The History of England, from the Accession of James II.

by Thomas Babington Macaulay

The History of England, from the Accession of James II.

This contains Five Volumes.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Classics, European History, British Literature, 19th Century, Historical

457 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1848

About the author

Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay PC was an English poet, historian and Whig politician. He wrote extensively as an essayist and reviewer, and on British history. He also held political office as Secretary at War between 1839 and 1841 and Paymaster-General between 1846 and 1848.

As a young man he composed the ballads Ivry and The Armada, which he later included as part of Lays of Ancient Rome, a series of very popular ballads about heroic episodes in Roman history which he composed in India and published in 1842.

During the 1840s he began work on his most famous work, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second, publishing the first two volumes in 1848. At first, he had planned to bring his history down to the reign of George III. After publication of his first two volumes, his hope was to complete his work with the death of Queen Anne in 1714. The third and fourth volumes, bringing the history to the Peace of Ryswick, were published in 1855. However, at his death in 1859, he was working on the fifth volume. This, bringing the History down to the death of William III, was prepared for publication by his sister, Lady Trevelyan, after his death.

Reviews

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

A traveler must be freed from all apprehension of being murdered or starved before he can be charmed by the bold outlines and rich tints of the hills.

Sir Thomas James Babington Macaulay, Baron of Rothley—more commonly known as Lord Macaulay—is yet another of those creatures of former ages who could fill volume after volume with excellent prose, seemingly without effort. He wrote reams: this work itself, in the original, runs to five volumes. And everything he wrote—from poems to essays, from speeches to history—was both instantly successful in his day and still remains a model of force and clarity. The power of his style is why Macaulay is most frequently cited nowadays. He is the only English historian (except perhaps David Hume) whose writing can be mentioned in the same breath as Edward Gibbon; indeed the two of them are grouped together as models of elegance, in much the same way as were Demosthenes and Cicero.

Brilliant stylists they both were; but quite different in their brilliance. Gibbon is stately, while Macaulay is luminescent. To borrow a phrase from Tocqueville, Gibbon tried to see history from God’s point of view: as a pure spectator, a neutral observer, emotionally unmoved but intellectually engaged. Macaulay imitated the more dramatic styles of Thucydides and Tacitus, narrating history as an enormous spectacle with heroes and villains. Here he is describing the fate of the Scottish colony of Caledonia during the failed Darien scheme:

The alacrity which is the effect of hope, the strength which is the effect of union, were alike wanting to the little community. From the councilors down to the humblest settlers all was despondency and discontent. The stock of provisions was scanty. The stewards embezzled a great part of it. The rations were small; and soon there was a cry that they were unfairly distributed. Factions were formed. Plots were laid. One ringleader of the malcontents was hanged.

Macaulay’s punchy, declarative sentences have an overwhelming effect when piled atop one another in cumulative description. Indeed, Macaulay never simply describes: he dramatizes. He pays at least as much attention to the emotional effect of his words as their literal accuracy. Granted, Macaulay is seldom as quotable or as graceful as Gibbon; but he is leaps and bounds more exciting to read.

This difference in style, as often happens, mirrors a difference in attitude. Gibbon had his fair share of prejudices, but he was not partisan. Macaulay is partisanship incarnate. He is largely responsible for popularizing what is commonly called Whig History. This is the thesis that sees English history as “the history of physical, of moral, and of intellectual improvement” caused by political reform. This thesis became historical orthodoxy for a time, until, like all orthodoxies, it bred a heresy that became the new orthodoxy.

Nowadays the idea that history is a grand progress from barbarism to civilization will strike many as terribly simplistic, mostly wrong, and nauseatingly complacent. After two world wars and the atom bomb, we are apt to view any suggestions of progress with skepticism. Nevertheless, to condemn Macaulay's perspective for being old-fashioned would be to forget, what Hugh Trevor-Roper reminds us in the introduction, that the "severest critics themselves are generally unaware of the extent to which they depend on the achievement of their victim."

The terms ‘Whig’ and ‘Tory’ appear with great frequency both within the book and in discussions of Macaulay; and yet these political positions can be bewildering for a non-British reader. This is in keeping with the general Britishness of this book. Macaulay’s history is a national history; it is a book written for Brits. For any British reader, I suspect this book will excite some strong emotions, positive or negative. For me it appealed mainly to my anthropological curiosity.

In fairness, Macaulay's conception of Great Britain is wide enough to include Scotland and Ireland. And although this book is full of shocking insults against the Scots and the Irish (as a prophet of progress, Macaulay sees Scotland and Ireland during this time as hopelessly backward), Macaulay’s history was nevertheless important—or so says Hugh Trevor-Roper in the introduction—for treating those two realms as of integral importance to British history.

