Printer Friendly

The Revolution of 1688-89: Changing Perspectives.

The restoration of Charles II was, on one interpretation, an attempt to banish the memories of the past, but the politics of the next thirty years showed that this could not be done. The issues of the years from the 1620s to the 1650s would not go away. The continuity of the English revolution was a continuity of tensions, ideas, and personalities which was to underpin and energize English politics into the 1690s.(1) Hence the argument that the revolution of 1688 was in fact the true restoration, a moderately conservative, almost Clarendonian settlement which established the aristocracy and provided important guarantees against further innovations by monarchy. Thus the republicanism so recently evident was firmly rebuffed and became respectable enough to provide the intellectual stuffing of the country party - the menace of prerogative yielding to the menace of corruption.

In the first volume of his study of Algernon Sidney - the incendiary and not the respectable republican - Jonathan Scott has already shown us a complex and haughty political intellectual, the first fifty years of whose life, though previously largely neglected, are fundamental not only to an understanding of his beliefs but also to a proper comprehension of the English revolution itself.(2)

The personal spirituality, intense moral outlook and fervent commitment to the ideal of a virtuous citizenry which Sidney derived from his study of the republican elements in Hebrew, Spartan, Roman, and Venetian history, all interpreted within a context of Platonist and Machiavellian views, made him a formidable figure in the classical republican view of seventeenth-century English thought and practice. His extensive travels in Denmark and Italy, to Brussels, Lausanne, Paris, and in southern France, together with his association through education and family relationships with a network of Huguenot and frondeur nobility, opened his mind to the broadest thinkers in recent European society, not least Hugo Grotius. Sidney argued in his Court Maxims, which receives its first substantial discussion in this book, that the suppression of persons of nobility and virtue was a fundamental purpose of monarchies, and it may well have been the Crown's execution of Sir Henry Vane in 1662 that made Sidney into an "incendiary." That he saw his hero's trial as a precedent for his own is one of the conclusions of the final pages of Scott's second volume on Sidney's life and mind.(3)

In this book, the restoration crisis forms the opening discussion. The main argument is that the contemporary references to the past, St. Bartholomew's Day, the Gunpowder Plot, the Irish rebellion and to much that savoured of 1638-42, were not anachronistic but were, rather, at the core of contemporary fears. Such fears included: that the Counter-Reformation had advanced to imperil European Protestantism's survival, that the monarchy - formerly employed to defend the cause against the resurgent whore of Babylon - was now the threat itself; that the real domestic fear was for the survival of parliaments in the face of arbitrary rule and not at root the need to exclude the Duke of York; and, finally, that the symbol of the illness of the state was an alliance with France and a series of negotiations which implied that the nation was in the hands of a corrupt minister and a dangerous king. In this context, the Duke of York's religion was merely a symptom of the growth of Popery and arbitrary government. Scott's account directly challenges the traditional view of "the first Whigs" and their party organization during 1678-81 as well as asserting that exclusion did not stand at the centre of the crisis.(4) The evidence of the proceedings of the parliaments of 1679 and 1680-81 appears to confirm that their overwhelming focus was the discussion of Danby's policies, the popish plot, and the conflict between the petitioners for the assembling of parliament and those for whom such agitation was "the seed or spawn of rebellion and of the principles of 1641" (p. 58).(5)

Furthermore it is argued that the vital development of radicalism in London owed little to Shaftesbury and the Whigs as an organized party: the Commons and the capital were not Shaftesbury's creatures. Scott considers that in 1680-81 London became "a radical redoubt from the interior of which plans, actions, talk, and publication of an increasingly treasonous variety were able to develop into a political culture" (p. 172). The loyalist reaction and the king's seizure of the shrievalty and the corporation made for the bitterest political battle since the restoration.(6)

This battle was fought according to Scott in an atmosphere of debate not only about the rights of the people to political expression through parliament, but also inspired by a radicalism in which the struggle became an argument for parliamentary supremacy: "The central issue was not whether the nation would have exclusion, but whether it would have a republic or a monarchy" (p. 196). In emphasizing this point, Scott has added further weight to the latest studies of Locke's radicalism and its relationship to Sidney's thought.(7) From this association, Sidney gained a place in the books on political theory, but it is arguable that by it he also lost his life. The conclusion Scott draws is that the straining of the judicial and political resources of the country to the limit at Sidney's trial reflected Charles II's determination to have him dead. It was too dangerous to let him live, not necessarily because he sought to kill the king, but, as Barillon reported to Louis XIV, "he was more forward than anybody in the [other] project for an uprising and the design to establish a republic" (p. 304).

