Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
The history of the long reign of George III has recently been shaken by a vigorous and determined revisionism. A temblor of this magnitude has not been felt since Sir Lewis Namier mounted his prosopographical revolution more than half a century ago. Indeed, it has been suggested that J. C. D. Clark's English Society actually will surpass the influence of Namier's Structure of Politics. If so, it is difficult to imagine the combined impact of English Society, Rebellion and Revolution, The Dynamics of Change, The Memoirs and Speeches of James, 2nd Earl Waldegrave, the host of articles already published, and the plethora of words certain to be typeset in the relatively near future.
Perhaps Clark's relentless torrent of prose will relegate to the historiographical scrap heap virtually all existing scholarship about the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in favor of his corrected model of Hanoverian England. Already Clark claims that the standard account depicting eighteenth-century England as “an economically progressive society, increasingly secular and individualist in its ethos and distinctively demarcated from its European contemporaries” is, quite simply, “no longer tenable.” Clark's most recent pronouncement declares that “the revisionists’ [i.e. his] views of the period now command widespread acceptance.” The revisionist view cannot be fairly summarized in a single statement (though the phrases “ancien regime” and “confessional state” both manage nicely to encompass a great deal), but a passage Clark cites to illustrate England at the death of George III serves as a point of departure.
A version of this paper was read at the joint meeting of the North American and Pacific North-west Conferences on British Studies in Portland, Oregon, October 1987. I would like to thank the Research Committee of the Academic Senate of the University of California, Riverside for its support of this research, and Louis Masur, Charles Wetherell, and Virginia Ettinger for their criticisms.
1 O'Gorman, Frank, “Fifty Years After Namier: The Eighteenth Century in British Historical Writing,” The Eighteenth Century 20, 2 (1977): 99–120Google Scholar.
2 Money, John, “Provincialism and the English ‘Ancien Regime’: Samuel Pipe-Wolferstan and ‘the Confessional State,’ 1776–1820,” ante. Clark, J. C. D., English Society (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84 n136Google Scholar. Clark says this only in a footnote.
5 Ibid., pp. 80, 88, 90, 136.
7 Kenyon, J. P., review of Clark, , English Society in Journal of Modern History 59, 3 (1987): 574Google Scholar.
8 Ditchfield, G. M., review of Clark, , English Society in Parliamentary History 6, 2 (1987): 342Google Scholar.
10 Underdown, David, review of Clark, , Revolution and Rebellion in American Historical Review 93, 4 (1988): 1048Google Scholar.
11 Colley, Linda, review of Clark, , English Society in The Times Literary Supplement, 14 March 1986, p. 271Google Scholar.
14 Woodforde, James, The Diary of a Country Parson, 1758–1802: James Woodforde, Beresford, John, ed., 5 vols. (Oxford, 1924–1931)Google Scholar. Woodforde's parish's population of 365 at the turn of the 19th century had increased by two (to 367) at the turn of the 20th.
15 Skinner, John, Journal of a Somerset Rector, 1803–1834: John Skinner, Howard, and Coombs, Peter, eds. (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar.
16 Holland, William, Paupers and Pig Killers: the Diary of William Holland, 1799–1818, Ayers, Jack, ed. (Penguin, 1986)Google Scholar.
18 Jones, William, The Diary of William Jones, 1777–1821, Christie, O. F., ed. (London, 1929)Google Scholar; Cole, William, The Blecheley Diary of the Rev. William Cole, 1765–67, Stokes, F. G., ed. (London, 1931)Google Scholar. Some thirty years ago A. T. Hart considered the diaries of all but Holland in writing generally about the provincial clergy (Hart, A. T., The Country Priest in English History [London, 1959], p. 82 and passimGoogle Scholar).
19 A few additions to this short list can be made, but “surviving diaries providing sufficient detail” about the Anglican clergy “are relatively few” (Evans, Eric J., “The Anglican Clergy in the North of England,” in Jones, Clyve, ed., Britain in the First Age of Party [London, 1987], p. 235)Google Scholar.
21 Kenyon, review, p. 573.
26 Clark, , English Society, p. 78Google Scholar. Also see Pocock, J. G. A., “The Classical Theory of Deference,” American Historical Review 81, 3 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spring, David, “Walter Bagehot and Deference,” American Historical Review 81, 3 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davis, Richard W., “Deference and Aristocracy,” American Historical Review 81, 3 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Thompson, E. P., “Eighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle without Class,” Social History 3 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Ibid., pp. 68, 73, 69, 90.
29 Ibid., p. 78 and n. 114; pp. 16, 104.
31 Vicars derived their income from the glebe, tithes, and oblations with augmentations from fees and offerings. Predial tithes seem to have been more burdensome but easier to collect than agistment tithes (Kain, R. J. P. and Prince, H. C., The Tithe Surveys of England and Wales [Cambridge, 1985], pp. 1–28)Google Scholar.
36 Warne, Arthur, Chruch and Society in Eighteenth-Century Devon (Newton Abbot, 1969), p. 82Google Scholar.
40 Ibid., pp. 200–07, 212.
41 Ibid., p. 36.
42 He recorded singers interrupting the Catechism on three successive Sundays in 1808. They became no more docile over time.
50 Ibid., p. 55.
51 lbid., pp. 191–92, 262.
52 Ibid., p. 284.
53 Ibid., pp. 33, 42, 48, 67, 93.
61 Ibid., pp. 272–75. The jury in this case considered damages of £100 for some time before settling on a £50 award, p. 283.
62 Flick, Carlos, “The Oddingley Murders,” British Studies Intelligencer 2 (1987): 16–17Google Scholar.
67 Ibid., pp. 115–27.
69 Porter, Roy, English Society in the Eighteenth Century (Harmondsworth, 1982), p. 190Google Scholar.
71 Ibid., p. 142.
74 Ibid., 5: 353.
76 Ibid., p. 228.