DOCSLIB.ORG

The Glorious Revolution Reconsidered: Whig Historiography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Glorious Revolution Reconsidered: Whig Historiography Author: Omar El Sharkawy Title: “The Glorious Revolution Reconsidered: Whig Historiography and Revisionism in Historical and Intellectual Context” Source: Prandium: The Journal of Historical Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Fall, 2020). Published by: The Department of Historical Studies, University of Toronto Mississauga Stable URL: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/prandium/index The Glorious Revolution is the subject of extensive discussion in relation to the meaning and conduct of revolutionary behavior.1 There are several schools of thought on the Glorious Revolution, but this paper focuses on the most firmly entrenched “traditional” perspective. In its most pure form, the traditional or “Whig” interpretation was first articulated by Thomas B. Macaulay in the nineteenth century. He viewed the Glorious Revolution as a mostly staid and boring affair: a moderate political revolution guided by the propertied political classes that established constitutionalism, parliamentary sovereignty, and religious toleration as the bedrock of English government. This revolution displaced a tyrannical Catholic monarch, James II, who was bent on absolute power and religious persecution. The “Whig interpretation of history” has been a source of both praise and criticism in the revolution’s long and well-established historiographical tradition.2 Modern scholarly debates concerning the revolution have almost completely revised the Whig perspective as a moderate and quintessentially English revolution. However, the interpretation of the degree of social change, popularity, and radicalism brought about by the Glorious Revolution has varied. Two key aspects of the revolution have come under historical scrutiny: the process of the revolution, and its long-term consequences. Most revisionist historians, such as Steve Pincus, William Speck and Edward Valance, have argued for a radical and popular Glorious Revolution that created substantial political change by entrenching Parliamentary supremacy and radically securing constitutionalism through the Declaration of Rights (1689) and 1 Omar El Sharkawy is a 4th year history student at UTM specializing in the history of Africa and the Middle East, world revolutions and European history. He originally penned this essay in the 2019 Fall term for Dr. Petrakos' Tudor and Stuart England class (HIS 395: Topics in History). He wishes to extend his sincerest thanks to Dr. Petrakos for overseeing the initial project of this paper's writing, and for his aid in editing and publishing it in Prandium. 2 Herbert Butterflied. The Whig Interpretation of History. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1965); Thomas Babington Macaulay. The History of England from the Accession of James II, 5 vols. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849-1861). Toleration Act.3 This revisionist perspective, however, has in turn been subject to post- revisionism, as some historians, beginning most notably with Eveline Cruickshanks, have rejected the Whig interpretation but also characterized the revolution as inadequately radical, even regressive, in some areas.4 Dissenting historians have called into question the “progressive” nature of the revolution and have challenged what has become the standard narrative of the Glorious Revolution first articulated by Macaulay. This paper lays out some of the significant historiographical issues that have underpinned the revision of the Whig tradition and argues that revisionist historians have not gone far enough in arguing for the radical nature of the Glorious Revolution. The revolution was not one of “Reluctant Revolutionaries” but was on par with some of the modern political and social revolutions of the modern age. This paper demonstrates some of the shortcomings of the traditional, revisionist, and post-revisionist historiography of the Glorious Revolution whilst also considering the revolution’s political meaning at the time and its significant and sometimes overlooked consequences. The recent historiographical reassessment of the Glorious Revolution has emphasized its radicalism but, as is shown below, the events of 1688-1689 represented a conservative reaction with limited revolutionary progress in some areas, and only mild radical change in others. Historians have downplayed the role of popular, grassroots, involvement in the Glorious Revolution. Among the chief and most contested aspects of the revolution in historical writing is that of the revolutionary process itself: How the revolution was initiated and conducted and the degree of popular involvement that it witnessed. Questions over who possessed the greatest agency 3 Steve Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009); William Speck, Reluctant Revolutionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Edward Valance, The Glorious Revolution 1688: Britain’s Fight for Liberty, (London: Little Brown, 2006). 