As Trevor-Roper also points out, Macaulay’s partisanship expresses itself most damagingly in his dealings with individuals. Macaulay is not an acute psychologist. He occasionally breaks off the narrative to engage in a lengthy description of some figure—such as his unforgettable portrait of George Jeffreys—but these descriptions are inevitably either philippics or eulogies. There are no memorable personalities in these pages; only flat heroes and villains. This tendency to choose good guys and bad guys often led Macaulay into errors or even chicanery. He deliberately misrepresents the evidence to blacken William Penn’s name, while going so far as to assert that “extirpate” is commonly understood to mean “disarm” rather than “eliminate” in order to clear William III of the Glencoe Massacre.

Purists may have some misgivings about reading this abridgement. For me, I see abridgements like this as an ideal place to begin reading: it gives you a decent overview of the whole work, and allows you to decide if you’d like to commit to five volumes. Trevor-Roper did an excellent job with this edition, giving a satisfying overview of the narrative arc, providing the necessary connections between the missing parts, as well as enlivening the experience with his own cutting commentary. As a writer, Trevor-Roper is fully within the Macaulay school: sharp, direct, and unmerciful. The book is full of footnotes pointing out where Macaulay is erring or being underhanded. The introduction, too, is unsparing: “[Macaulay’s] descriptions of art, architecture, music are of a frigid, conventional pomposity if they are not positively absurd.”

To my surprise, I found this period of time to be relevant to contemporary American politics. James II—a bumbling, petty, egotistical monarch in league with a foreign ruler—couldn't help but remind me of Trump's Russia affair. The way that James would fill government posts with cronies, or would try to circumvent long-held traditions by browbeating his subjects in personal interviews, was eerily similar to what James Comey describes in his statement. Macaulay's sections on the National Debt and the partisan squabbles between Tories and Whigs were also astoundingly applicable. This is curious, if not exactly meaningful.

Hopefully one day I will have the time and inclination to read the unabridged version of this masterpiece. Until then, I can say that Macaulay’s reputation is well deserved: as a stylist, and as a partisan.

[notgettingenough · Rating 4 out of 5]

When he was two and a half, having given Sam some (proper) sultanas to eat, he said afterwards 'Thank you, they were absolutely delicious'. At the time I was much surprised at the vocab of this very young person, as well as the clarity with which he spoke.

But I realise now that Sam is cut from the same cloth as Thomas Macaulay who from the age of three "talked, as the maid said, `quite printed words', which produced an effect that appeared formal, and often, no doubt, exceedingly droll." The famous story exemplifying this took place when he was three or four. A servant dropped hot liquid on him and after the fuss of cleaning him up, upon asked if he was okay, he replied `Thank you madam, the agony is abated'. https://www.ourcivilisation.com/smart...

Surely such a boy, a compulsive reader with a phenomenal memory must have created a great work of its type.

Twenty years ago my father offered me a lovely old set of Macaulay's History of England and was much surprised when, in my ignorance, I turned it down. In the years since my father has died, for some reason this is a scene that pops up regularly into my head. How could I have been so, so, so ???? Uggggh.

Anyway, I hope one day to remedy this state of affairs.

[Rozzer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I majored in Early Modern European History. Not only majored, but never in college took any unrequired course other than history. History automatically stuck in my mind and memory. Which produced a perfect score on the history GRE in 1967. I constantly read history before college, during college, and after college. I am and always have been a big, big fan of 19th Century narrative history. The kind of history that by the force and elegance of its writing picks you up and sweeps you along with the narrative. And Macaulay was, as proven in these works, the absolute master of 19th Century narrative history.

If you yourself are set up to receive 19th Century English prose (many are not), then prepare to be entranced. Macaulay fully believed that the history of Britain from 1680 to 1700 accounted for all of the huge progress and imperial resilience of Britain and the British Empire as of his date in the mid-1800's. And he may well have been right. My own particular interest is in the first Industrial Revolution, and of course that isn't covered by Macaulay's dates. But his work provides an excellent background for the economic calm of the early 18th Century that was a necessary precursor of the Industrial Revolution. And even if you just love luscious English prose, give yourself a treat and read Macaulay. (By the way, it's free on the Net at Gutenberg, and that's the unabridged version.)

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The progress of history is ever moving forward, away from superstition and autocracy towards free-thought and greater liberty, at least that what Lord Macaulay believed. In his The History of England (from the Accession of James the Second), Macaulay brings forth “the Whig interpretation of history” for the first time that changed how history was interpretation for the next century.