That design was justified in the two writings by Sidney which Scott fully discusses: A Just and Modest Vindication of the Proceedings of the Two Last Parliaments (1681) and Discourses Concerning Government, written between 1681 and 1683 and first published in 1698, both of which debate issues also central to Locke's two treatises. While the Vindication may have been the work of several hands and perhaps the outcome of discussions among a close circle of radicals, Scott makes a good case for Sidney to have been the principal author, as Burnet had himself claimed, and says of the pamphlet that it is "the most important statement we have of the parliamentary cause from the men at its heart" (p. 187).(8)

In this reviewer's opinion, the style and manner of Scott's discussion of the Vindication and the Discourses which covers three central chapters are too much like an introduction to an edition of these works. Scott's extensive and detailed discussion and analysis divides the text of the Discourses into four sections. From a discussion of natural law theory, the argument moves to analyse Filmer's attack on classical republicanism with Sidney's riposte in the form not only of a defence and typology of republics but also a justification for their superiority as a form of government. The last two sections debate more precisely the nature of absolutism on the one hand and arguments for the sovereignty of parliament on the other. Throughout Sidney's text, there are echoes of the "old cause" which has now become again the politics of desperation.

Sidney was not a particularly original thinker - much early Huguenot thought and much of Grotius is more fundamental - and he does not give us any clearly formulated view of the kind of government he envisaged other than that its primary influence would probably have been the exercise of aristocratic nobility. Nevertheless, his page-by-page refutation of Filmer's Patriarchia is notable for its energy and vigour. In Sidney's eyes, Filmer had destroyed reason such that men lived like beasts rather than in a society built for collective self-improvement underpinned by natural law and the recognition of the rights and property held by its citizens. Scott argues that in the Discourses Sidney can be seen responding to the crisis of parliaments as it enfolded. From a theoretical foundation, the argument moves increasingly towards real experience in which the right to govern held by the citizenry is extended to the notion of a duty to summon parliament in times of emergency, culminating in a growing emphasis on the legitimacy of rebellion when it has not proved possible for parliament to meet. The conclusion is that only armed rebellion will force parliament to be summoned and allow for the revision of a constitution which, in its nature, will recognize the error of 1660 or, perhaps, of 1653.

In the final section of his study, Scott shows us Sidney in the hands of his accusers. This is sympathetic and informative, and the recently-discovered letters from Sidney to John Hampden Jr. prior to his trial are particularly important. Convinced of his own rectitude, and of his moral superiority, Sidney is not an easy man to like, but we may think of him in the manner of Blair Worden: "Both his ancestral burden and his approach to history taught him that a man's life, a link in the chain of time, owes its significance to qualities that outlive their transient context."(9)

If, as has been earlier suggested here, the revolution of 1688 was a second attempt to establish more durably what had failed to happen in 1660, and if the revolution was pragmatic and a triumph of common sense, it was nonetheless achieved in a remarkably passionate and ideologically charged atmosphere. In 1689 alone, as many as two thousand pamphlets were published, full of doctrinal disputes and arguments of political principle, and in the Convention parliament there were many bitter disputes, most particularly over the Bill of Indemnity and Oblivion. There can surely be no doubt that James had been concerned as much to strengthen the monarchy as to promote the Catholic church, to secure and test the loyalty of his subjects in the manner of his father, and it cannot have passed the notice of his critics that some of his methods - the pre-engaged parliament, for example - were devices taken from the armoury of the whigs of 1681. The over-riding aim of thinking politicians was thus to revive and reassert the authority and continuity of parliament and to bring to mind as often as possible the memory of the issues of 1679-83 and the danger that had not then been averted. It is surely one of the real achievements of the revolution that the principal arena of political debate and political culture - if not of political intrigue - shifted from the royal palaces to Westminster.

