‘Barons’ Wars, under Other Names’: Feudalism, Royalism and the American Founding (original) (raw)
Related papers
Intellectual History Review, 2023
The distinguished historian Steven Pincus has recently argued that “Patriotism” was a distinctive ideology in the middle of the eighteenth century that indicated “governmental activism” and support for “the British way of governing, grounded in the principles set forth in England’s Revolution of 1688–89.” By contrast, this essay shows that “Patriot” was more commonly used as a generic term for opposition politicians in eighteenth-century Britain. Moreover, for much of the century, the term was frequently associated with a slightly more precise and substantial set of political arguments: those associated with the “Country party” platform. In its eighteenth-century guise, the Country party’s raison d’être was opposition to the growth of executive power since the Glorious Revolution. It was not a party as such but rather an opposition stance and a set of principles which occasionally brought together Tories, Whigs, and independent Country gentlemen as well as self-proclaimed Patriots. In the eighteenth century, “the Country” was especially scathing of the “financial revolution” and the growth of the fiscal-military state in the years after 1688–1689. By its continuous association with the Country party tradition, Patriotism and suspicion of the growth of executive power and government finance were intimately linked.
I. History and Ideology in the English Revolution
The Historical Journal, 1965
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 Parliamentary 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 conflictin b 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. It is the further investigation of the complexity and interdependence of these historical and ideological attitudes which will be attempted here. 1 The final form of this paper owes much to discussion with Mr Peter Laslett, of Trinity College, Cambridge, to whom I am greatly indebted both for general encouragement and for scholarly advice. 2 The same ideology may of course draw on other sources, particularly on the society's less conscious reflexions about its own structure. For a remarkable attempt to analyse this type of source-for the same ideology as discussed here-see C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962). 3 H. Butterfield, The Englishman and his History (Cambridge, 1944). To avoid any repetition I assume familiarity in what follows with the ideological position which (following Professor Butterfield's analysis of it) I call simply 'whig'.
Parliamentary History, 2009
Despite the weight of work on parliament's political history, its early institutional development still feels sketchily mapped. Since A.F. Pollard's generation, institutional history may have fallen out of fashion; yet 16th-and 17th-century constitutional controversies revolved around the nature of parliament as an institution, when its processes, procedures, and privileges became intensely political. Earlier on, in the 15th and early 16th centuries, contemporaries seemingly made do with that curious early-14th-century treatise, the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum, to understand how parliaments should work. In 1510 the new clerk of parliament, John Taylor, prefaced his record of the Lords' proceedings with a version; new guides were written under Elizabeth, but it was not until the early Stuart period that a new clerk of parliament, Henry Elsynge, would devise a successor to the Modus. In institutional terms, the 15th century could thus be characterised as a 'dark age' in the evolution of parliament. But, as Hannes Kleineke shows here, sources among the voluminous legal records held at the National Archives can help bridge that gap. Dr Kleineke's remarkable knowledge of the governmental archive is amply demonstrated in this valuable and important work. The volume transcribes and translates a selection of legal cases brought in the common law and equity courts by peers and MPs between 1377 and 1512, many of which are identified here for the first time. These sources are records from the courts of king's bench, common pleas, the exchequer, and chancery; they comprise principally plea rolls, writs, and bills. The sources are grouped under three main headings: privilege, elections, and wages. In the first section the gradual definition of freedom of arrest for parliamentarians and their servants is addressed. New evidence reveals some reluctance among justices to concede as broad a privilege as parliamentarians sometimes claimed. In the second section, suits, primarily brought under the Lancastrian legislation governing the conduct of elections, are presented.The growing attraction of a seat in the Commons seems evident. In the third section, attempts by MPs to claim from their constituencies the wages to which they were entitled are shown. In some cases, communities appear to have been unable to raise the money required; in other cases, exemption from assessment was at issue. A fourth section gathers miscellaneous documents that relate, among other things, to the creation of peers, attendance in the Lords, petitioning in parliament, and legislative expenses. Appendices supply a chronological calendar of wage disputes, biographical entries on those named in the sources, and the dates of sessions of parliament, while an index covers the names and places mentioned in the text. The combination of
John Adams and the Constitutional History of the Medieval British Empire, 2017
SINCE the promulgation of christianity, the two greatest systems of tyranny, that have sprung from this original, are the cannon and the feudal law. The desire of dominion, that great principle by which we have attempted to account for so much good and so much evil, is, when properly restrained, a very useful and noble movement in the human mind. But when such restraints are taken off, it becomes an incroaching, grasping, restless and ungovernable power. 1 John Adams framed his history of the British Empire in terms of a continual struggle between republican liberty and feudal and ecclesiastical tyranny. This struggle was the theme of his initial contribution to the war of polemics that preceded the first shots fired in the American Revolution, a series of four articles in the Boston Gazette in August and September, 1765. These essays first took shape in a legal discussion CHAPTER 2
Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 1990
Despite the polemical incursions of Marxist and revisionist historians, over the preceding 40 years, on the historical high-ground defended by protagonists of a 'Glorious Revolution', the Whig interpretation of seventeenth-century political developments still retains much of its authenticity for a popular readership. Events in 1688-9, and the legislative aftermath of 1690-1714, represented a seminal stage in British history, fundamentally altering the constitutional balance of power between Crown and Parliament, by freeing the latter from many forms of prerogative control. They provided incontrovertible proof, if proof were still needed, of the indissoluble and pernicious alliance of Catholicism and absolutism, with the natural corollary of a denial of civil and religious liberties. Only the statutory guarantee of Parliament's greater independence, of a significant adjustment of executive and legislative power within the existing polity, could effectively safeguard the subject's proprietorial rights. It was to effect and maintain such a protection that parliamentary pronouncements and numerous legal enactments were secured, from the Declaration and Bill of Rights to the Act of Settlement, often in the face of royal displeasure and despite internecine party conflicts. The prolonged, domestic impact of European war, accompanied by threats to the political integrity of Great Britain from the exiled Stuarts, alone produced the necessary awareness of danger to override temporarily the potentially disastrous repercussions of factional strife.' My purpose in writing this paper is twofold. Firstly, I would wish to suggest that the reign of James II, if assessed in its own terms and not as a mere harbinger of succeeding events, constitutes a distinct, separate, indeed a unique, regime, effectively divorced from political and religious developments occurring before the monarch's accession and after his flight. His aims in church and state embodied priorities more genuinely revolutionary than anything produced by the Revolution Settlement. Such an appraisal is strengthened when James's frustrated intentions are equally considered in conjunction with his partial achievements. A necessary corollary of the above contention must therefore incorporate a diminution of the Glorious Revolution's political significance. It now appears, by comparison, little more than a successful counter-revolution, planned and mounted to thwart James's policies at the precise moment when events appeared to herald their successful realisation. A stark, but realistic, fear motivated the conspirators of June 1688. They believed that an unprecedented centralisation of monarchical authority, reared on the basis of dynastic continuity, a professional bureaucracy, standing army and religious toleration, would dispossess them of their hereditary patrimonies vested in a monopoly of local and central power.
Royalism, War and Popular Politics in the Age of Revolutions, 1780s-1870s. In the Name of the King
Andoni Artola y Álvaro París (eds.), Palgrave MacMillan, 2023
This book offers a ground-breaking approach to royalism and popular politics in Europe and the Americas during the Age of Revolutions. It shows how royalist and counterrevolutionary movements did not propose a mere return to the past, but rather introduced an innovative way of addressing the demands and expectations of various social groups. Ordinary people were involved in the war and adapted the traditional imaginary of the monarchy to craft new models of political participation. This edited collection brings together scholars from France, Spain, Norway, and Mexico, to provide a transatlantic comparative perspective. It is a must-read for scholars and students looking to discover the lesser-known side of the Age of Revolutions, and the motivations of those who fought in the name of the king. - Shows how royalist movements provided an alternative path of politicization during the Age of Revolutions - Explores how ordinary people engaged in politics and played a major role in the war, giving rise to popular royalism - Connects both sides of the Atlantic to understand the supporters of the monarchy in comparative perspective
The “Many-Headed Monster” and its Critics in Revolutionary America
It is well known that during the American Revolution the popular tradition embodied in state constitutions was undermined by the building of a more unified central government, a government that would keep the common people at arm's length from power and decision making in the Union. The image of the American people as a disastrous monster gained ground before the "reign of terror" supplied the counter revolutionary forces with new arguments for restoring an earlier image of the multitude as a heinous Hydra. Anti-radical rhetoric in revolutionary America borrows images and argumentation from a highly articulated tradition of thought, a neglected aspect of which was linked to the image of a many-headed monster. In the first section of this essay I will present the aims of those who supported the construction of new constitutions in the former British colonies of North America. In the second and third sections I will focus on the representation of the "people" as a "many-headed monster" and the multiple implications that this had in 17 th century England and revolutionary America. I will close with some thoughts concerning the long-term consequences of the fight against the "many headed monster" of radicalism in view of the advancement of a more conservative attitude towards the "people" embodied in the federal constitution of 1787.