This abridgment of Macaulay’s five-volume history of events leading up to the Glorious Revolution during James II reign through the death of William III begins with Macaulay’s purpose for his work. The first half of the abridgment covers how James II began his reign by slowly alienating his traditional supporters in the Anglican Church and Tory county squires by putting Roman Catholics in high positions and supporting the Irish against Anglo-Scot colonists. Even though he survived one rebellion early in his reign, James kept on escalating his efforts until both “Exclusionist” and Tory politicians—including moderate Roman Catholics—joined forces to invite William to take the throne. The second half of the abridgment covers William’s invasion and the Revolution in all three Kingdoms, not just England. While the English portion was political rather than martial, it was not the same in Ireland and Scotland as battles between those supporting James and William took place in bloody fashion though mostly in Ireland. Another bit of history was the religious aspect of the Revolution, while in England there was more toleration in practice which included Roman Catholics it was a different matter entirely in Scotland were Presbyterians retook control after suffering under Restoration policies for over 30 years. Finally, the effects of the Revolution on finance and Parliamentary corruption are examined before Macaulay’s final summing up.

While Hugh Trevor-Roper did an admirable job in selecting portions over five volumes into approximately 550 pages, it is also the main problem with the book. With such a reduction of Macaulay’s prose, the reader gets glimpses of his thoughts and intentions but without consistency the reader doesn’t get the importance of the overall work. As for the work itself, Macaulay’s bias of excusing his hero (William III) and aggressively character assassinating those he dislikes (Marlborough), is one of the biggest flaws.

The History of England is a glimpse into the larger work of Lord Macaulay that really doesn’t give the reader a constancy to see why it was such an important piece of historical literature. If given the choice, I would have chosen five books of the total work over a short abridgment.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really, Restoration History. For decades in my sophomore survey of English Lit classes I aloudread TBM's account of the Monmouth landing in Rye, his attempt to replace his Catholic uncle, James II, who interviewed his condemned nephew before the botched beheading in the Tower by one Ketch--whose name became a byword for Botched jobbers. To begin, I asked if they knew baseball usage, Kill the Ump? The executee Duke of Monmouth gave Ketch six 1685 guineas with the fervent request, "Do not hack me as you did my Lord Russell. I have heard you struck him three or four times." But here's Macaulay: "The first blow inflicted only a slight wound. The Duke struggled, rose from the block, and looked reproachfully at the executioner. The head sank down once more. The stroke was repeated again and again; but still the neck was not severed, and the body continued to move. Yells of rage and horror rose from the crowd. Ketch flung down the axe with a curse, "I cannot do it," he said, "My heart fails me." "Take up the axe, man, " cried the sheriff. "Fling him over the rails," roared the mob….wrought up to such an ecstasy of rage that the executioner was in danger of being torn to pieces, and was conveyed away under strong guard." KILL the UMP indeed.
I am afraid I have softened it for delicate readers. If you read Ch 5 you will find Monmouth flat refusing to admit sin to the bishops on the scaffold, neither in his open revolt, nor in his adulterous relation with Lady Henrietta Wentworth (Penguin 106-112). For additional class delight I continued the ch next class, on the Bloody Assize in Dorset. Four different years I lived in Weymouth or Whitchurch for a month, and would visit Judge Jeffreys' court in Dorchester, not far from Thomas Hardy sites, including the house where his wife died and his lovely birthplace.
My other usual reading in Restoration classes was Clarendon's account of James II's introducing his new wife, Catherine of Braganza (she and her attendants all dressed in black) to his mistress, three days after landing from Portugal. Very amusing, especially to my students in a city 2/3 Portuguese.
No wonder so many of my students continued as history majors. Probably I failed to tell them Clarendon and Macaulay were of course Literature, as is only the best history. Grant's autobiography.
Henry Adams's history, and The Education of; Machiavelli's Discorsi (on Livy); Livy, Caesar…etc.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Babington Macaulay’s The History of England is, to me, nothing short of a magnum opus — an intellectual thunderclap that continues to echo every time I return to it. First encountered in 2011, it has since become one of those rare, inexhaustible reads — I’ve revisited it five or six times, and each immersion reveals new sparks of brilliance.

This is not a mere recounting of events from the accession of James II onwards; it is history as literature, politics as drama, and England as a living organism. Macaulay’s prose — oh, that stately, sweeping, sonorous prose — is a force of its own. He doesn’t just narrate; he performs. His sentences march like Roman legions: disciplined, powerful, irresistible.