These points are sharpened and others introduced in the volume of changing perspectives on the revolution by sixteen scholars, largely derived from a seminar held at the Folger Institute Center for the History of British Political Thought in Washington D.C. in April 1989, which set out to broaden the context of the revolution by discussing not only European and American insights but also issues in ideology, literature, law and women's studies.(10)

It was Algernon Sidney in the Discourses who challenged the validity of hereditary succession because of the uncertainties about the concept of legitimacy. While Sidney was upholding parliament's role to determine the succession, others went so far as to argue for Monmouth's legitimacy on the ground that Charles II's having impregnated Lucy Walter by itself created a marriage contract. With such thoughts in mind, Rachel Weil uses "the warming-pan scandal" to explore women's political discourse in the revolutionary period. The rumours that the Prince of Wales was a supposititious baby gave women, including Anne and Mary themselves, roles as participants and legal witnesses with authority to speak on crucial political questions. But the debate was sharpened by the suspicion of women as schemers and went so far as to invoke the notions of Mary of Modena as a pseudo-virgin, and of the mother Church of Rome as a whore, and gave intense emotional energy to the Protestant case. The main problem was that "instead of the noble Protestant matrons who should have witnessed the birth, the bedchamber had been filled with foreigners, Papists and courtiers" (p. 78). Not a few women spoke out in pamphlets on this affair and some, in defending Mary's rights, proposed to put her on the throne as the legitimate heir. As WA. Speck points out, however, Mary's Memoirs reflect another view: "My opinion has ever been that women should not meddle in government" (p. 131). But William's absences abroad from 1690 and the passage of the Regency Bill made her queen regnant and the dual monarchy a practical fact. That Mary was supported more fully by the Tories gave greater stability to the early months of the regime, and Speck's evidence shows - perhaps less clearly than he suggests - that she worked hard and effectively with the council, notably over the appointment of Archbishop Tillotson to Canterbury, and in her effort to develop and sustain a high moral tone. After her unexpected death she left behind a remarkable reputation for goodness and mercy which was to give her supporters an important weapon to counter Jacobite propaganda. Lois Potter's fascinating discussion of seven popular plays - scurrilous, comic, and fervently anti-Catholic - brings Mary briefly back into view as a patron of the theatre and, like Queen Henrietta Maria before her, a performer at the court masque.

Some of the subtle gestures necessary to distinguish Mary from a consort queen are noted in Lois Schwoerer's useful discussion of the coronation ceremony and the coronation oath. She reminds us of the coronation oath's importance after mid-century when Charles I had been charged with violating it. She also notes that some of the changes made in 1689 had already been proposed in the discussions over exclusion, and that the oath was important to the debate on the nature of contract. It was especially necessary to remind a foreign king that he was bound by law, and had "no authority over law separate from his role in parliament" (p. 123). Vigorous debate over wording that might have allowed for the possibility of further changes in religion may well have contributed to, or at least signalled, that rejection of comprehension which revealed deep distrust of dissent.(11) That the Anglican establishment had "eliminated the possibility of discourse" (p. 149) is one of the themes of Gordon Schocket's discussion of Locke's Epistola de Tolerantia, in which the attempt had been made to argue that the regulation of religious belief was beyond the scope of the magistrate and that it was the people's right to have their own beliefs. The Church of England, he argues, was not so much concerned with sin, heresy, and theological debate as it was with stability. Those theological issues which were at the heart of Dissent were declared by the Anglican establishment to be matters of "indifference," making an intellectual engagement with the Nonconformists irrelevant. Thus, despite what Locke might have wanted to achieve by his writings, there was no principled recognition of a right to religious liberty after the revolution.(12)

The emphasis usually given both to the domestic initiative in the revolution and to the key role played by William himself in bringing an army has obscured the international side of the matter and especially the role of the States General, the States of Holland, and the regents of Amsterdam in a strategic venture with huge risks, the invasion of England in November 1688.(13) The enormous size of the invading fleet of more than 450 ships - over three times that of the Spanish Armada - and the transport to England of all the Dutch crack regiments with supplies of very high quality testify to the conviction and commitment of the Dutch. And it is not often noted that the Dutch elite Blue Guard occupied London for nearly eighteen months after the flight of the king. What moved the Dutch to action was in part the memory of 1672, combined with a variety of matters on the international scene which developed two years prior to 1688, It became imperative for the Dutch to turn England against France. In his discussion of these issues, Professor Haley lays rather less stress on economic factors than some have done, but still recognizes the damaging effects to the Dutch economy from 1687 of the reimposition of tariffs by the French, especially on cloth, and their ban on imported herring not cured with French salt. In international affairs, the key elements were Louis XIV's ambitions on the Rhine, his threat to Dutch interests by his intervention in the appointment of the new archbishop of Cologne, and the threat he posed to the Spanish Netherlands in the fight of the weakness of the Spanish succession. In England, the birth of the Prince of Wales denied the Dutch any future security.

