10.5 Britain in the 18th Century

            What follows is an overview of British political history between 1714 and 1800.  It basically overviews the reigns of the first three Hanoverian kings, the three Georges.[1] 

George I, 1714 - 1727

George I was a German and retained his title and sovereignty to Hanover while King of Britain.  He disliked Britain and the British people disliked him.  He never learned English and spent much of his reign in Hanover.  Consequently, during his reign Parliament gained much independence from the crown. 

George I

               It was also during his reign that the office of “Prime Minister” originated to provide the crown with a royal officer who could work effectively with Parliament and serve as executive for the crown’s government.  In 1721 George chose as his First Lord of the Treasury Robert Walpole, the leader of the majority Whig faction in the Commons.  Through their sympathy for legitimate hereditary monarchy, the Tories had hoped for a Stuart restoration but they were discredited by the events of 1715 “Jacobite rebellion” (see below) and lost the support of the political nation.  To stay in politics, those Tories with political

Robert Walpole

ambition abandoned their royalist conservatism.  The old distinctions between Whig and Tory dissolved into a relatively issue-less political identity, although this identity was commonly called Whig because of general agreement with the principles of constitutional government.  What came to matter in British national politics was factional competition for privilege and place – the benefits of government contracts and appointments.  Walpole successfully managed Parliament by avoiding issues on which his majority might be lost.  A successful government was one that avoided controversy – the most controversial of issues being war and taxes.  Quieta non movere (“Let sleeping dogs lie”) was Walpole’s motto.  Walpole served as the King’s Prime Minister for 21 years.  In fact, he served two monarchs as Prime Minister: six years for George I and fifteen years under George II.  Defeated in parliamentary elections in 1742, Walpole was named to the peerage (Earl of Orford) and spent the last three years of his life in the House of Lords.

             Before Walpole assumed leadership of the crown’s government, Britain experienced the boom and bust of the “South Sea Bubble.”  Much as did France experience the giddy expectation of easy wealth in the Mississippi Bubble, British investors likewise caught speculation fever.  The South Sea Company (founded 1711), a joint-stock commercial venture, received the crown’s blessing to conduct trade with Spanish America according to the Asiento granted by Spain in the 1713 Peace of Utrecht.  As the Asiento gave Britain a monopoly of the slave trade with Spanish America, the South Sea Company seemed destined for great profit.  In 1718 the South Sea Company outbid the Bank of England for assumption of a large share of Britain’s public debt and offered to exchange creditors’ bonds for shares of company stock.  Speculation took off and the South Sea stock values rapidly inflated as investor demand pushed stock values far above the realistic worth of the company.  Beyond the South Sea Company the fever spread as enterprising entrepreneurs created new companies – some with no more than an idea for business - and offered stock for sale, all of which was greedily snatched up.  In September 1720, however, it was realized that the South Sea Company’s profits were not coming as fast as anticipated and more astute investors began to take their profits by selling their stocks.  Suddenly there were no buyers, only sellers.  Stock values crashed as the “South Sea Bubble” collapsed, leaving investors ruined. 

            The South Sea Bubble brought Walpole to power as First Lord of the Treasury.  Under his guidance, a law was passed requiring all joint-stock companies to be chartered by the government.  He also created a sinking fund, whereby the crown would budget debt service, designating regular installment payments of both interest and principal to the government’s creditors.  In effect, the British political nation, acting through Parliament, assumed responsibility for its own debt.  It worked brilliantly.  While the debt would never be eradicated, as the government would continue to have extraordinary expenses (all those C18 wars), the British people had confidence that money loaned to the crown would be repaid. 

            The most serious opposition to the Hanoverian monarchy came in the form of two Scottish rebellions in 1715 and 1745, known as “The Fifteen” and “The Forty-Five.”  Both originated in the predominately Catholic Highlands and both sought to restore the Catholic Stuarts to the throne of an independent Scotland.

             “The Fifteen”: In 1715 a small group of Scottish Highlanders, resentful of the loss of Scotland's independence eight years earlier, rebelled against George I and proclaimed prince James Edward Stuart (“Baby Jamie”) their rightful king.   Having been exiled in France, James traveled to Scotland to lead the rebellion which he hoped to carry to England.  In England, James' cause was supported by a few sympathetic and mostly Tory "Jacobites," but there was no widespread expression of popular support for the Stuart heir.  The Scottish rebellion was easily crushed by armies again under the command of John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough, who had been made minister of war by King George.  With the defeat of the Jacobites in Scotland, James again sought asylum in France.  James, now known as the "Old Pretender," would spend the rest of his life in exile.  He died in 1766, having lived to see his son attempt to seize the British throne in 1745.