What drew me in then, and still keeps me rapt, is his vision of history as a march of progress. Yes, we know now how Whiggish it is — the belief that the past leads inexorably to liberal enlightenment — but in Macaulay’s hands, it becomes a hymn to reason, law, and human dignity. Even when I intellectually disagree, emotionally I remain swept away.

There is something profoundly addictive about how he builds character portraits: James II as the misguided absolutist, William of Orange as the reluctant saviour, the people of England as both agents and witnesses to history. Macaulay’s pages breathe life into constitutional crises, religious conflicts, and parliamentary duels — all rendered in a tone at once magisterial and intimate.

Critics have rightly pointed out his biases — against the Irish, the Scots, the Catholics — and his narrative omissions. And yet, he shaped the very style of historical writing in the 19th century, influencing generations. His legacy lies not just in what he wrote, but in how he taught us to think of the past: not as dust, but as drama.

Whenever I return to Macaulay — and I always do — it feels like walking into a grand old English hall where every sentence is a chandelier. The History of England is not just a book; it is a world unto itself. One that I will likely keep revisiting, again and again, always hungry, never quite full.

[Andrea Zuvich · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ah, Macaulay...4/5 because although it is very interesting and useful, it is so heavily biased!

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's nobody like Macaulay. When you disagree with him, he's maddening, but when you agree with him--and for me, that's most of the time--he's awesome.
Take particular note of the section where he discusses Restoration comedy. His commentary still applies to any trashy so-called, " comedy" that protects rather than attacks human vices. Awesome stuff.
He's a bit fonder of William III than I am, but pretty much has it figured out on the Puritans and Charles I, and he's great with Marlborough.
Don't be afraid of this long collection of heavy Victorian books. The style is easy to read--if you know how to read--and the content very entertaining. It's kind of like watching Bill 'O' Reilly on TV to see Macaulay state his opinions on various issues. Very fun.

[Douglas Baskett · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book has many faults, among them the author's shallow knowledge of some topics and his overt nationalism, but, perhaps most important, its greatest fault comes from the author's tendentious perspective to see all historical events as leading inexorably to the grandeur that was the England of his day. The prose is pleasantly stylistic and sometimes lively, but, as history, it is best read as an object lesson in the perils of the lack of objectivity. It should not be read as a trustworthy or authoritative source.

[Michael Wheatley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read. Macaulay writes the history of the Glorious Revolution in an engaging manner. I learned a great deal about the protestant/Church of England/Catholic tension in England as well as the Whigs and Tories.

It's an epic story of the removal of James II and the installation of William and Mary. Followed by James's attempts to regain what he lost.

The book touches on events in the history of England, Scotland, Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Spain, America (there's a mention of Joseph Smith), and even Panama.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

The abridged penguin classics edition brings together a lively collection of excerpts from Macaulay's multi-volume original, often drawn from different chapters but here organised around common themes. Macaulay was above all else a Whig and took David Hume, a Tory, as the great rival whose interpretation of English History must be dethroned. Important therefore in understanding the historiography of England. Macaulay writes from the era of Positivism as someone complacent in his faith in progress both scientific and economic. (And despite the numerous challenges this ideology faced during the 20th century it still the mainstream attitude of elites today). Worth reading as much for Macaulay's prose as it is for learning about the period under discussion. It is a phenomenon interesting to observe that although history writing today is obviously more sophisticated than it once was it is almost always more poorly written and dull to read - and probably these two things are connected.

[Richard Epstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the 4 greatest histories; but do not read it in an abridged version. Find a used bookstore (or go online) and splurge on the whole thing. I suspect sets are a glut on the market, and you can get one for pennies. Read it. Not only will you be edified and entertained, the effect on your prose will be salutary.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a history written with a political motive. It seeks to apotheosise the Protestant Ascendency.

[Harrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Did I read all of it? No. Was it interesting? Yeah. Should you read it? Maybe!

[Marcos Augusto · Rating 4 out of 5]

His composition was slow, with endless corrections both of matter and style; he spared no pains to ascertain the facts, often visiting the scene of historical events. The first two volumes appeared in 1849 and achieved an unprecedented success, edition after edition selling well both in Britain and in the United States. When the Whigs returned to power in 1852 he refused a seat in the cabinet but was returned to Parliament by Edinburgh and took his seat. Soon afterward he developed a heart disease and thenceforth played little part in politics. The third and fourth volumes of his History were published in 1855 and at once attained a vast circulation. Within the generation of its first appearance more than 140,000 copies had been sold in the United Kingdom, and sales in the United States were correspondingly large.