4 Eveline Cruickshanks, The Glorious Revolution, (Hampshire: MacMillan Press Ltd., 2000). in the Glorious Revolution are closely linked to the broader interpretative issues of the revolution as either a moderate or radical political event. This question of political agency is furthermore concerned with the intentions and goals of the revolution’s actors. In the classic Whig narrative, as enshrined in the work of Thomas B. Macaulay, the protagonists of the revolution were the Lords, Whigs, and Parliamentarians who formed a provisional government in the time of disorder following James II’s departure, welcomed William III onto the throne, and restored the English state.5 This emphasis on elite actors was grounded in perceptions of selflessness and a desire to preserve traditional political and social institutions among the revolutionaries. Macaulay presents the English Parliamentarians as moderates who had initiated a political revolution to mend the flaws of an apt system of government that was subject to absolutist abuses by the tyrannical Stuart dynasty.6 This historiographical project was also vested in the presentation of William III as a selfless monarch, carrying out a humanitarian intervention to aid in the preservation of English law and the welfare of the kingdom.7 The minimization of popular involvement in Macaulay’s narrative, and the focus on a few moderate actors, came to serve as a key reason for the revolution’s importance in Macaulay’s writing, as his presentation of the Glorious Revolution as a “defensive revolution” was rooted in the lack of emphasis on popular rights and radical change in 1688-89. Macaulay’s interpretation would have implied that the Glorious Revolution was indeed an elite project; a revolution as conservative in its making as it was in its results. Contemporary historians have, however, revised the composition of the revolution’s actors and their intentions, altering the emphasis on selfless elites as the conventional leaders of the revolution. 5 Thomas B. Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James II. (Boston: Phillips, Sampson, and Company, 1850), II: 460-461, 515. 6 Macaulay, The History of England, 515. 7 Macaulay, The History of England, 512-513. William of Orange’s role in the Glorious Revolution has come under question. Recent writings on the Glorious Revolution have relegated him to a penultimate position in the making of its political project. No longer seen as selfless protector of Protestant and constitutional liberty, revisionist historians have questioned his motives. The traditional selflessness which Macaulay held William with in high regard has been re-assessed, with William III’s invasion and succession being seen as an opportunistic political move to gain control of English resources with which to fight the militarily dominant French.8 The broader implication of this historiographical shift on the narrative and interpretative dimensions of the Glorious Revolution has emphasized a point of view arguing for William’s political opportunism rather than his sincere desire for radical constitutional change. It was William III’s ability to frame his intervention as altruistic that allowed him, in part, to successfully execute the Dutch invasion in 1688, a point which has been historically elevated in Macaulay’s writing.9 This contextualization of William of Orange within the realpolitik of 17th century European geopolitics illustrates how his intervention was not born of the desire “to defend the rights of Parliament or of the Church of England.”10 This holds particularly true when considering that the Declaration of Rights was not conditional, but supplementary to William’s acceptance of the throne.11 Legal limitations on William’s executive power were also quite limited, an aspect of the revolution which will be examined further in this essay at a later point.12 This reevaluation of William III’s role illustrates a more conservative and less radical aspect of the revolution, particularly with how his inflexibility curbed the incorporation of additional constitutional 8 Cruickshanks, The Glorious Revolution, 25; Edward Valance, The Glorious Revolution 1688: Britain’s Fight for Liberty. (London: Little Brown, 2006), 307. 9 Speck, Reluctant Revolutionaries, 74. 10 Cruickshanks, The Glorious Revolution, 25. 11 Cruickshanks, The Glorious Revolution, 42. 12 Valance, The Glorious Revolution 1688, 178. limitations on kingly power which were embodied in the revolution’s mission.13 When considering the opportunism and ulterior objectives of William within the European geopolitical context, this image of a reactionary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America
    P1: IwX/KaD 0521827450agg.xml CY395B/Ward 0 521 82745 0 May 7, 2004 7:37 The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America LEE WARD Campion College University of Regina iii P1: IwX/KaD 0521827450agg.xml CY395B/Ward 0 521 82745 0 May 7, 2004 7:37 published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, usa 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon´ 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Lee Ward 2004 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2004 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Sabon 10/12 pt. System LATEX 2ε [tb] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ward, Lee, 1970– The politics of liberty in England and revolutionary America / Lee Ward p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. isbn 0-521-82745-0 1. Political science – Great Britain – Philosophy – History – 17th century. 2. Political science – Great Britain – Philosophy – History – 18th century. 3. Political science – United States – Philosophy – History – 17th century. 4. Political science – United States – Philosophy – History – 18th century. 5. United States – History – Revolution, 1775–1783 – Causes.
