Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:21:31.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Government and the Settlement of 1688*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Harvey C. Mansfield Jr.
Harvey C. Mansfield Jr.
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this essay is to consider what kind of compromise is produced by party government. Its method is to discover what kind of compromise was produced by the socalled Settlement of 1688, the compromise which laid the foundation for party government in Britain. It will be suggested that the kind of compromise which laid the foundation for party government is the kind which party government, in turn, chiefly produces.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 1964 , pp. 933 - 946
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1964

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.)

References

1 Copeland, Thomas, ed. The Correspondence of Edmund Burke (4 vols. to date, Chicago, 1958–1963), IV, 80Google Scholar.

2 Cf. Pitkin, Hanna, “Hobbes's Concept of Representation,” this Review, Vol. 58 (June and December, 1964), pp. 328–40 and 902–18Google Scholar.

3 For the argument which follows see Jaffa, Harry V., “The Nature and Origin of the American Party System,” Political Parties, U.S.A. (Chicago, 1964), pp. 60–3Google Scholar and Macmahon, Arthur W., “Conflict, Consensus, Confirmed Trends and Open Choices,” this Review, Vol. 42 (Feb. 1948), pp. 1–15Google Scholar.

4 Burke, , Works (8 vols., Bohn Library, London, 1854), I, 308Google Scholar. For the distinction between great and small parties, see also Tocqueville, , Democracy in America, Reeves, H. trans. (2 vols., New York, 1945), I, 175Google Scholar.

5 DeLolme, Jean, The Constitution of England (new ed., London, 1800), pp. xi–xii, 514–16Google Scholar.

6 Swift, Jonathan, Works, Scott, W. ed. (19 vols., Edinburgh, 1814), VI, 27Google Scholar.

7 Feiling, Keith makes the necessary distinction, The Second Tory Party, 1714–1832 (London, 1951)Google Scholar, ch. 1.

8 Burke, , Works, I, 375Google Scholar; Jones, J. R., The First Whigs: The Politics of the Exclusion Crisis, 1678–1683 (London, 1961), p. 216Google Scholar; Jones, I. Deane, The English Revolution (London, 1931), p. 187Google Scholar.

9 Ruggiero, , History of European Liberalism, Collingwood, R., trans. (Boston, Mass., 1959), pp. 162–3Google Scholar.

10 Macaulay, , The History of England from the Accession of James the Second (10 vols., New York, 1908), IV, 391Google Scholar.

11 G. P. Gooch asserts that “the principles of modern democracy, however distorted by a theocratic bias, advanced under the wing of the Reformation ….” English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century (2d ed., Cambridge, 1954, p. 8)Google Scholar. But it was just this “theocratic bias” which caused the great parties and prevented the rise of modern party government. Cf. Millar, John, An Historical View of the English Government (4th ed., 4 vols., London, 1818), III, 144Google Scholar.

12 Cf. Trevelyan, George M., The English Revolution, 1688–1689 (London, 1938), pp. 9, 163Google Scholar.

13 For well reasoned opposition to the argument of this paragraph, see Pinkham, Lucile, William III and the Respectable Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), pp. 19, 38, 66, 83, 178, 236–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. She says that the Revolution was merely a palace revolution, and yet turned over control to the landed aristocracy. The difference between unlimited monarchy by divine right and limited monarchy by consent of the aristocracy seems to be unimportant because both are undemocratic. That is why the Revolution, though respectable, is “an inadequate and irrelevant example from the past,” and failed “to accomplish anything of lasting benefit.” In reply one could say not only that Rome was not built in a day, but also that the system of divine right was a most formidable, if the earliest, enemy of liberal democracy. Cf. SirFirth, Charles, A Commentary on Macaulay's History (London, 1938), pp. 139–40Google Scholar.

14 Macaulay, , History of England, IV, 351Google Scholar; cf. Trevelyan, , The English Revolution, p. 146Google Scholar; Hume, David, The History of England (6 vols., Boston, 1854), VI, 358–9Google Scholar.

15 Macaulay, , History of England, IV, 387–397Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., IV, 394.

17 Trevelyan, , The English Revolution, pp. 153–4Google Scholar.

18 Ibid., pp. 173–4, 241.

19 In contrast to Lecky, W. E. H., A History of England in the Eighteenth Century (12 vols., New York, 1878), I, 6, 13Google Scholar.

20 The English Revolution, p. 245.

21 Hume, , History of England, VI, 365–6Google Scholar; Burke, , Works, I, 311Google Scholar.

22 Hume, op. cit., VI, 363.

23 Hume, , Essays Moral, Political and Literary (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1817)Google Scholar, Essay IX, “Of the Parties of Great Britain,” I, 64Google Scholar.

24 Bolingbroke, , Works (4 vols., Philadelphia, 1841), II, 6, 27–8, 37, 75, 410–411Google Scholar.

25 Burke, , Works, III, 44–5Google Scholar.

26 Macaulay, , History of England, V, 100Google Scholar.

27 Cf. Trevelyan, , The English Revolution, p. 155Google Scholar.

28 Browning, Andrew, ed., English Historical Documents, 1660–1714 (London, 1953), pp. 395–6Google Scholar.

29 The wisdom of excluding Catholics from toleration is best argued in Halifax's, Letter to a Dissenter in Raleigh, W., ed., The Complete Works of George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax (Oxford, 1912), pp. 128–41Google Scholar.

30 Browning, op. cit., p. 366.

31 von Ranke, Leopold, A History of England, Principally in the Seventeenth Century (6 vols., Oxford, 1875), IV, 569Google Scholar.

32 Swift, , Works, VIII, 190Google Scholar.

33 Macaulay, , “Essay on Sir James Mackintosh,” Critical and Historical Essays (6 vols., Boston, 1900), III, 411Google Scholar.

34 SirTemple, William, Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands (1672)Google Scholar, ch. 5.

35 Trevelyan, op, cit., pp. 166–8; cf. Toland, John, The Art of Governing by Partys (London. 1701), p. 89Google Scholar.

36 Macaulay, “Essay on Mackintosh,” op. cit., III, 409.

37 Browning, op. cit., p. 67.

38 See Shaw, W. A., “The Beginnings of the National Debt,” in Tout, T. F. and Tait, J., eds., Historical Essays (London, 1902), p. 391Google Scholar.

39 von Philippovich, Eugen, History of the Bank of England (Washington, 1911)Google Scholar; SirClapham, John, The Bank of England: A History (2 vols., New York, 1945), I, 1–102Google Scholar; Scott, W. R., The Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish and Irish Joint-Stock Companies to 1720 (3 vols., Cambridge, 1912), III, 199–242Google Scholar.

40 Examiner, No. 13, Works, III, 319–20Google Scholar; cf. Shaw, loc. cit., p. 404.

41 Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations (Modern Library, New York, 1937), p. 453Google Scholar; cf. Clarendon, , Continuation of the Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon (3 vols., Oxford, 1827), III, 12–13Google Scholar.

42 Sutherland, Lucy, “The City of London in Eighteenth-Century Politics,” in Pares, R. and Taylor, A. J. P., eds., Essays Presented to Sir Lewis Namier (London, 1956), pp. 49–53Google Scholar.

43 The Federalist (Modern Library, New York, n.d.), No. 8, p. 44Google Scholar; No. 10, p. 56.

44 Macaulay, “Essay on Mackintosh,” op. cit., pp. 403–4.

45 Burke, , Works, V, 100Google Scholar.

46 Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money.

47 Straka, Gerald M., Anglican Reaction to the Revolution of 1688 (Madison, Wis., 1962), pp. viii–ixGoogle Scholar.