[Aidan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find it ironic that he argues that historians should be impartial and he is anything but, making his work read out more like a political commentary. An English patriot (you can definitely say too strong of one in his writings), who knows the history so well that his collection glosses over many things as he is more inclined to insert his opinions on the events first before anything. He's still a great read I finally came to accomplish finishing, but only did I have to educate myself in English history first. I'd advise only the advanced/intermediate English historians to read his works, which is probably why so few people in current-days have.

[Errol Cavan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The incomparable Macaulay! In terms of style a dream to read. His descrption of the sieges and battles are beyond compare. Of course he was biased, of course he was a Whig, of course he was biased (especailly against Marlboprough) of course he could be wrong, and of course his is not the last word on the Glorious Revolution and its aftermath, but it is the first, the starting place, and no other will ever be as captivating. It is a literary masterpiece and than can not be said of many history books

[Abraham Arslan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is so insightful that a part of me wishes that it should be a recommended reading. I am never not surprised that every writing of T.B Macaulay leaves me in awe of his clarity of though enrobed in his signature brilliant writing style. A privilege that humbles us, even a century later.

[Claudia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stunning, detailed book of history from the reign of Charles I to the death of William II. The only defect is that the author died before he could write more. I don't see how anybody can give this less than five stars.

[A · Rating 4 out of 5]

Trying to fill in gaps in the tudors . 1588, to the glorious revolution, etc. good, but so spotty as to maybe not be useful.

[Joseph Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautifully written - so pleasurable to read, in fact, that I felt impelled to purchase the full, five-volume edition!

[Ravanagh Allan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An absolutely rivetting, well-told tale, but biased and incomplete.

[Isabella · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book Journal 42 The History of England (Edited and Abridged) by Lord Macaulay
I was upset before reading the abridged edition, which shortened the five volumes to a mere 570 pages, but now, interestingly, it is a wise choice, for the introduction part of this edition helps clear some mistakes and provides some valuable summaries.
Despite its whig philosophy and unfair contempt for Scots and Iris, I find it rather impressive with its magnificent rhetoric, passionate defense of the liberal tradition of England, and unparalleled eulogize of the Glorious Revolution.
One point that strikes me is Macaulay’s praise of the national character of England. It was illustrated in their resistance to Charles’s attack on the universities. “The spirit of Englishmen, that sturdy spirit which no King of the House of Stuart could ever be taught by experience to understand, swelled up high and strong against injustice.” It was displayed when they refused to read the King’s illegal declaration in defense of the Protestant religion. “In the City and Liberties of London were about a hundred parish churches. In only four of these was the Order in Council obeyed.” It was shown in their relatively rational and calm behaviors during the anarchy caused by James’s flight. “It is honorable to the English character that, notwithstanding the aversion with which the Roman Catholic religion and the Irish race were then regarded, notwithstanding the anarchy which was the effect of the flight of James, notwithstanding the artful machinations which were employed to scare the multitude into cruelty, no atrocious crime was perpetrated at this conjuncture.”
More apparent is his comment on the revolution of 1688 and The Declaration of Right, which lay the most essential foundation for the laws which gave religious freedom to the Dissenter, secured the independence of the Judges, limited the duration of Parliaments, placed the liberty of the press under the protection of juries, prohibited the slave trade, abolished the sacramental test, and relieved the Roman Catholics from civil disabilities. No doubt, the revolution of 1688 was the least violent and the most beneficial revolution.
“The highest eulogy which can be pronounced on the revolution of 1688 is this, that it was our last revolution.” In spite of its occasional lack of justice, this book is in every sense great.

[Bryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This (at least the abridged one-volume edition I read) is not a history of England, only a history of James II and William III over a period of a few decades from the 1680s to early 1700s, written in the 1850s. It has an anti-Tory, anti-anybody-who-isn't-Church-of-England political perspective and the editor in a lot of places put in footnotes which essentially say "Everything Macaulay just wrote there is factually bullshit" in a polite way, which I think is pretty amusing. Beautifully written though.

[Toby · Rating 4 out of 5]

He is monumentally biased and helpfully skates over the worst aspects of William III's reign (Glencoe? Nuffing to do with me, guv!) but he writes with a verve and certainty that is rarely seen in history writing today - and probably rightly so!

[Pamela Thomas]

Macaulay's a dramatic and entertaining writer. Some of the details of English history are more than I can assimilate, but it's worth a read.

[Sharon Barrow Wilfong · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating overview of the historical events and time lines of the United Kingdom.

[Simon]

Read up to p. 412