            “The Forty-Five”: In 1745 another Scottish Highlander rebellion against the rule of George II revived the Stuart cause.  Taking advantage of Britain's involvement in the War of the Austrian Succession, Charles Edward Stuart, the "Young Pretender," landed in Scotland.  Having French financial support, "Bonnie Prince Charlie" raised an army and briefly succeeded in defeating those British forces sent against him.  Inspired by his victories in Scotland, Charles led an invasion of England.  His army got to within eighty miles of London before it was cut to pieces by a combined British and Hanoverian army.  Pursued back to Scotland, Charles escaped his enemies by disguising himself and eventually took ship back to France.  This brief Jacobite attempt to regain the British throne inspired a romantic image of the heroic young prince rallying his supporters in the face of overwhelming odds that has become legend in Scottish folklore.  "Bonnie Prince Charlie" has ever since been the theme of both song and story.   The British crown, however, remained safely secure on the Hanoverian head. 

            The British government responded by centralizing London’s rule over the Scottish Highlands.  The old feudal system of land tenure controlled by clannish chieftains was abolished.  Highlander soldiers were incorporated into the British army. Roads were cut across the Highland moors and law courts enforced the laws of the Lowlands.  The wearing of kilts, clan tartans, and playing of bagpipes were abolished for 30 years.

George II, 1727 - 1760

George II

            While English-speaking and seemingly content with being the British king, George II still retained control of Hanover.  A rather lackluster monarch, he is perhaps best known for starting the tradition of standing during the “Hallelujah Chorus” of Handel’s “Messiah” (he apparently needed to stretch) and being the “Georgie Porgie” of nursery rhyme fame. 

           During George II’s reign, Britain was involved in two major European wars.  As these wars had their North American phases, British strategy involved largely subsidizing its allies on the Continent and building its naval strength to protect its expanding colonial empire. 

            The “War of Jenkins’ Ear” began in 1739 with an incident wherein Spanish authorities in the Caribbean intercepted a British vessel allegedly engaged in smuggling goods in violation of the asiento agreement.  In dramatic appearance before Parliament the ship’s Captain Jenkins produced a severed ear which he claimed the Spanish had cut from his head as punishment.  British national honor so outraged, Parliament called for war against Spain.  In 1740 the war with Spain became part of a wider war that began with the Prussian invasion of Austrian Silesia.  The War of the Austrian Succession would last until 1748.  In the peace settlement, Britain lost the asiento. (This war is covered in Section 10.3 “The Great Powers of Central and Eastern Europe – an 18th Century Overview.”) 

           In 1754 British American colonial militias found themselves at war with French militias for control of the Ohio River Valley.  The Ohio conflict soon became a major Anglo-French War (“French and Indian War”) for control of North America.  On the background of this conflict, Austria resumed its war with Prussia plunging the major powers into the Seven Years War (1756 - 1763).  Under the able administration of Prime Minister William Pitt, the British concentrated their strategy on the war for empire while providing funds for the Prussian war effort against France and Austria.  Pivotal to the British effort in North America was the taking of Quebec in 1759.   The war was also hard fought in India where both Britain and France fought each other by proxy with only small contingents of their own militaries and large forces of their allies, the native rulers of the Indian states.  In India the British campaign was directed by Robert Clive of the British East India Company, which controlled British trade in the region.  The 1763 Peace of Paris saw Britain acquire all of Canada and New France west to the Mississippi.  It also required France to withdraw from Asia, making Britain the dominant European power in India.

          In 1760 George II died.  His successor was his 22-year-old grandson, George.  

George III, 1760 - 1820

George III

At the opening of his first Parliament, the new king proudly proclaimed “Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Briton” (Ayling 68).  Handsome, industrious, amiable, George III was loved by his countrymen.  He seemed the model of propriety, committed to his wife (Queen Charlotte Sophia from the German state of Mecklenburg) and loving and doting on their fifteen children.[2]  His 60-year reign would see some of the most momentous events in British history, including the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the loss of Britain’s American colonies, the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic wars.  It is sadly tragic that the last years of his reign found the king experiencing a bitter family schism that alienated him from his eldest son.  He was also suffering from porphyria, a debilitating metabolic disorder that, as he aged, caused periodic bouts of insanity. 

           George III was much more politically involved in the direction of royal government than were his predecessors.  He was determined to rule, not merely reign.  Unlike his predecessors, who were content to let the parliamentary leaders run the country, George would appoint his own prime ministers and form his own cabinets as he pursued his aims for Britain. 

          Earlier in this reading it was stated that in the 18th century “the old distinctions between Whig and Tory dissolved into a relatively issue-less political identity, although this identity was commonly called Whig because of general agreement with the principles of constitutional government.  What came to matter in British national politics was factional competition for patronage and place – the benefits of government contracts and appointments.”  What does “factional competition for privilege and place” mean? 

            Remember that the House of Commons represented the political nation of voters.  Voters were landed gentry or wealthy merchants – those who met the 40 shillings per year qualification, some 30% of the total population.  The 1710 Landed Property Qualifications Act restricted election to the Commons to only those with high levels of landed wealth.  Consequently, the men who sat in the Commons were of the wealthiest land-owning elements of the population.  By nature these MPs were conservative and sought to preserve the status quo, keeping things as they were.  This being the case, there were no major ideological disputes (such as the constitutional crisis that characterized politics in the 17th century) upon which the political nation would divide.  Ambitious politicians sought “influence” and power by creating blocs of supporters by promising patronage and place.  Wealthy MPs could control blocs of votes in their shires and boroughs through patronage – the awarding of special favors or government contracts – to persons who could secure the necessary votes to “win” the election for hand-picked candidates.  Those MPs seeking the office of Prime Minister would use their influence and patronage to create blocs of “loyal” MPs to build a majority.  “Place,” the holding of a cabinet office or other government post, would be the reward for such “loyalty.”  The political “glue” that held it all together was the distribution of personal wealth.  Today, we would look at these practices and be alarmed by the innate corruption, but in 18th century Britain this was what made the system work and was considered essential to effective government. 

         Of course, the support of the monarch was essential to the success of any Prime Minister and his government.  The monarchy did not need to use wealth to be politically active, its prestige was enough.  The faction that successfully “courted” the King could win leadership.  Such factions were called by their opponents the “king’s friends” or “Tories.” But, if the King wanted to direct national government, as did George III, then the quest for political ascendancy became more difficult as factional leaders would have to adopt the interests of the crown as their interest. 

           Because of George III’s involvement in government, the 1760s are notable as a period of political instability.  Britain would go through seven changes of government in a ten year period.  George’s first seven prime ministers had the unenviable circumstance of conducting royal government during two major challenges to the status quo: the crisis of the American colonies and a movement for political reform. 

Britain and the American Revolution

The story of the American Revolution is complex and will not be considered here except in a very general sense.  Between the founding of Jamestown in 1607 and 1763, Britain’s American colonies had developed a tradition of political and economic autonomy.  Isolated from Britain by some 3000 miles of Atlantic Ocean, the American colonists essentially ruled themselves through their colonial assemblies (based on the British Parliament).  While under the Navigation Acts (the British mercantilist regulations), the Americans essentially did as they pleased in the conduct of their internal economic development and foreign trade. Both British and American merchants profited. 

           Following the Seven Years War, King George III’s governments took the position that the Americans should help pay for their defense.  That payment would come through revenues on colonial trade. The British government then ordered the colonial governors to enforce the Navigation Acts and any further revenue acts such as the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and the Townshend Duties (1767).  British soldiers were sent to the colonies, particularly Massachusetts, which was loud and vehement in its protests.  British officers raided warehouses and seized the goods and ships of colonial merchants suspected of smuggling.  The Americans responded with anger, arguing that such laws and actions were in violation of their constitutional rights as Englishmen. Over the next five years conditions between Parliament and the resentful and restless colonials deteriorated.  Following the destruction of British tea supplies in Boston in 1773, the British imposed a series of Coercive Acts (the Americans called them the “Intolerable Acts”) in effect putting Massachusetts under martial law.  In 1774 and again in 1775 representatives of the colonies met as a Congress in Philadelphia to determine the colonial course of action. Pleas to Britain for reconciliation and redress of colonial grievances seemingly fell on deaf ears.

           In the spring of 1775 fighting broke out between British forces and Massachusetts militiamen. The colonies agreed to form an army and resist British repression by force.  The King’s government, now under the prime ministry of Frederick Lord North, sent increasing numbers of troops and German mercenaries (called “Hessians”), to suppress the rebellion.  In July 1776, the American Congress declared the colonies to be the independent “United States of America.”  The Americans then sought recognition and assistance from other Europeans states, namely France.  The French government was willing to provide some clandestine support for the Americans but would not commit France to recognition until the Americans demonstrated that they could win against the British on the battlefield. That victory came at Saratoga in the fall of 1777.  France recognized the US in 1778 and joined the war as an active ally.  In 1779 Spain declared war on Britain and so did the Netherlands in 1782.  Thus, the War of the American Revolution would become a broader European war. Other states, seeing the war as not in their interest, formed the League of Armed Neutrality as a means to isolate Britain. 

