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