    [Show full text]
  • I. History and Ideology in the English Revolution1
    THE HISTORICAL JOURNAL VOL. VIII 1965 No. 2 I. HISTORY AND IDEOLOGY IN THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION1 By QUENTIN SKINNER Christ's College, Cambridge IDEOLOGICAL arguments are commonly sustained by an appeal to the past, an appeal either to see precedents in history for new claims being advanced, or to see history itself as a development towards the point of view being advocated or denounced.2 Perhaps the most influential example from English history of this prescriptive use of historical information is provided by the ideological arguments associated with the constitutional revolution of the seventeenth century. It was from a propagandist version of early English history that the 'whig' ideology associated with the Parliamentarians—the ideology of customary law, regulated monarchy and immemorial Parliamen- tary right—drew its main evidence and strength. The process by which this 'whig' interpretation of history became bequeathed to the eighteenth century as accepted ideology has of course already been definitively labelled by Professor Butterfield, and described in his book on The Englishman and his History.3 It still remains, however, to analyse fully the various other ways in which awareness of the past became a politically relevant factor in English society during its constitutional upheavals. The acceptance of the ' whig' view of early English history in fact represented only the triumph of one among several conflictinb ideologies which had relied on identical historical backing to their claims. And despite the resolution of this conflict by universal acceptance of the ' whig' view, the ' whigs' themselves were nevertheless to be covertly influenced by the rival ideologies which their triumph might seem to have suppressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Social-Property Relations, Class-Conflict and The
    Historical Materialism 19.4 (2011) 129–168 brill.nl/hima Social-Property Relations, Class-Conflict and the Origins of the US Civil War: Towards a New Social Interpretation* Charles Post City University of New York [email protected] Abstract The origins of the US Civil War have long been a central topic of debate among historians, both Marxist and non-Marxist. John Ashworth’s Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic is a major Marxian contribution to a social interpretation of the US Civil War. However, Ashworth’s claim that the War was the result of sharpening political and ideological – but not social and economic – contradictions and conflicts between slavery and capitalism rests on problematic claims about the rôle of slave-resistance in the dynamics of plantation-slavery, the attitude of Northern manufacturers, artisans, professionals and farmers toward wage-labour, and economic restructuring in the 1840s and 1850s. An alternative social explanation of the US Civil War, rooted in an analysis of the specific path to capitalist social-property relations in the US, locates the War in the growing contradiction between the social requirements of the expanded reproduction of slavery and capitalism in the two decades before the War. Keywords origins of capitalism, US Civil War, bourgeois revolutions, plantation-slavery, agrarian petty- commodity production, independent-household production, merchant-capital, industrial capital The Civil War in the United States has been a major topic of historical debate for almost over 150 years. Three factors have fuelled scholarly fascination with the causes and consequences of the War. First, the Civil War ‘cuts a bloody gash across the whole record’ of ‘the American .
