Sources and Debates in Modern British History

1714 to the Present

Ellis Wasson

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN: 9781444333725, 9781444333718
• eBook ISBN: 9781444399011
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: British History
• Index: History

Designed to complement the author's A History of Modern Britain, this collection of primary sources illuminates and augments the study of modern Britain with coverage of political, imperial, and economic history as well as class and cultural issues

• Features a broad range of documents, in a well-structured and easy-to-use format, including important, well-known documents and lesser-known excerpts from memoirs and private correspondence
• Provides up-to-date, balanced coverage of political, imperial, social, economic, and cultural history with over 180 documents
• Offers a thorough rendering of social class and national identity, including coverage of changes in British society over the last 20 years
• Includes discussion questions for each document, as well as lists of historical debates and extensive bibliographies of both on-line and traditional sources for students' further research

Part I

The Eighteenth Century

Chapter One

State and Empire

Britain became a great power with a large empire overseas in the eighteenth century. Episodes such as the Civil War (1642–49), the Cromwellian Commonwealth (1649–60), and the Glorious Revolution (1688–89) had focused attention and resources at home. As the eighteenth century progressed, Britons remained divided about constitutional matters yet the political system emerged as a strong and flexible instrument. It also provided a stable platform for commercial growth and overseas expansion. It helped Britain weather challenges from Louis XIV and Louis XV, Jacobites and Irish rebels, English radicals and American patriots, and the existential threat of invasion by French revolutionaries and Napoleon Bonaparte.

The secrets of British stability and growth in the eighteenth century lay partly in the nature of the intellectual environment and economic developments, which are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. What factors discussed in the documents of this chapter contributed to British prosperity and strength? Why were concerns about understanding the ground rules of the political system so salient?

As you read the documents in this chapter, consider the following questions:

• What were the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the British political system?
• How did the British constitution function and what did the authors of these documents perceive the role of the various elements in it to be?
• What was the relationship between Britain and its colonies in the eighteenth century?

The Constitution

1.1 Viscount Bolingbroke, The Idea of the Patriot King(written 1738, pub. 1749)¹

Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678–1751), served in government under Queen Anne. His opposition to the Hanoverian succession led to a period of exile in France. He returned in 1723 and worked against Sir Robert Walpole and the Whigs. He had a strong influence on the royal tutor and later prime minister, the earl of Bute, and on the latter's pupil and master, King George III, a monarch who came to believe he was pursuing the national interest above the bickering of self-interested political factions.

What was the British constitution like in 1738? What does Bolingbroke see as the foundations of government? Did he believe in “divine right” monarchy in the manner of Louis XIV of France? To what degree would Bolingbroke and Burke (see documents 1.5 and 1.10) agree or disagree about government?

Now we are subject, by the constitution of human nature, and therefore by the will of the Author of this and every other nature, to two laws. . . . By the first . . . I mean the universal law of reason; and by the second the particular law, or constitution of laws, by which every distinct community has chosen to be governed.

The obligation of submission to both, is discoverable by so clear and so simple a use of our intellectual faculties, that it may be said properly enough to be revealed to us by God; and though both these laws cannot be said properly to be given him, yet our obligation to submit to the civil law is a principal paragraph in the natural law, which he has most manifestly given us. In truth we can no more doubt of the obligations of both these laws, than of the existence of the lawgiver. As supreme Lord over all his works, his general providence regards immediately the great commonwealth of mankind; but then, as supreme Lord likewise, his authority gives a sanction to the particular bodies of law which are made under it. . . . It follows, therefore, that he who breaks the laws of his country resists the ordinance of God, that is, the law of his nature. . . .

. . . The just authority of kings, and the due obedience of subjects, may be deduced with the utmost certainty. And surely it is far better for kings themselves to have their authority thus founded on principles incontestable, and on fair deductions from them, than on the chimeras of madmen, or, what has been more common, the sophisms of knaves. A human right, that cannot be controverted, is preferable surely to a pretended divine right, which every man must believe implicitly, as few will do, or not believe at all.

But the principles we have laid down do not stop here. A divine right in kings is to be deduced evidently from them. A divine right to govern well, and conformably to the constitution at the head of which they are placed. A divine right to govern ill, is an absurdity: to assert it is blasphemy. A people may choose, or hereditary succession may raise, a bad prince to the throne; but a good king alone can derive his right to govern from God. The reason is plain: good government alone can be in the divine intention. . . . [Nor can it] be said without absurd impiety, that he confers a right to oppose his intention.

The office of kings is then of right divine, and their persons are to be reputed sacred. As men, they have no such right, no such sacredness belonging to them: as kings they have both, unless they forfeit them. Reverence for government obliges to reverence governors, who, for the sake of it, are raised above the level of other men: by reverence for governors, independently of government, any further than reverence would be due to their virtues if they were private men, is preposterous, and repugnant to common sense. The spring from which this legal reverence, for so I may call it, arises, is national, not personal.

