What do you think?
Rate this book
The Constitutional History of Modern Britain Since 1485
Hardcover with jacket. Good condition. Eighth edition. The price clipped jacket is sunned, most notably on the spine, and has three or four tiny nicks to the edges. Foxing to the page block, with some traces to the pastedowns and endpapers. Slight bump to the face of page 497. All pages are clean and the text is clear. CM
Hardcover
First published June 1, 1967
2 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 27, 2014
I bought this at a dime book sale last year. English history is incredibly important to understanding our own history, but it is also one of my weaker areas, so I figured a ten cent investment here wasn't unreasonable. Given the title, I wasn't expecting a page turner, but I was happily surprised by how well written the book is. It presented the best defense of the Tudor dynasty I have ever heard. Very strong monarchs, yes, but not tyrants. Coming out of the War of the Roses, England desperately needed peace, even if it had to be maintained with a strong hand. Power was wielded through the Privy Council, who ruled at the King's pleasure but provided him with the technical knowledge necessary to carry out his will.
This arrangement was undermined by social and economic changes that would soon lead to the Industrial Revolution. England become a merchant nation, requiring a government capable of providing decent rules for merchants, and who would know this best but the merchant class itself? Increasingly, the Crown found itself dependent on this new class of skilled individuals, who were able to leverage that dependence into concessions to the Commons. A new political theory arose, proclaiming sovereignty as derived from the People rather than God, which combined with the factious and intense religious conflicts of the day helped produce a crisis that would temporarily undo the monarchy altogether. The Crown could only raise so much on its own without the consent of the Commons; the Commons took every opportunity to embarrass the Crown in order to seek more concessions in return for money to pay the King's debts. This went so far as the Commons pushing England into a war with the Dutch and then refusing to pay for it. Unlike today, the King could refuse to call the legislature into being, which Charles I did for 11 years, but finally became so broke that he couldn't avoid calling a Parliament. That Parliament immediately (and literally) demanded the head of the King's able adviser, Strafford, which the King consented to due to his weak position. Successive crises in Scotland and Ireland pushed the matters to a head, creating the English Civil War, the execution of Charles, and the formation of the republican Commonwealth, ruled by the Commons alone.
The Commonwealth of Cromwell proved a far greater threat to the liberties and well being of average Englishmen. Like the French Revolution more than a century later, the revolutionaries were unable to create a functioning government outside of the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, who like every other mortal eventually passed away, leaving a yawning power gap that would be filled up by Charles II, largely at the request of the British people who had suffered through 20 years of civil war, anarchy, and tyranny.
After such a conflict, it is amazing that the old formula of Crown, Lords, and Commons would be returned to, almost as if nothing had happened. But things had indeed happened, and while the same elements were returned to power, their relationship was redefined, though by more peaceful means. The Crown's power would never return to do Tudor era levels, and the Common's become supreme, but by doing so the Commons shouldered the burden of running the state. No longer could they demand action of the Crown and then throw all responsibility for the outcome on the King's shoulders alone. Government existed as a contract with the people, per Locke's famous theory, and this system of government and history leading up to it would have been in the eyes of the American Founding Fathers during their revolution and attempts to set up civil government here.
This, by large and away, is why I bought the book. I wanted to see what English history looked like to men who, right up until 1776, saw themselves as English. The balance of the work is also surprisingly good. Keir remarks upon the electoral system used to elect Members of Parliament, noting that while rotten boroughs were by no means democratic, the House of Commons of the 18th Century was remarkable in its achievements, bringing quite a bit of doubt on the idea that "equality of voters" is vitally important in good government. His treatment of the 19th Century laissez-faire era is also quite good, noting its survival right up until the businessmen of the age started facing foreign competition and the role of a more democratic electorate demanding a more active government for their own benefit. He also notes the rise of Administrative government, rules and regulations being promulgated by unelected appointees in the various departments necessary for the social liberal state, and sees some danger from rule by such unelected and unaccountable sources. The book, written in the late 1930's, also takes note of the decline of Imperial rule, with some particularly interesting notes on Ireland.