    [Show full text]
  • French Revolution and English Revolution Comparison Chart Print Out
    Socials 9 Name: Camilla Mancia Comparison of the English Revolution and French Revolution TOPIC ENGLISH REVOLUTION FRENCH REVOLUTION SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES 1625-1689 Kings - Absolute monarchs - Absolute monarchs - Kings ruled as Absolute - English Kings believed in Divine - James I: intelligent; slovenly - Louis XIV: known as the “Sun King”; Monarchs Right of Kings and French did habits; “wisest fool in saw himself as center of France and - Raised foreign armies not Christendom”; didn’t make a forced nobles to live with him; - Charles I and Louis XVI both - Charles I did not care to be good impression on his new extravagant lifestyle; built Palace of did not like working with loved whereas Louis XVI initially subjects; introduced the Divine Versailles ($$) Parliament/Estates General wanted to be loved by his people Right Kings - Louis XV: great grandson of Louis XIV; - Citizens did not like the wives of - Charles I did not kill people who - Charles I: Believed in Divine only five years old when he became Charles I (Catholic) and Louis were against him (he Right of Kings; unwilling to King; continued extravagances of the XVI (from Austria) imprisoned or fined them) compromise with Parliament; court and failure of government to - Both Charles I and Louis XVI whereas Louis XVI did narrow minded and aloof; lived reform led France towards disaster punished critics of government - Charles I called Lord Strafford, an extravagant life; Wife - Louis XVI; originally wanted to be Archbishop Laud and Henrietta Maria and people loved; not interested
    [Show full text]
  • Steven CA Pincus James A. Robinson Working Pape
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WHAT REALLY HAPPENED DURING THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION? Steven C.A. Pincus James A. Robinson Working Paper 17206 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17206 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2011 This paper was written for Douglass North’s 90th Birthday celebration. We would like to thank Doug, Daron Acemoglu, Stanley Engerman, Joel Mokyr and Barry Weingast for their comments and suggestions. We are grateful to Dan Bogart, Julian Hoppit and David Stasavage for providing us with their data and to María Angélica Bautista and Leslie Thiebert for their superb research assistance. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2011 by Steven C.A. Pincus and James A. Robinson. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. What Really Happened During the Glorious Revolution? Steven C.A. Pincus and James A. Robinson NBER Working Paper No. 17206 July 2011 JEL No. D78,N13,N43 ABSTRACT The English Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 is one of the most famous instances of ‘institutional’ change in world history which has fascinated scholars because of the role it may have played in creating an environment conducive to making England the first industrial nation.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 JAMES M. VAUGHN Department of History University Of
    JAMES M. VAUGHN Department of History University of Texas at Austin 128 Inner Campus Dr. B7000 Austin, TX 78712-1739 EDUCATION Ph.D., Department of History, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 2009 M.A., Division of the Social Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 2004 B.A., Department of History, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 2000 PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS Assistant Professor, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin 2008 - present Assistant Director, Program in British Studies 2009 - present Jack Miller Research Fellow in Representative Institutions, the MacMillan 2011 - 2012 Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT PUBLICATIONS (including Accepted and In Press) Book Vaughn, J. M. (In production [copyediting], expected September 2018). The Politics of Empire at the Accession of George III: The East India Company and the Crisis and Transformation of Britain’s Imperial State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 130,000 words. Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles and Book Chapters Vaughn, J. M. (August 2017, published online as “ahead-of-print” featured article [DOI: 10.3366/brw.2017.0283]; in press, September 2018). John Company Armed: The English East India Company, the Anglo-Mughal War and Absolutist Imperialism, c. 1675-1690. Britain and the World, 11 (2). Austen, R. A., & Vaughn, J. M. (2011). The Territorialization of Empire: Social Imperialism and Britain’s Moves into India and Tropical Africa. In T. Falola and E. Brownell (Eds.), Africa, Empire and Globalization: Essays in Honor of A. G. Hopkins (193-212). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. 1 Non-Peer Reviewed Articles Vaughn, J. M. (2013). 1776 in World History: The American Revolution as Bourgeois Revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • STUART ENGLAND OVERVIEW HISTORY KNOWLEDGE ORGANISER 1603 – James I James I Was King of England and Scotland Following the Death of Elizabeth I