Given the willingness of the Dutch to send their best regiments to England, even with the preparation of a second force by hiring troops from German Protestant princes to defend the lower Rhine, the moves made by Louis XIV are of crucial importance. John Rule provides the most interesting explanation for Louis XIV's attack on Philippsburg, which ultimately allowed William to leave for England. Rule argues that the 1680s saw "the birth of a theory and practice of a power balance that has lasted until today" (p. 51). This balance derived from two power blocks, the one a League, headed by the Emperor and his allies, the other by the Dutch. A further group of princes in the Baltic and Germany and others who had supported France or remained neutral began to break up in the 1680s, as first Sweden and then other powers such as Brandenburg moved away from France. Furthermore, Franco-Papal relations reached breaking point while French finances were even more delicate than usual. It was this set of circumstances that created a strong argument in French councils for a pre-emptive strike, with the particular aim of avoiding Cologne falling into the wrong hands. It was, as one contemporary put it, "the venomous hatred of the empire" which led to Louis's action. What William of Orange was doing, therefore, was simply not in the forefront of French thinking, and nobody, least of all Louis XIV, could have recognized that the outcome of freeing the Dutch to act was to develop the sinews of power in England for the future. One must also consider that the French were unlikely to have imagined the scale of Dutch commitment and the rapidity of its success. That James 11 would flee, and thereby avoid the need for his subjects to take sides, was surely among the least likely eventualities of the whole revolution.

A valuable feature of this collection of essays is its consideration of transatlantic issues. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the American colonies were of major economic importance, and the consequent desire to control their terms of trade and exploit their resources were powerful influences in the years after 1660, even if the government in London had a limited capacity to intervene directly. In the 1680s, however, this intervention grew, leading to the merging of several northern colonies into a single government, headed by a crown officer who had the authority to dispense with elected assemblies. The move to control chartered corporations in England thus had its counterpart in North America, but there was more to it than this. As has been argued earlier in this discussion, the association of popery and arbitrary government in the 1680s with the memories of the period before the civil war was a powerful feature of late Stuart history. These fears were also evident in the colonies in the same period and were fuelled by the role of Catholics in government in Maryland as well as in the north, and especially by suspicions of the Jesuits and the French, who were thought to lie behind Indian resistance to colonial expansion. Protestantism was in danger. There was, therefore, very deep suspicion of the late Stuart crown in the colonies by the end of James II's reign, and the revolution in England was accompanied by several coups d'etat in the colonies. Jack P. Greene argues, however, that the outcome of the revolution was essentially to give local colonial institutions huge political responsibility: "The events of 1688-89 had effectively settled the question of representative government in the colonies in favour of the colonists" (p. 165). Whatever the government in London might have tried to achieve through the exercise of prerogative power by colonial administrators, it lacked the coercive force to do. In time, the colonists became convinced that they shared in the rights of the revolution, and these came to represent the devolution of power to the localities in which they lived. The problem came in the middle of the next century, when the re-assertion of parliamentary supremacy in London seemed to them to violate every principle of the revolution in the colonies. Hence the emergence again of notions of fundamental law in defence of rights aimed not now at monarchy but at that parliamentary supremacy itself.(14)

These ideas welled up from popular political consciousness, which is the theme of one of the most important discussions in Liberty Secured? Britain Before and After 1688, edited by James Jones.(15) Here Kathleen Wilson focuses on the "exuberant junketings" by which the centenary celebrations of the revolution were marked and which rekindled arguments about the right of resistance and popular sovereignty. To these ideas the later eighteenth century added "an innovation of the utmost significance, for it implied that reform and the enlargement of civil liberties would be [an] inevitable (because divinely sanctioned) outcome of human history" (p. 306). Although there were opposite views expressed, she argues that there were those at all social levels who endorsed populist readings of the revolution in the later period, and the regular discussion of the principles of the revolution, even though these were not clearly understood, opened up the range of political rhetoric and gave it a form and a focus which the events of the civil war and the Interregnum could not have done.