Overall, I would absolutely recommend this work. As I mentioned at the beginning, English history is particularly important to understanding our own, but unfortunately isn't particularly well known on this side of the pond. This book includes a good deal of detail on why events occurred the way they did but still moves along at an enjoyable clip. If you see it at a book sale for ten cents, spend the dime.
This arrangement was undermined by social and economic changes that would soon lead to the Industrial Revolution. England become a merchant nation, requiring a government capable of providing decent rules for merchants, and who would know this best but the merchant class itself? Increasingly, the Crown found itself dependent on this new class of skilled individuals, who were able to leverage that dependence into concessions to the Commons. A new political theory arose, proclaiming sovereignty as derived from the People rather than God, which combined with the factious and intense religious conflicts of the day helped produce a crisis that would temporarily undo the monarchy altogether. The Crown could only raise so much on its own without the consent of the Commons; the Commons took every opportunity to embarrass the Crown in order to seek more concessions in return for money to pay the King's debts. This went so far as the Commons pushing England into a war with the Dutch and then refusing to pay for it. Unlike today, the King could refuse to call the legislature into being, which Charles I did for 11 years, but finally became so broke that he couldn't avoid calling a Parliament. That Parliament immediately (and literally) demanded the head of the King's able adviser, Strafford, which the King consented to due to his weak position. Successive crises in Scotland and Ireland pushed the matters to a head, creating the English Civil War, the execution of Charles, and the formation of the republican Commonwealth, ruled by the Commons alone.
The Commonwealth of Cromwell proved a far greater threat to the liberties and well being of average Englishmen. Like the French Revolution more than a century later, the revolutionaries were unable to create a functioning government outside of the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, who like every other mortal eventually passed away, leaving a yawning power gap that would be filled up by Charles II, largely at the request of the British people who had suffered through 20 years of civil war, anarchy, and tyranny.
After such a conflict, it is amazing that the old formula of Crown, Lords, and Commons would be returned to, almost as if nothing had happened. But things had indeed happened, and while the same elements were returned to power, their relationship was redefined, though by more peaceful means. The Crown's power would never return to do Tudor era levels, and the Common's become supreme, but by doing so the Commons shouldered the burden of running the state. No longer could they demand action of the Crown and then throw all responsibility for the outcome on the King's shoulders alone. Government existed as a contract with the people, per Locke's famous theory, and this system of government and history leading up to it would have been in the eyes of the American Founding Fathers during their revolution and attempts to set up civil government here.
This, by large and away, is why I bought the book. I wanted to see what English history looked like to men who, right up until 1776, saw themselves as English. The balance of the work is also surprisingly good. Keir remarks upon the electoral system used to elect Members of Parliament, noting that while rotten boroughs were by no means democratic, the House of Commons of the 18th Century was remarkable in its achievements, bringing quite a bit of doubt on the idea that "equality of voters" is vitally important in good government. His treatment of the 19th Century laissez-faire era is also quite good, noting its survival right up until the businessmen of the age started facing foreign competition and the role of a more democratic electorate demanding a more active government for their own benefit. He also notes the rise of Administrative government, rules and regulations being promulgated by unelected appointees in the various departments necessary for the social liberal state, and sees some danger from rule by such unelected and unaccountable sources. The book, written in the late 1930's, also takes note of the decline of Imperial rule, with some particularly interesting notes on Ireland.
Overall, I would absolutely recommend this work. As I mentioned at the beginning, English history is particularly important to understanding our own, but unfortunately isn't particularly well known on this side of the pond. This book includes a good deal of detail on why events occurred the way they did but still moves along at an enjoyable clip. If you see it at a book sale for ten cents, spend the dime.
Displaying 1 of 1 review