All this is as true of hereditary, as it is of elective monarchs; though the scribblers for tyranny, under the name of monarchy, would have us believe that there is something more august, and more scared in one than the other. They are sacred alike, and this attribute is to be ascribed, or not ascribed to them, as they answer, or do not answer, the ends of their institution. . . .

To conclude . . . I think a limited monarchy the best of governments, so I think a hereditary monarchy the best of monarchies. I said a limited monarchy; for an unlimited monarchy, wherein arbitrary will, which is in truth no rule, is however the sole rule, or stands instead of all rule of government, must be allowed so great an absurdity, both in reason informed and uninformed by experience, that it seems a government fitter for savages than for civilized people. . . .

In fine, the constitution will be reverenced by him as the law of God and of man; the force of which binds the king as much as the meanest subject, and the reason of which binds him much more.

1.2 Third duke of Atholl to J. Mackenzie (Dec. 10, 1770)²

During the eighteenth century Britain exercised less restraint over the press than any other European country. Nonetheless the House of Commons repeatedly tried to block reports of debates made by journalists sitting in the gallery and imprisoned a number of printers. The struggle culminated in the 1771 “Printers' Case” in which the courts ruled that the press had the right to print reports of the proceedings in the lower house. After a long struggle, the House of Lords similarly succumbed. Rockingham Whigs and the followers of William Pitt the Elder tried to block motions to suppress journalists. In 1770 the Lords ordered “strangers” to leave the chamber during a debate on the Falkland Islands crisis with Spain. The duke of Atholl (1729–74) described the scene on December 10, 1770. The ban, however, lasted only until 1775, after which further attempts to suppress public reports on debates failed.

Why were published debates useful? Why was the government unable to keep the proceedings of Parliament secret? How serious were the political divisions among the landed elite? In what ways did the British constitution encourage the growth of the public sphere? Why might many aristocrats be reluctant to open debates to the press?

The minority have all this session of Parliament endeavored to represent the Weakness of Britain in every Part of the globe. By sea and land, and in her forts and garrisons. This the duke of Manchester was doing today in a very strong manner so as might invite an Enemy to attack us, he was stopped by Lord Gower who said the House was so full of Strangers that if such discourse went on the House must be cleared, as everything that was said would be taken down in shorthand and published to the world. Whereupon it was moved to clear the House, which by a standing order takes place of Every other motion, and none can speak till it be done; However, Lord Chatham [Pitt the Elder] stood up and attempted to speak but the House would not hear him, and drowned his voice with the Cry clear the House, clear the House. Which he took so much amiss that he immediately walked out and 16 other Peers who have voted in the minority this session followed him. This affair I doubt not will be a fine topic for newspapers and opposition writers. There are faults on all sides and every days experience convinces me that planting trees is more agreeable and more honest business than either supporting or opposing ministers.

1.3 Horace Walpole, Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Third (written between 1766 and 1784)³

Horace Walpole (1717–97), the son of the first prime minister, Sir Robert Walpole, was an attentive observer of the political system in the mid-eighteenth century. Here he summarizes the Whig interpretation of the British constitution. Because it was not set down in a single document and many elements were based on tradition and custom, disagreements often cropped up when one party competed with another for advantage within the political system. Many of these disputes had to do with procedure, but broad philosophical differences also existed. One should be careful, however, about attributing conflict to the “unwritten” nature of the constitution. In fact much of it was written down in statutes. One can identify serious disagreements about the American constitution in the opinions of the Supreme Court and in contests between the executive and legislative branches, even though it is a single document.

How does Walpole's version of the constitution differ from Bolingbroke's (document 1.1)? How did the British constitution, as described by Walpole, differ from the American one? Why is personal liberty dependent on freedom of speech and the press?

The legislature consists of the three branches of King, Lords, and Commons. Together they form our invaluable Constitution, and each is a check on the other two. But it must be remembered at the same time, that while any two are checking, the third is naturally aiming at extending and aggrandizing its power. The House of Commons has not seldom made this attempt like the rest. The Lords, as a permanent and as a proud body, more constantly aim at it: the Crown always. Of liberty, a chief and material engine is the liberty of the Press; a privilege for ever sought to be stifled and annihilated by the Crown. . . . Liberty of speech and liberty of writing are the two instruments by which Englishmen call on one another to defend their countrymen.

1.4 George Grenville, Diary (Mar. 23, 1764)⁴

George Grenville (1712–70) recorded a discussion with King George III (1738–1820) about the still evolving office of prime minister. Sir Robert Walpole had emerged in the 1720s as the key intermediary between the Cabinet Council and King George II, but the minister denied that he was any more than first among equals. Gradually, the term “first minister” (later variants included “premier”) entered common usage, and the life of a government came to stand or fall on his decisions. At this time the Secretaries of the Northern and Southern Departments (of which Lord Egremont, referred to below, was one) divided responsibilities for both domestic and foreign affairs between them, and some exercised power nearly comp...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• List of Documents
• List of Figures
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Part I: The Eighteenth Century
• Part II: The Nineteenth Century
• Part III: The Twentieth Century
• Bibliography
• Index