Jones himself and John Miller, in two valuable surveys, give a broad if unexciting panorama of the revolution and its context. Miller makes the useful point that "the Revolution of 1688-89 was in many ways muddled" (p. 86), so that we recognize that since it lacked ideological precision, failed to define itself and produced few legislative imperatives, the way lay open for appeals to its nature by all interested in political speculation and experiment. Most of the other contributions to this book examine these speculations and experiments, especially in the context of discussion about rights. The chronological period dealt with reaches back into the early seventeenth century and forward to the early nineteenth century, notably in the case of R.K. Webb's discussion of toleration. Following a description by Lois Schwoerer of the imposition and later relaxation of the control of the press from the restoration to the Licensing Act, G.C. Gibbs provides a vigorous survey of eighteenth-century developments, reminding us of the religious and moral motives which often lay behind early eighteenth-century attempts at press regulation, and of the fact that the restraints imposed by parliamentary privilege were real. But by far the most far-reaching, complex, and important discussions in this volume are those by Howard Nenner and Henry Horwitz on liberty, law, and property from the restoration to the 1770s. In many ways it is regrettable that these two admirable scholars did not write a joint paper in which they might have interwoven the themes of their discussion. The many different senses in which these concepts existed in contemporary discourse are splendidly delineated, and we are reminded at every turn that liberty was a concept in the armoury of all political groups, tories as much as whigs. These important discussions which lead us from Locke to Adam Smith cannot be summarized here, but are essential reading alongside the recent discussion of the elements of radicalism in the ancient constitution in the years after 1660, in which a variety of medieval texts appeared on careful study to justify an elective kingship. Liberties were no longer grants from the king but rights "immune from the monarch's recall" (p. 88).(16)

Recent work on the years from 1670 to 1689 in the fields of politics and the history of ideas has laid bare as never before the ideological roots of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century politics and society. That we should now rarely seek to explain the later Stuarts without reference to the early seventeenth century is more and more clearly evident.(17) In many ways the result of all that happened from the 1650s was to ensure that by the early eighteenth century the threat of force had been removed from the daily calculations of the politically conscious. By the second decade of that century, the threat to parliament so crucial to the political discourse of the restoration and of the revolution had receded. It was not so much that Charles II and James II wanted to rule without parliaments as that they wanted to control them directly and by the threat of force. But the threat of a monarch actually using a standing army in domestic political life became inconceivable, even as government itself became stronger with the growth of bureaucracy and public credit in the wars of William and Anne. By the end of this period, parliament was able to show the crown the limits of its political will, and the political battles of the restoration were almost forgotten. In England at least, Algernon Sidney had become a myth, as it were put on a plinth and dressed in a toga.