            While French assistance was beneficial to the Americans, it did not guarantee the American future. The British army was, in both men and arms, far superior to anything the Americans could put in the field.  In the end it would be the British who would defeat themselves. The American armies kept the war going by drawing the British forces into the interior, away from the British-controlled ports.  When the Americans lost a battle they would retreat rather than surrender.  For many British politicians, the war was becoming increasingly burdensome. The loss of American colonial trade had hurt British commerce. The war was extremely expensive.  The entire British army in America had to be fed, equipped, and supplied from Britain itself.  The contracting for provisions and other needed materials was cumbersome and prone to political corruption.  British supply ships were attacked by American and French naval forces.  Foodstuffs, ammunition, and other necessary materials remained in the British-occupied port cities, unable to be moved to the armies in the field.  Communications between London and the British commanders in America were slow and ineffective. The longer the war went without a decisive victory, the more discontent brewed within the British political nation.  The voices calling for political reform blamed the King for the failure of the war effort. He, after all, appointed the ministers who were responsible for conducting the war.  In the fall of 1781, the main British army in America was defeated at the Battle of Yorktown in Virginia.  “It’s all over,” exclaimed Lord North on hearing the news.  It was. There would be no further effort to suppress the rebellion. The Americans were invited to send emissaries to Paris to meet with the British and make a peace. Through the Treaty of Paris in early 1783, Britain formally recognized the independence of the United States. 

The Movement for Political Reform   

On the background of the American colonial crisis, many, if not most, of Britain’s politicians were more immediately concerned with the issue of political reform. The primary voices calling for reform were those of the radical John Wilkes and the conservative Edmund Burke. 

            John Wilkes (1727 - 1797) was an MP who came to national attention in 1763 when he ran afoul of the crown by publishing an article in his political journal, The North Briton, severely criticizing the government.  George III took personal insult.  Wilkes was already somewhat controversial as a writer as he had earlier published a scandalous piece of poetry titled “Essay on Women” that shocked its readers with its obscenity and blasphemy.  The government ordered his arrest and the public burning of his publications.  Claiming parliamentary privilege and the right to free speech and press, Wilkes refused to stand trial. When the government attempted to burn his writings there was rioting in London.  Wilkes was severely wounded in a duel that his defenders claimed was really an attempt at assassination.  Parliament refused his protection.  He then fled the country and spent four years in Paris and Rome. 

John Wilkes

           Returning to Britain in 1768 Wilkes again ran for election to the Commons from the shire of Middlesex (near London) and won.  He submitted himself to the court and was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment.  In 1769 the House of Commons voted to expel him.  He was reelected and again expelled.  Again he was elected but the Commons voted to seat his opponent.  A wave of protest, fired by Wilkes and his defenders, led to numerous petitions to the crown from all over the country claiming that the rights of voters had been violated and requesting the King to deliver his people from bad government.  The petitions were ignored.  Wilkes formed the Society of Supporters of the Bill of Rights with a program that called for annual Parliamentary elections through universal male suffrage; MPs to take an oath forswearing taking bribes or other inducements; public accountability of government spending; justice for Ireland; and the right of the American colonists to tax themselves.  (Wilkes was seen by the colonists as a great champion of their rights in their constitutional dispute with the crown.)  The government of the City of London approved official resolutions condemning the King’s government (likening the King to Charles I and James II) and demanding restoration of constitutional government.  In 1770 Wilkes was released from prison but again denied his seat in the Commons.  London then elected him a city alderman.  In 1774 Wilkes was elected Lord Mayor of London.  He was again elected MP for Middlesex and was this time allowed to take his seat.  He would continue to serve as an MP until his retirement from politics in 1790.  In the Commons he continued to lead a small group of “radicals” who urged parliamentary reform and extending the vote to the “lower orders” of society. 

          While Wilkes may not seem to have accomplished much more than getting his seat in the Commons, the controversy centering on him received great public attention.  A series of letters by a writer identified only as “Junius” were widely published and read.  “Junius” eloquently attacked the corruption underlying British politics, championed Wilkes’ cause, called for uncensored freedom of speech and press, and reminded the King of his constitutional responsibilities.  The “Junius” letters made Wilkes a national figure and caused the British people to question the workings of their political establishment.

(Today there exist only two statues in honor of Wilkes.  One is in London and the other is on the campus of Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA. The Barre in Wilkes-Barre was Isaac Barré, a contemporary of Wilkes, who as an MP also championed colonial rights.  The town was founded in 1769 and is this author's birthplace.)