Print and Party Politics in Ireland, 1689-1714

Suzanne Forbes

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9783319715858
• eBook ISBN:
  9783319715865
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia británica

This book is the first full-length study of the development of Irish political print culture from the Glorious Revolution of 1688-9 to the advent of the Hanoverian succession in 1714. Based on extensive analysis of publications produced in Ireland during the period, including newspapers, sermons and pamphlet literature, this book demonstrates that print played a significant role in contributing to escalating tensions between tory and whig partisans in Ireland during this period. Indeed, by the end of Queen Anne's reign the public were, for the first time in an Irish context, called upon in printed publications to make judgements about the behaviour of politicians and political parties and express their opinion in this regard at the polls. These new developments laid the groundwork for further expansion of the Irish press over the decades that followed.

© The Author(s) 2018

Suzanne ForbesPrint and Party Politics in Ireland, 1689-1714Palgrave Studies in the History of the Mediahttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71586-5_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Suzanne Forbes¹

(1)

The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Suzanne Forbes

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

This book will examine political publishing in Ireland during the period 1689–1714. At this time demand for news and political print was stimulated by two major European wars, the War of the Grand Alliance (1688–1697) and the War of Spanish Succession (1702–1713), and the political instability caused by the polarisation of British and Irish politics along whig and tory party lines. Whereas numerous historians have elucidated the ways in which printed publications might have contributed to escalating whig and tory divisions evident in Britain during the reigns of King William III (1689–1702) and Queen Anne (1702–1714), the issue has never been systematically treated in an Irish context. This book will do just that, establishing the extent to which the unprecedented quantity of printed material circulating in Ireland from the 1690s fed into, and reflected, the development of party sentiment in Ireland. On the basis of the overall increase in political print output evident during the years 1689–1714, and, more importantly, changes to the nature of printed publications produced in Ireland at this time, this book will also argue that the period was a particularly important one in terms of the development of the Irish print trade and its influence on political culture in Ireland in the years that followed.

There are two quite distinct issues that require introduction here. First of all, it is necessary to consider the emergence of partisan sentiment in both Ireland and Britain in the wake of the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689) . Although partisan sentiment in Ireland was heavily influenced by developments in Britain, there were significant differences between the parties as they emerged in each kingdom. Secondly, in terms of assessing the significance of the period 1689–1714 for the development of the eighteenth-century Irish print trade, it is useful to consider its developmental progress in the years immediately preceding the period under consideration in this book, the market for printed works in Ireland, and the regulatory framework in which printers and publishers operated. To set this study in wider context, it is also useful to reflect on the size and significance of the Irish print trade during the period under consideration here. The final section of this Introduction will explain the approach taken to source material considered in this book.

Party Politics in Britain and Ireland

In 1688, the Roman Catholic king of England, James II , fled London in the wake of an unopposed invasion led by his nephew, Prince William of Orange, the Protestant Stadholder of the Dutch Republic . To fill the vacancy on the throne, William and his wife Mary, James II’s Protestant daughter, were crowned as joint-sovereigns. During the course of his short reign, James II had alienated his subjects by advocating a policy of religious toleration ; using his prerogative powers to admit Catholics to civil and military office; and relying on financial assistance from his cousin, Louis XIV of France , to rule without consulting parliament. The king’s actions had caused widespread alarm and for most represented a significant enough threat to the established church and constitution to justify an alteration to the line of succession. While this ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688–1689 had been a bipartisan affair, once the immediate threat to the constitution, laws and established church had been removed, political divisions began to resurface, ushering in two-and-a-half decades of whig and tory political strife, frequently described as ‘the rage of party’.¹

Conflicting attitudes to the 1688–1689 Revolution lay at the heart of the party divide. Whigs in England could look back on it as a ‘glorious’ triumph, compatible as it was with concepts of contractual kingship and constitutionally based liberties. In contrast, the displacement of James II was more difficult for tories to reconcile with principles of passive obedience and indefeasible divine right. This crisis of conscience was particularly evident amongst the clergy of the Church of England : six bishops and approximately 400 clergymen refused to take the oaths recognising William and Mary as joint sovereigns.² Others who regarded James II’s son, James Francis Edward Stuart , as ‘suppositious’, could argue that Mary was James II’s daughter and heir. However, tory ideology was tested again in 1701 when parliament concluded the act of settlement confirming that William III would be succeeded by Princess Anne of Denmark, the younger daughter of James II. Anne was heir presumptive and, like Mary, had Stuart blood in her veins. However, if she failed to leave an heir (a likely outcome by 1701) the line of succession would be significantly altered in favour of the next Protestant candidate, Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover , and her heirs. Although this outcome posed difficulties for tories, so too did the alternative: supporting the Jacobite restoration. When Anne’s health began to fail after 1710 and the prospect of a parliament-appointed monarch succeeding her became a reality, this dilemma threatened the cohesion of the tory party.

In the years preceding the Succession Crisis of 1713–1714, more immediate issues had fuelled partisan divisions in England. Chief amongst them was the changed relationship between the English parliament and executive. The 1689 bill of rights limited the powers of the monarch by affirming the English parliament’s right to make laws and raise taxes. Annual parliamentary sessions took place after 1689 and the 1694 triennial act stipulated that no parliament should exceed three years’ duration. As a result, general elections took place with greater regularity than ever before, and a greater proportion of those elections were contested.³ These developments served to intensify political divisions in society as candidates on both sides of the party divide courted public support whilst simultaneously highlighting the faults of their opponents. Meanwhile, the court became increasingly reliant on members of parliament (MPs) to ensure the passage of legislation. By demonstrating their ability to secure a majority in the House of Commons, leaders of the competing factions in the English parliament could place pressure on the monarch for ministerial positions.

Changes to the financial system in the wake of the 1688–1689 Revolution also served to give English MPs a more prominent role in political affairs. Sustained warfare in Europe between 1689 and 1713 necessitated significant changes to the financial system, including the establishment of the Bank of England , expansion of the tax regime, and the introduction of novel credit instruments to raise the funds necessary to pursue the war effort. This ‘Financial Revolution’ meant that the administration was now financed to a greater degree than ever before by merchants and the middling sorts. These new government financiers looked to their representatives in the English parliament to protect their interests by scrutinising the public accounts.⁴ Some feared that this development undermined the traditional role of the landed gentry as the governing class, and allowed the mercantile, financial and commercial classes—amongst them foreigners, Jews and dissenting Protestants—to wield a pernicious influence over the government’s actions through their representatives in parliament.⁵ Diverging attitudes towards financial innovations were closely connected to opinion about England’s aggressive foreign policy. For example, tory antipathy towards the national debt, the Bank of England and high taxes was accompanied by reservations about the extent of the kingdom’s involvement in William III’s European wars . On the other hand, whigs tended to have greater enthusiasm for the king, his European strategy , and the financial innovations necessary to fund it.

The two parties evident in the English parliament were also divided on religious matters. Whereas tories were associated with de...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• Part I. External Influences
• Part II. Domestic Affairs
• Back Matter