(1) Lord Dacre of Glanton, "The Continuity of the English Revolution," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series, vol. 1, 1991, pp. 121-36. (2) Jonathan Scott, Algernon Sidney and the English Republic 1623-77 (Cambridge, 1988). (3) Other recent studies of Sidney are: John Carswell, The Porcupine. The life of Algernon Sidney (London, 1989), an interesting and well-written work which ought to appear in Scott's bibliography, A.G. Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican heritage in England and America (Princeton, 1991); and T.G. West (ed.), Discourses Concerning Government (Indianapolis, 1990). (4) As Dr. Scott has pointed out elsewhere, "there were no Whig and Tory |parties' in 1678-83, partly because the |whig' (anti-court) majority of 1678-80, and the |tory' (loyalist) majority of 1681-83 were mostly the same people"; Jonathan Scott, "England's Troubles: Exhuming the Popish Plot," T. Harris, et al. (ed.), The Politics of Religion in Restoration England (Oxford, 1990), p. 126. (5) For a note on the propagandists' use of mass petitioning in the whig cause, see Blair Worden, "The |Diary' of Bulstrode Whitelock," English Historical Review, cviii, 1993, p. 130. (6) There is much in common here between Jonathan Scott and Gary de Krey, and it is odd that the latter's work has nowhere been acknowledged in Dr. Scott's two-volume study. see, for example, G.F. de Krey, A Fractured Society: The Politics of London in the First Age of Party (Clarendon, 1985), and especially, idem, "The London Whigs and the Exclusion Crisis Reconsidered" in A.L. Beier, et al. (ed.), The First Modern Society (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 457-82, and idem, "London Radicals and Revolutionary Politics 1675-1683" in T. Harris, et al. (ed.), op. cit., pp. 133-62. Dr. Scott's conclusions should be compared with B.D. Henning, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1660-1690 (London 1983), vol. 1, pp. 37 and 64: "The political nation was now divided on the single issue of exclusion," which was considered "the main business of the Parliament (1679)." (7) R. Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, 1986); Mark Knights, "Petitioning and the Political Theorists: John Locke, Algernon Sidney and London's |Monster' Petition of 1680," Past and Present, 138, February 1993, pp. 94-111. (8) Among those involved were probably John Wildman, Silius Titus and Sir William Jones. The common practice of ascribing sole authorship to Jones is confidently asserted in B.D. Henning (ed.), op. cit., vol. 2, p. 668. (9) Blair Worden, "The Commonwealth Kidney of Algernon Sidney," Journal of British Studies, 24, 199S, p. 38. This brilliant and stylish article remains central to an understanding of Sidney and of the Discourses. (10) Other important books commemorating the tercentenary are: WA. Speck, Reluctant Revolutionaries. Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688 (Oxford, 1988); E. Cruickshanks (ed.), By Force or By Default? The Resolution of 1688-89 (Edinburgh, 1989); Robert P. Maccubbin and Martha Hamilton-Phillips (ed.), The Age of William III and Mary II: Power, Politics and Patronage, 1688-1702 (Virginia, 1989); G. Schocket (ed.), Restoration, Ideology and Revolution (Washington D.C., 1990); Robert Beddard (ed.), The Resolutions of 1688 (Oxford, 1991); Jonathan Israel (ed.), The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and Its World Impact (Cambridge, 1991). The last noted is particularly distinguished and, by an odd coincidence, also has sixteen contributors. (11) On the reasons for, and the significance of, the rejection of comprehension, see John Spuff, "The Church of England, Comprehension and the Toleration Act of 1689," English Historical Review, civ, 1989, pp. 927-46, and Front Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England, ed. O. Grell, J. Israel, and N. Tyacke (Oxford, 1991). (12) This argument is put into a broader context in G. Schocket, "From Persecution to |Toleration'," in J.R. Jones (ed.), Liberty Secured? (Stanford, 1992), pp. 122-57. Schocket's work should be read alongside a brilliant article by Mark Goldie in P, Beddard (ed.), op. cit., pp. 102-36. (13) A recent attempt to set the origins of the revolution in a European context is G.H. Jones, Convergent Forces: Immediate Causes of the Revolution of 1688 in England (Iowa State University Press, 1990). While this book has some useful material on the Dutch scene, it almost entirely fails to explain the actions of Louis XIV. (14) Essays in this collection which could not be discussed in detail here are by Gary de Krey on radical London politics; J.M. Beattie on the role of the government in criminal prosecutions and pardons, largely in the early eighteenth century, and Karl Bottigheimer and Bruce Lenham on some aspects of the revolution in Ireland and Scotland. Two papers, one by Steven Zwicker, in which he seeks to explain the silence of literary figures about the revolution, and advances Dryden's Don Sebastian as a picture of the heroic James II, and the other by J.G.A. Pocock, which discusses Burke's proposition in 1790 that the revolution was less a measured response to the dissolution of government and more a just and necessary civil war, have been published elsewhere. The editor's assertion that Zwicker's paper has been "reproduced" is, however, quite wrong, since what is printed here is a substantial re-write of the earlier version in Cruickshanks, op. cit., pp. 109-34. (15) The title of this book is a little misleading, in that it discusses England almost exclusively and not Scotland and Ireland. Pressure of space has precluded discussion of "the British problem" in this paper, but the following references may be useful. Neither of the articles by Bottigheimer or Lenham in Professor Schwoerer's collection is a seminal piece, but any study of recent thinking should use the late Ian Cowan's articles on Scotland in Cruickshanks, op. cit., pp. 65-81, and Israel, op. cit., pp. 163-83; and Bruce Lenham in Beddard, op. cit., pp. 137-62. Useful discussions of the impact of the revolution in Ireland are those by Patrick Kelly in Beddard, pp. 163-90, and by David Haytor in Israel, pp. 185-213. (16) Janelle Greenberg, "The Confessor's Laws and the Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution," English Historical Review, civ, 1989, pp. 611-37. (17) For example, in a conference held at Reading University in July 1992 on early modern politics and literature, David Norbrook read a fascinating paper on the Long Parliament historian Thomas May's study of Lucan in the 1620s, positing the view that we should now look more closely than in the past at republican influences in this period.
COPYRIGHT 1993 Canadian Journal of History
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Swales, Robin
Publication:Canadian Journal of History
Article Type:Book Review
Date:Aug 1, 1993
Previous Article:Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis: 1677-1683.
Next Article:Liberty Secured? Britain Before and After 1688.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters