Individuals, parties and the parliamentary record in the 1690s

Parliaments, Estates and Representation

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 175-191

  Brooks, Colin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61949241929     PISSN: 02606755     EISSN: 1947248X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02606755.1996.9627003     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. R. Walcott, English Polities in the Early Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1956), Preface.
2. L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689 (Baltimore, 1981), offered a vigorous extension of the previous standard view: for her, 1688-89 was ‘a real revolution’ (p. 291).
3. J P. Kenyon, Revolution Principles: the Politics of Party 1689-1720 (Cambridge, 1977), concluded (p. 200) that ‘the Revolution of 1688 was as much an embarrassment to the Whigs as it was to the Tories’.
4. A. Mclnnes, ‘When was the English Revolution?’, History 45 (1982), pp. 377-392
5. J. Miller, ‘The Potential for Absolutism in later Stuart England’, History 69 (1984), pp. 187-207.
6. J.S. Morrill, in J. Israel (ed.), The Anglo-Dutch Moment… (Cambridge, 1991), p. 79: this is, too, a theme in the writings of J.M. Black on the early Hanoverian monarchs.
7. Thus J. Miller, The Glorious Revolution (1983), looked to the financial settlement of 1690 and the war against Louis XIV rather than to the events of 1688-89 as the key changes.
8. S. Taylor, ‘New Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688’, HJ 37 (1994), pp. 457-470.
9. J. Brewer, The Sinews of Power War, Money and the English State, 1688-1183 (1989).
10. J.C.D. Clark, English Society 1688-1832 (Cambridge, 1985).
11. P.W.J. Riley, The English Ministers and Scotland, 1707-1127 (1964);
12. King William III and the Scottish Politicians (1979);
13. G.C. Bolton, The Passing of the Irish Act of Union (Oxford, 1966.)
14. M. Kammen, Empire and Interest: the American Colonies and the Politics of Mercantilism (Philadelphia, 1970);
15. A. Olson, Making the Empire Work. London and American Interest Groups, 1690-1790 (Cambridge, Mass., 1992);
16. N.C. Hunt, Two Early Political Associations (Oxford, 1961);
17. R. Anstey, S. Drescher and J.R. Oldfield on anti-slavery campaigning.
18. P. Langford, Public Lift and the Propertied Englishman, 1689-1198 (Oxford, 1991), esp. ch.iii;
19. Hoppit, Innes and Styles, ‘Towards a History of Parliamentary Legislation, 1660-1800,’ Parity. Hist., 13 (1994), pp. 312-321.
20. William Cowper on the proceedings of 28/1/1699, in D.W. Hayton (ed.), ‘Debates in the House of Commons, 1697-1699’, Camden Miscellany: 29 (1987), p. 378.
21. Edward Dering, who was then a Lord of the Treasury, entry for 21/10/1680, in M.F. Bond (ed.), The Diaries and Papers of Sir Edvard Dering… (1976), p. 120.
22. LPD, pp. 5-6
23. GD, 10, pp. 162-167.
24. GD, 10, pp. 226-227: not mentioned in Luttrell.
25. T.K. Moore and H. Horwitz, ‘Who Runs the House? Aspects of Parliamentary Organization in the Later Seventeenth Century,’ JMH 43 (1971), pp. 205-227.
26. LPD, p. 17.
27. D. Eastwood, ‘The Flow of Information and the State in the Early Nineteenth Century’, Historical Research 62 (1989), pp. 276-294.
28. The Brief Account was published in six volumes in 1857; the Diary, edited by H. Horwitz (and cited as LPD), in 1972. Luttrell mentions, but does not dwell on, or give detail of, parliamentary business in the Brief Relation.
29. D.W. Hayton (‘Debates…, 1697-1699’, p. 346) suggests that Sir Richard Cocks, a diarist of the late 1690s, was ‘his own hero’. There is, though, little connection with Calvinist soul stock-taking: cf. n.36 below.
30. LPD, p. x.
31. GD ix, p. 398, 6/11/1689. The House was arguing about the position of the regicide, Edmund Ludlow.
32. GD, ix, p. 12.
33. J.H. Hexter, ‘Quoting the Commons, 1604-1642’, in DeL. J. Guth and J.W. McKenna (eds), Tudor Rule and Revolution (Cambridge, 1982), p. 370.
34. B.B. Hoover, Samuel Johnson’s Parliamentary Reporting: Debates in the Senate of Liltiput (Berkeley, Cal., 1953), p. 157-158. More recent editors of Johnson disagree.
35. B.D. Henning (ed.). The History of Parliament, 1660-1690 (1983) ii, pp. 439-441.
36. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, p. 369.
37. G.R. Elton, The Parliament of England, 1559-1581 (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 12-14
38. G.P.R. James (ed.), Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III… (1841);
39. C. Robbins, in her edition of The Diary of John Mihoard… 1666-1668 (Cambridge, 1938), p. 10.
40. G.R. Elton in the British Studies Monitor ii-iii (1971-72);
41. J.S. Morrill and M. Jansson in Parliamentary History 15 (1993) (which was sparked off by two reviews by Morrill of editions of proceedings in Parliament emanating from the Yale Center for Parliamentary History, in Archives xxi (1994), pp. 67-72 and in Parity. Hist, xiv (1995), pp. 179-186).
42. J.H. Hexter, Quoting.
43. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, pp. 386-387.
44. T. Kaminski, The Early Carter of Samuel Johnson (Oxford, 1987), pp. 129, 142-143, argues that ‘writing before the ultimate triumph of the novel, Johnson was exempt from the modem prejudice for realism’; for Johnson himself it was important to capture ‘the dignity of political dispute’.
45. From Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd, in A. Macfarlane, The Family Life of Ralph Josselin (Cambridge, 1970), p. 5.
46. J.S. Morrill, Archives, p. 68.
47. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, p. 376;
48. J.S. Morrill (in both Archives, and Parity. Hist.) is particularly interested in the disproportion between D’Ewes’s estimate of the impact of the speeches he records himself as having given - and the rarity of any comment on them by other diarists.
49. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, p. 373;
50. J.S. Morrill, Parity. Hist, 15, p. 223.
51. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, p. 377.
52. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, p. 382. I do not deny that the document so written is, in Hexter’s words, ‘an “authentic” document’.
53. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, p. 383.
54. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, p. 384.
55. J.H. Hexter, Quoting, p. 389n.
56. Archives, p. 21 S.
57. LPD, p. 44; GD x, p. 178.
58. H Hayton (éd.), ‘Debates… 1697-1699’, p. 380.
59. J.S. Morrill, Archives, p. 68, suggests that diarists might attempt to ‘capture the essence’ of another’s speech by ’mot justs of their own’.
60. Junto Whig John Smith, in the Commons on 10/12/ 1697: ‘the Irish may come & the Kg of france hath a Squadron as large as ours’: Hayton (ed.), ‘Debates… 1697-1699’, p. 356 is a fine one.
61. J.K. Clark, Goodwin Wharton (Oxford, 1984), for this man.
62. Peter Cook wrote, simply, ‘It is good to read that Lady Falkender has lost none of her skill at dictation’ (The Times, 3/5/1976).
63. M Morrill, Archives, p. 68, is struck by the fact that diarists in the early Stuart Parliaments appear correctly to identify speakers.
64. H. Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William 3 (Manchester, 1977), p. 319.
65. H. Horwitz, ‘The General Election of 1690’, JBS 11 (1971), pp. 77-91.
66. W Winnington to Robert Harley, 9/6/1694, in Hayton (ed.), ‘Debates…, 1697-1699’, p. 348.
67. H Hayton (ed.), ‘Debates…, 1697-1699’, p. 363.
68. C. Jones, ‘William, First Earl Cowper, Country Whiggery, and the Leadership of the Opposition in the House of Lords, 1720-1723’, in R.W. Davis (ed.), Lords of Parliament: Studies, 1714—1914 (Stanford, Cal., 1995), p. 31.
69. Thus Horwitz, PPP, pp. 318-319.
70. C. Brooks, ‘John Reeves and his Correspondents: a Contribution to the Study of British Loyalism (1792-93)’, in L. Domergue and G. Lamoine (eds), Après 89: la Révolution Modèle ou Repoussoir (Toulouse, 1991), p. 49-76.