved in both subversive and elite political circles in England and abroad. The book explores the connections between Toland's republican political thought and his irreligious belief about Christian doctrine, the ecclesiastical establishment and divine revelation, arguing that far from being a marginal and insignificant figure, he counted queens, princes and government ministers as his friends and political associates. In particular, Toland's intimate relationship with the Electress Sophia of Hanover saw him act as a court philosopher, but also as a powerful publicist for the Hanoverian succession. The book argues that he shaped the republican tradition after the Glorious Revolution into a practical and politically viable programme, focused not on destroying the monarchy but on reforming public religion and the Church of England. It also examines how Toland used his social intimacy with a wide circle of men and women (ranging from Prince Eugene of Savoy to Robert Harley) to distribute his ideas in private. The book explores the connections between his erudition and print culture, arguing that his intellectual project was aimed at compromising the authority of Christian ‘knowledge’ as much as the political power of the Church. Overall, it illustrates how Toland's ideas and influence impacted upon English political life between the 1690s and the 1720s.
Chapter 5 is concerned with Paul de Rapin de Thoyras’s Histoire d’Angleterre (1724–27), a work which drew on Parliamentarian and Whig ideas to provide a complete history of England from the Roman invasion to the Glorious Revolution. The discussion opens by exploring the historiographical background to Rapin’s writing in Huguenot thought before moving on to look at his analysis of Tudor and Stuart history. Rapin, it is argued, adapted and developed earlier accounts in order to emphasise that a moderate form of Whig constitutionalism had a greater capacity to promote commerce and sound financial management than any absolutist alternative. The chapter concludes by examining Nicholas Tindal’s English translation of the Histoire, a rendering of the text that both popularised Rapin’s work and, through the use of paratextual material, questioned some of the historiographical assumptions on which it was based.
By expanding the geographical scope of the history of violence and war, this
volume challenges both Western and state-centric narratives of the decline of
violence and its relationship to modernity. It highlights instead similarities
across early modernity in terms of representations, legitimations, applications
of, and motivations for violence. It seeks to integrate methodologies of the
study of violence into the history of war, thereby extending the historical
significance of both fields of research. Thirteen case studies outline the
myriad ways in which large-scale violence was understood and used by states and
non-state actors throughout the early modern period across Africa, Asia, the
Americas, the Atlantic, and Europe, demonstrating that it was far more complex
than would be suggested by simple narratives of conquest and resistance.
Moreover, key features of imperial violence apply equally to large-scale
violence within societies. As the authors argue, violence was a continuum,
ranging from small-scale, local actions to full-blown war. The latter was
privileged legally and increasingly associated with states during early
modernity, but its legitimacy was frequently contested and many of its violent
forms, such as raiding and destruction of buildings and crops, could be found in
activities not officially classed as war.
one of three ways: finding new
mines at home or abroad, trading goods and services with other nations
in exchange for gold and silver, or plundering it from others. Fourth, due
to England’s geography, it avoided much of the constant and expensive
warfare experienced on the continent in the early modern era. However,
England too engaged in foreign battles and was therefore in constant need
of money to finance its conquests and conflicts and to satisfy the desire of
its ruling class for more money, wealth, and power (Brewer 1989).
Up until the GloriousRevolution of
of the compound structure of political and religious culture after the
Historians have debated for many years whether 1689 was a watershed in
the creation of the modern world, or merely another ‘restoration’ of ancien
regime constitutions in Church and State. Whether insisting that British culture
stood on the brink of modernity, or that the nation was not so much
transformed as secured, it is clear that one of the major issues of public and
private life was the status and role of religion in political culture.9 Far from
ending debates about
Violence and the Great Turkish War in the work of Romeyn de
Michel van Duijnen
prints in the collection of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam:
RP-P-OB-67.726 and RP-P-1907–2650; as well as De Hooghe’s allegorical prints on John
III Sobieski’s victories over the Ottomans in the Teylers Museum Haarlem: KG 06593
and KG 06571.
48 Hale, ‘Romeyn de Hooghe and the Birth of Political Satire’, p. 3.
49 In 1689, a copy of De Hooghe’s koningsbrief was printed with a partly revised text to serve
as an Orangist commentary on the GloriousRevolution. Only the first eight figures were
renamed to refer to the GloriousRevolution; the other eight kept their original
set standards and direct outcomes. And in some instances the courts
attempted to discover ‘the mischief’ that was behind the
legislative enactment in order that the common law should
provide a remedy. The early case law is rich in the adoption
of modes of interpretation to fit the circumstances of the
case. The revolution culminating in Parliament’s victory
over the Crown in the ‘GloriousRevolution’ (1688) came
as the courts recognized the authority of parliament and
its ultimate law-making authority. This provided the judges
with the dominant paradigm of
of exchanges with some of Europe’s foremost economic thinkers,
among them Josiah Tucker, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, André
Morellet and Adam Smith.4
The idea for a history, meanwhile, had first been mooted by Hume
in the second half of the 1740s. Work began in the late summer of
1752 and the first volume, covering the reigns of James I and Charles
I, was published as The History of Great Britain in the autumn of
1754.5 Hume added a second volume in 1757, extending the narrative up to the GloriousRevolution, while 1759 saw the publication
of the two
(1689) that established a monarchy constrained by the rights and privileges
of Parliament. This was the outcome of the ‘GloriousRevolution’
(1688), an outcome that the Whigs regarded as a definite conclusion to the
political struggles of the seventeenth century. Dominated by a few wealthy
aristocratic families, the Whigs were actually less than radical.
Many of the more radical elements of
the struggle emigrated, physically and