    TIMELINE OF STUART ENGLAND OVERVIEW HISTORY KNOWLEDGE ORGANISER 1603 – James I James I was king of England and Scotland following the death of Elizabeth I. The period ended with the death of Queen Anne who was YEAR 8 – TERM 2 1605 – Gunpowder Plot succeeded by the Hanoverian, George I from the House of Hanover. 1625 – Charles I James I was a Protestant and his reign is most famous for the 1603 – 1714: STUART ENGLAND Gunpowder Plot. His son, Charles I, led the country into Civil War and 1625 – Charles I married a Catholic, Henrietta Maria was executed in 1649. This was followed by the period known as the KEY INDIVIDUALS (other than Commonwealth, where there was no monarch ruling the country. Monarchs – above) 1628 – Charles collected tax without Parliament’s permission Instead, Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector and famously banned 1629 – Charles dissolved Parliament (until 1640) Christmas. The Restoration saw the Stuarts returned to the throne Samuel Pepys Henrietta Maria under the ‘Merry Monarch’ Charles II. This period is best known for the 1634 – Ship money collected Great Plague and the Great Fire of London. In 1688 powerful Archbishop Laud Robert Cecil 1637 – Scots rebelled against new Prayer Book and Archbishop Protestants in England overthrew James II and replaced him with his Guy Fawkes Oliver Cromwell daughter and son-in-law, William and Mary of Orange, in the ‘Glorious Laud cut Puritans’ ears off Revolution. The final Stuart, Anne, had 17 pregnancies but left no heir. Nell Gwyn Buckingham 1640 – Parliament reopened but argued with the King KEY TERMS 1642 – Charles tried to arrest 5 MPs.
    [Show full text]
  • Glorious Revolution As Financial Revolution John David Angle [email protected]
    Southern Methodist University SMU Scholar History Faculty Publications History Spring 4-22-2013 Glorious Revolution as Financial Revolution John David Angle [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/hum_sci_history_research Part of the Dutch Studies Commons, Economic History Commons, European History Commons, and the Other History Commons Recommended Citation Angle, John David, "Glorious Revolution as Financial Revolution" (2013). History Faculty Publications. 6. https://scholar.smu.edu/hum_sci_history_research/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by the History at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. Glorious Revolution as Financial Revolution John Angle Angle 2 In the late seventeenth century, England experienced a dramatic political and religious crisis that fundamentally reshaped the nation’s future. In late 1688, a group of English elites invited William the Stadholder of the Netherlands and Mary Stuart, the daughter of King James II, to invade England. They did so and deposed the king in a relatively bloodless revolution that dramatically recast the political, economic, and religious future. William and Mary’s invasion of England and accession to the throne has traditionally been called the Glorious Revolution. One crucial key to the invitation was a group of influential London merchants who were envious of the Dutch economic success and displeased with the economic policies of James II. As a result, they invited William to invade and supported his invasion in hopes of bringing his economic policies to Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • English Civil War
    Dædalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences Winter 2018 Ending Civil Wars: Constraints & Possibilities Karl Eikenberry & Stephen D. Krasner, guest editors with Francis Fukuyama Tanisha M. Fazal · Stathis N. Kalyvas Charles T. Call & Susanna P. Campbell · Lyse Doucet Thomas Risse & Eric Stollenwerk · Clare Lockhart Tanja A. Börzel & Sonja Grimm · Steven Heydemann Seyoum Mesfin & Abdeta Dribssa Beyene Nancy E. Lindborg & J. Joseph Hewitt Richard Gowan & Stephen John Stedman Sumit Ganguly · Jean-Marie Guéhenno The Last English Civil War Francis Fukuyama Abstract: This essay examines why England experienced a civil war every fifty years from the Norman Conquest up until the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689, and was completely stable after that point. The reasons had to do with, first, the slow accumulation of law and respect for the law that had occurred by the seventeenth century, and second, with the emergence of a strong English state and sense of nation- al identity by the end of the Tudor period. This suggests that normative factors are very important in cre- ating stable settlements. Rational choice explanations for such outcomes assert that stalemated conflicts will lead parties to accept second- or third-best outcomes, but English history, as well as more recent expe- riences, suggests that stability requires normative change as well. In establishing the rule of law, the first five centuries are always the hardest. –Gordon Brown Following the Norman Conquest in 1066, England experienced a civil war roughly every fifty years. These conflicts, often extremely bloody, continued up until the great Civil War of the 1640s. The issues underlying the latter conflict were not finally re- solved until the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689, bringing about a constitutional settlement that es- FRANCIS FUKUYAMA is a Senior tablished once and for all the principle of parliamen- Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Insti- tary supremacy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Historiography of the Civil War: How Historians Interpret the Causes
