Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-57lbh Total loading time: 0.439 Render date: 2022-12-10T10:30:35.981Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Conclusion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2021

Max Skjönsberg
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access

Summary

Party was widely regarded in the eighteenth century as an enduring and crucial part of British politics. As one foreign commentator wrote towards the end of the century: ‘Various causes, since the latter part of the reign of king James I have occasioned state-parties to subsist in England without interruption.’ The names of these parties were changeable. This particular writer mentioned Whigs and Tories – the two most persistent ones – along with High-flyers, Jacobites, Patriots, Courtiers, and Ins and Outs. What had been continuous, however, was one party representing monarchy and one the people, or one party of government and one of opposition, referred to by this writer as Ins and Outs, but by most eighteenth-century British commentators as Court and Country.1 In many cases this was an unenthusiastic admission, as this chapter’s epigraph illustrates. However, as we saw in Chapter 9, the way John Brown framed his argument about unity demonstrates the limitations of the common characterisation of the eighteenth-century debate on party as one of nearly universal condemnation before Burke realised the necessity of political parties. Partial acceptance of party had indeed become established political wisdom by the time of Burke’s writing, even though most writers qualified their case, and Burke did more than anyone else to make party allegiance honourable. A typical mid-century case would be the anonymous pamphleteer who, writing at the time of Brown’s Estimate, said that ‘Parties, which in Time of publick Tranquility are useful, and perhaps essential to our Constitution, are as destructive when we are threatened by a foreign Enemy.’2 As we saw, Brown himself believed that it was a ‘mistaken Maxim (adopted by almost all political Writers)’ that internal division had to be tolerated in a free state. He referred directly to Machiavelli and Montesquieu in this context, but many of the major thinkers in this study – Rapin, Bolingbroke, and Hume – could also have been mentioned. In opposition to this idea, and by pointing to the example of Sparta in ancient Greece, Brown tried to show that a state could both be free, in his particular understanding of liberty, and unified at the same time. In any case, however, ‘party’ had to be examined and discussed; rarely was it taken for granted.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Persistence of Party
Ideas of Harmonious Discord in Eighteenth-Century Britain
, pp. 326 - 335
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Conclusion
  • Max Skjönsberg, University of Liverpool
  • Book: The Persistence of Party
  • Online publication: 27 January 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894500.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Conclusion
  • Max Skjönsberg, University of Liverpool
  • Book: The Persistence of Party
  • Online publication: 27 January 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894500.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Conclusion
  • Max Skjönsberg, University of Liverpool
  • Book: The Persistence of Party
  • Online publication: 27 January 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894500.015
Available formats
×