    a www. casahistoria.net student guide sheet A brief historiography of the Civil This brief outline draws on the war: how historians interpret the article by Anderson. Read this for fuller examples and causes of the conflict. explanations. Interpretation The core of the interpretation History is seen as a continuous process, achieving Key factors Whig progress, ie progress from primitive societies with Political Interpretation limited individual/political liberty to societies where Religious 18th and 19th C. there is political & individual liberty/freedom. • English Civil war is seen as a crucial element Key Historians: in this process. Conflict between Charles & Gardiner Parliament is seen within the context of a Trevelyan struggle for greater liberty. • Charles wants to conserve & protect the past. Puritans in Parl want greater freedom in a religious & political sense. (Freedom from royal control. RC church is seen as being against individual choice, ie freedom). Friction between the two over religion and politics produces the conflict. Marxist Karl Marx writing in 19th century saw History as a Key factors Interpretation process of class struggle for economic (and thus Economic th 20 century social) dominance in which two classes would Social eventually emerge: capitalists and proletariat. Marx Key Historians: does not write about the English civil war, but his (Weber) basic belief that historical events are best explained Tawney by looking at economic and social factors is used by Hill others to explain why civil war broke out in 1642. th In early 20 century Weber wrote about a connection between the rise of protestantism and the growth of capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing of the English Revolution
    THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO WRITING OF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION EDITED BY N. H. KEEBLE published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, vic 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Cambridge University Press 2001 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2001 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Adobe Sabon 10/13pt System QuarkXpress® [se] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data The Cambridge companion to writing of the English Revolution / edited by N. H. Keeble. p. cm. – (Cambridge companions to literature) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 0 521 64252 3 (hardback) – isbn 0 521 64522 0 (paperback) 1. Great Britain – History – Puritan Revolution, 1642–1660 – Literature and the revolution. 2. English literature – Early modern, 1500–1700 – History and criticism. 3. Christianity and literature – Great Britain – History – 17th century. 4. Politics and literature – Great Britain – History – 17th century. 5. Literature and history – Great Britain – History – 17th century. 6. English literature – Puritan authors – History and criticism. 7. Revolutionary literature, English – History and criticism. 8. Royalists in literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Reform and State Capacity Building: the Case of The
    Constitutional reform and state capacity building: The case of the Glorious Revolution Elena Seghezza1 Abstract In the work we have tried try to explain why the delay in lowering the interest rate on English government debt after the Glorious Revolution is consistent with North and Weingast’s thesis. The transfer of political power from the Crown to Parliament was followed not only by an increase in tax revenue but also by substantial changes in its composition, namely a significant increase in the share of excise taxes relative to total revenue. Before the Glorious Revolution, Parliament was against the king having a predictable and reliable revenue, such as that raised by excise duty. The availability of this income would have allowed the king to count on continuous and abundant resources, freeing him from the need, in times of war, to convene Parliament to ask for authorization to increase taxes. Having a large amount of predictable and certain resources at his disposal, the king could maintain a standing army. By eliminating this risk the Glorious Revolution allowed the state to pursue the intensive growth of excise revenues. This policy choice was made by a coalition of interest groups represented in Parliament, namely the landowners and monied interests. These groups decided to set up a bureaucracy and increase the revenue from indirect taxes. By this decision the groups represented in Parliament shifted the tax burden of increasing public spending on to interest groups that had no political representation. Introduction This paper is a re-assessment of North and Weingast’s thesis according to which the ascent to the throne of England by William of Orange was accompanied by a reconfiguration of the distribution of political power 1 Elena Seghezza, Department of Economics, Genoa University, Italy.
    [Show full text]